David Parker live here Sunday

Written By: - Date published: 12:20 pm, October 18th, 2014 - 34 comments
Categories: david parker, The Standard - Tags:

David Parker will be joining us here live on Sunday at 3pm. A post will go up Sunday around 2 for questions, as usual this will be strictly moderated. David writes…


Thanks for the opportunity to join a Standard Q&A. Really looking forward to hearing from you.

I’m happy to chat about any questions and I’m really keen to hear from you about my belief that the way back for Labour is to focus on economic fairness for working New Zealanders. When working New Zealanders succeed they are proud to look after the vulnerable. It’s about working to ensure everyone’s getting a fair go.

And this is about us agreeing a central purpose to unite us all. My experience is that unity between members, Caucus and the Party is the cornerstone to re-engaging working New Zealand. That’s what’s needed to get confidence, trust and votes back.

34 comments on “David Parker live here Sunday”

  1. r0b 1

    Please note that this is not the post to ask questions for David – check back Sunday around 2…

  2. Lanthanide 2

    I hope we get a good 2-3 hours this time. 1 hour just isn’t enough to have a proper conversation about anything.

    • swordfish 2.1

      “the way back for Labour is to focus on economic fairness for working New Zealanders. When working New Zealanders succeed they are proud to look after the vulnerable.”

      Reminds me a little of Pagani’s “Only when we do that job properly (representing working people) do we win the trust of people to increase benefit levels, because another Labour principle is compassion.”

      Something just a little patronising and paternalistic underlying these statements. Welfare as a kind of Christian charity depending on a precarious/fickle societal generosity rather than being a fundamental and universal right.

      Can we take it as read that Josie Pagani and Phil Quin are advisors to Parker and the Right Bloc in caucus ?

      (Oops, sorry, Lanth. Wasn’t meant to be a reply to you)

      • wekarawshark 2.1.1

        Yep. I wanted to ask Parker how long benes and other ‘vulnerable’ people have to wait. Are we talking one term? A decade? A generation?

        My problem is I just don’t believe it. I was kind of tempted when DC and AL said it, but hearing pretty much the same thing from a man who thinks that we should have discrimantory welfare at the end of our lives makes me mightily suspicious. It further entrenches another layer of class system in NZ, and worse it means that the working poor can be encouraged to blame down instead of up.

        A compassionate party would see all NZers are deserving of fairness from the get go. Not saying oh you lot over there, you can just sit in the shit until these other people over here decide you are worthy. FFS.

        This I cannot forgive – if neoliberal Labour has its way, by the time the shit hits the fan re AGW/PO/GFC, NZ will be too far gone down the selfish track and our chances at doing the right things because they’re right will be so much more seriously eroded.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1

          ” but hearing pretty much the same thing from a man who thinks that we should have discrimantory welfare at the end of our lives makes me mightily suspicious.”

          So you’re advocating for the abolition of superannuation, so that there is no discriminatory welfare “at the end of our lives”?

          • weka 2.1.1.1.1

            Given we had a discussion bout this recently I will take your comment as a deliberate misrepresentation of what I just said, thus 🙄

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Btw, when you run that TINA shit, it just as easily applies to treating benes as third class citizens for whom different rules apply. That’s why I don’t trust Parker.

            • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1.2

              Giving money to some people and not others by definition is discriminatory. I can only assume that you being “mightily suspicious” of someone who wants to keep superannuation, that you are against the policy and want to abolish it.

              • blue leopard

                That is the utterly bizarre type of ‘logic’ that NZ seems to be running on these days.

                Addressing discriminatory results is not discriminatory – far from it

                Or let me put that in a simpler form:

                Addressing unfairness is not unfair

                It is not that difficult to understand is it?

  3. Craig Glen Eden 3

    “agreeing on a central purpose to unite us” we in labour have had this for years we dont need to find anything new david Parker. We just need a Caucus that will be disciplined and do the job members have elected them to do, operate in the parties/memberships best interest instead of all your stupid infighting and media leaking. I cant wait for these idiots to have to face members.

  4. finbar 4

    Well are they not going in that direction.They have dumped the one that was going to put a rocket underneath them Cunliffe.The caucus should be feeling pretty smug now.How to control Mahuta.simple look at her,what chance has she got.

    No unity,has this collar and tie hopeful!s got,just more do as we say.

    Does anyone have the time dates and venues of this upcoming road show.

  5. Clemgeopin 5

    Unity? Was Parker fully loyal to his leader? If not, he deserves no support. If yes, why did he lose confidence in Cunliffe as articulated in public on TV straight after the election thus stabbing him hard, designed to kill?

    • Maybe because after delivering the worst Labour result since the 1920s, David Cunliffe had all the self-awareness of a goldfish?

      I think Cunliffe had a hard time. People were not loyal to him. But as soon as he strode onto the stage to give his concession/victory speech, he just went completely into the realm of absurdity. I’m not surprised Parker lost confidence in his ability to stay in touch with reality.

      • finbar 5.1.1

        Not at all.The caucus kitchen has been sharpening its knives for Culiffe,and the sparks have even got the sharpeners freinds running for cover.

        The only contender for this race to have put themself up for election and won their seat,is Mahuta,and like the blooded body of Cunliffe ,it also won its seat.

      • Clemgeopin 5.1.2

        You make a fair point, but I am not sure if what you say is fully valid. Obviously you would have liked a different speech. Take a look at this video of part of the speech as well as the answers he gave the media straight after that. I actually think he did well and answered honestly. (I did not hear all of his speech and would appreciate a link if any of you have it).

        • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.2.1

          Cunliffe’s speech was fine. A touch defiant perhaps – but entirely suitable to his character and determination.

          • Disraeli Gladstone 5.1.2.1.1

            I think Cunliffe was fine before and after his speech (especially in the face of one reporter downright lying saying that Ardern was out on the current vote), but his speech wasn’t a touch defiant, it was a call to arms to defend his leadership.

            And on election night, after plunging to record lows, it was not the time for that speech. When he resigned and called for the leadership election, that was the time for a fist-pumping speech.

            • Olwyn 5.1.2.1.1.1

              If people were already doing the numbers before the election, as has been claimed by several people, then that speech will have been somewhat strategic. He will have been letting people know that he wasn’t going to roll on the floor weeping while they slipped an unopposed leader into place.

              • Clemgeopin

                +1. Bingo.
                That seems more plausible than anything else. I think you have nailed it correctly.

              • Oh, no doubt it was strategic decision.

                Unfortunately, it was a strategic decision in the same vein of King Charles disbanding parliament, Churchill’s invading Gallipoli, or the time Lord Cardigan’s thought it was just best to follow orders.

                • Olwyn

                  That depends on the result he had it mind, what it was an how well he achieved it. If his intention was that the leader of Labour should be approved by the party, then his speech arguably contributed toward gaining that result.

          • Clemgeopin 5.1.2.1.2

            Perhaps he was overwhelmed with the loss and shocked at the unexpected result after having worked EXTREMELY hard under VERY DIFFICULT circumstances for eleven harrowing months with constant attacks, lies, spins, nastiness and continuous pressure from the media and the other enemies as well as from ‘friends’. may be that is what made him a defiant in his concession speech rather than give a traditionally expected humble and sad speech with tears (Helen, English?) and curses (Bolger). I actually admire Cunliffe’s good grace and patience under such trying conditions. I don’t believe any other leader of the opposition was ever subjected to that level of constant attacks, most of which were completely unfair.

          • Clemgeopin 5.1.2.1.3

            I tried on google, but could not get the video of the full speech. Strange!

  6. finbar 6

    Two seats lost,for control outside of Winstons,we.Labour are not that desperate in its last slaughter vote.Why was its slaughter,for idiot, we did not have the majority,is M.M.P.the sore in our division.One on one against our enemy,and they are, the National farm fence leaners, it may have been a diffrent fought war result.Not anymore,Labour have lost their war setting of winning,looking for the same allies as those farm fence leaners.

  7. ankerawshark 7

    Just out of interest does anyone have a link to dC election loss speech. I was watching tv 3 (serves me right) and part way through it they cut to Mathew Hooton, bleating on about “Cunliffe must resign!”

  8. cd someone ask parker how he will maintain the levels of excitement he generated in that debate this morn..?

    ..won’t he burn out..?

    ..and wonderful how he brushed aside mmp..with his brave (if delusional) rallying cry of taking the party back to 40%..(!)

    ..and a stout defence of his pension-raising policy etc.

    ..there’ll be no ‘review’ there..

    ..full steam ahead..!

    ..fuck the icebergs..!

    ..(fucken hubris on a stick..)

    • Ergo Robertina 8.1

      Parker said this morning on Q and A that ‘normal New Zealanders’ are ashamed to say they vote Labour, which is perceived as being ‘more there’ for the vulnerable than workers.
      This is a party clearly moving to the right. Mahuta is the only one who appears to have integrity.
      Who made more people ‘vulnerable’? Labour did, following its ‘normal’ monetarist policies. It is a normal and expected outcome of Rogernomics, and Parker is simply dogwhistling. Disgraceful.

    • greywarshark 8.2

      40% for Labour, sounds like a strawman argument of fallacious unreasoning to me.
      Why try to do anything for NZ benefit, when the mindset is getting into and staying in power with a nice salary, and an important walk and ready-made excuses so prevalent, for not getting anything useful done, GFC, ABC, ZYX, DNA…whatever.

      So many Acronyms and Capitals are being used as replacement words so we understand less and less these days. Might as well be a foreign language. C’est la vie.

  9. greywarshark 9

    Ergo Robertina 12.13pm
    Totally agree.

  10. Atiawa 10

    The centre piece of any Labour party policy whether it be the enviroment, the economy, inequality, employment, wages, retirement has to be strengthening the voice of organised labour.
    If organised labour continues having its voice silenced rather than strengthened the pursuit of individualism and its inherent casualty list will grow to the detriment of human kind.
    Parties on the right fear most that coherent unified voice, which is why they have diluted the role unionised labour has played in this country over 100 years & more. If any aspiring Labour Party leader thinks or acts contrary to this view, I would suggest they are in the wrong party.
    I am looking forward to David Parkers views on whose interests he represents and how he intends pursuing them because the last thing we need is more benevolent, crumb sharing policies we have had from the party in recent times.

    • Clemgeopin 10.1

      Very good points. Ask him that.
      I am awaiting the link for today’s Q and A. Should be up soon.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago