Good reviews for Little’s reshuffle

Written By: - Date published: 12:20 pm, December 2nd, 2015 - 80 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour - Tags:

Good reviews for Little’s reshuffle of the Labour lineup.

The perspicacious Vernon Small:

Andrew Little’s canny reshuffle rewards effort, softens blow for losers

Labour leader Andrew Little has unveiled a canny reshuffle, rewarding energy and talent in roughly equal measures. He has also avoided any overt signs of rewarding the subterranean “Left-Right” factions in the caucus. And even when he has dumped someone from a great height he has tried to sooth the pain of the landing.

All-in-all not a reshuffle that anyone would call bold. But it is a fair reflection of who has the smarts, who shows the energy and who are the faces for the future in Labour’s caucus.

And the anonymous Herald editorialist:

Labour Party shuffle looks to the future

Labour leader Andrew Little has carried out a refreshing reshuffle of his parliamentary line-up. Normally an Opposition leader appoints his best eight or ten performers to the front bench and makes minimal change to the rest of his ranks so as not to upset anyone unduly.

But Mr Little has completely restructured his team in a novel way. As well as naming a “front bench” of 12, he has chosen another 10 MPs to complete his “shadow cabinet”. That leaves another 10 out in the cold.

If voters are in a mood for change in 2017, they will probably be looking for new ideas for generating higher incomes, affordable housing and alternatives to property investment. Assignments such as economic development (Mr Clark, Mr Nash), export growth (Ms Woods) and information communication technologies (Mr Parker) could be decisive.

Little will be pleased with that.

80 comments on “Good reviews for Little’s reshuffle”

  1. The Chairman 1

    Going off the non-interest in this thread, the reshuffle has failed to inspire or resonate.

    And going off a number of other comments made in other threads, it seems to have stirred up the party divide.

    Demoting Cunliffe was a mistake.

    • r0b 1.1

      I wouldn’t judge the importance of a topic by the number of posts on The Sandard for goodness sake. But just by the by the previous (and timely) post on the reshuffle had 249 comments (so far).

      Labour’s reshuffle announced today

      • The Chairman 1.1.1

        The number of posts in a thread can be an indication of a topic’s relevance.

        Nevertheless, what number (in the other thread) would you say were positive and supportive of the reshuffle?

        • lprent 1.1.1.1

          Nope. It is entirely irrelevant how many comments there are. When most people aren’t interested in a particular debate, they don’t comment. What you are seeing is often the equivalent of the soapbox fringe in Hyde park. Most people standing around watching, and a very few getting into a public discussion.

          The number of comments bears little if any relationship to a topic’s relevance. It only bears a relationship to how interesting the relatively small (compared to readers) number of commenters on the site find in a particular post.

          A better way of looking at relevance is looking at the numbers of readers on a post or the number of unique visitors or the number of ‘new’ readers.

          For instance the most read post in the last couple of days has had about 18 thousand page views and about 60 comments. The most commented post over the last couple of days has had 100+ comments mainly from a handful of commenters arguing between each other and a mere 1.4 thousand page views. The former is still climbing in page views at a rate of page views per second mostly from inside NZ and mostly via Facebook. The latter has almost dropped off the radar except for a few people who continue to argue there.

          This is probably more obvious from this side than from yours. But as a good rule of thumb have a look at the facebook likes on the post at its bottom above the comments. When it reads above about 10, then you know that the post is getting traction.

          • The Chairman 1.1.1.1.1

            “When most people aren’t interested in a particular debate, they don’t comment”

            That’s exactly my point.

            The reshuffle hasn’t really inspired or resonated, thus the lack of interest, hence lack of comments.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.2

          Yesterday my caucus ranking post saw over 120p views. Now go look at how many comments.

          • The Chairman 1.1.1.2.1

            The criteria for commenting in that thread would have had an impact on the number of comments.

    • Hami Shearlie 1.2

      Totally agree re Cunliffe

  2. I agree.

    Comment on Facebook: “So Andrew Little has promoted people in the Shadow Cabinet with full regard to the electoral importance of the bloated super city with its clogged arteries and ill-placed sense of its own self importance. He’s promoted Kelvin Davis at the expense of Nanaia Mahuta; given Jacinda Adern a big boost and dumped David Cunliffe onto the back benches where he’s still expected to use his intelligence and experience in Labour’s review of superannuation – as under-secretary to Little.
    That certainly sends the message that Cunliffe is highly unlikely to figure in any future government led by Little. But – on current performance I suspect that there will be no government led by Little for Cunliffe to figure in.
    If I was Cunliffe I’m not sure that I could stomach such a blatant rejection. I’m not sure that as a member of the LP I can stomach it.
    Such a shame we have no equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn here in NZ. We’re replete with Cameron and Clegg types on both sides of the house but definitely light on the likes of Corbyn. Depressing.”

    • Hami Shearlie 2.1

      Little has left Cunliffe with the job of doing all the heavy lifting and hard work on superannuation, and then Little will swoop in to take all the credit – David Cunliffe is a threat just by being there. He can’t help being a brilliant orator and intelligent thinker, but he makes Little look dull and uninspiring (which he is) so he had to go! Those who are truly great don’t feel the need to distance themselves from others more talented.

      • Chooky 2.1.1

        +100 Hami Shearlie and TWW

        …time for a new real Labour Mana Party

        …and ship jumping time for Cuniffe and Mahuta and the Maori seats

        (little labour doesn’t deserve them)

  3. AmaKiwi 3

    Little acknowledged Cunliffe’s outstanding abilities yesterday, at the same time as he relegated him to the broom closet.

    Any organization which cannot utilize its best assets is too dysfunctional to accomplish much.

    The NZLP is dying an agonizing death.

    • AmaKiwi 3.1

      P.S. The other valuable asset Little belittled are Labour’s Maori MPs. 6 out of 7 Maori electorates went to Labour. Labour can kiss many of them goodbye.

      “Good reviews” from the white press, but NZ is no longer a white man’s land.

    • Colonial Viper 3.2

      Either Robertson or Curran have convinced Labour’s NZ Council to put the behaviour of the ABP Branch and myself under the microscope at their meeting this weekend. I would have thought there were a hundred more pressing issues facing Labour. For some reason despite TRPs insistence, they just don’t seem to want to ignore us.

      • Well, to be fair, CV, you have behaved like a prat and your constant sniping can reasonably said to be bringing the party into disrepute. Or at least trying to do that. If you had the courage of your convictions, you’d leave. But at the end of the day, the faux branch has folded and you’ve ended up looking a bit irrelevant, so I don’t expect anything will come of it.

        And, on the upside, you’ve made Clare Curran look like a winner yet again, so maybe you’ll get a commendation. Wait … oh, yes, the penny’s dropped! You’re running a black flag op on behalf of the Sth Dunedin MP. It all makes sense now! Lordy, how foolish I feel now that the truth is out there. Nice work, comrade, your secret is safe with me!

      • Michael 3.2.2

        If they drum you out, CV, you’ll be in good company. They did the same to John A Lee. Of course, his behaviour was much worse than yours. Lee got his revenge, eventually: he outlived everyone who gave him the arse card in 1940.

  4. Jamie 4

    TeWhareWhero – I thought Cunliffe was your Corbyn. How did that work out?

    It’s hard to fathom for many, I know, but have you considered it’s possible that those who work closely with Cunliffe know very well whether he’s a team player and should be in a senior role, and that maybe the disastrous 25% election result might somehow reflect on his leadership abilities? Or are we still going to ignore the evidence and cling to the myth that he was the great and pure leader who was entirely undermined by his colleagues and the media and resoundingly rejected by the public but just needs another chance?

    • ‘I thought Cunliffe was your Corbyn…’ well that goes to show how wrong thought can be Jamie.

      So – in your view – the election defeat had NOTHING to do with Cunliffe being actively undermined by some of his caucus colleagues, and the brown smelly stuff that was (il)liberally showered on him by the media was in fact NOT shit and instead the defeat was ALL down to a failure of his team playing abilities and leadership skills – i.e., had Cunliffe been a better game player – sorry, team player – and leader, all his colleagues would have got in behind him?

      I don’t claim to have detailed knowledge about the inner workings of the PLP but given the well known factionalism and in-fighting that has scarred it, to single Cunliffe out as not being a ‘team player’ is a bit rich – and it’s very hard to lead people who are determined not to follow.

      For what it’s worth, I’d see Cunliffe as more of a Milliband – to the extent that both lacked enough of a mass base to shield them from all the crap that was thrown at them by their rightwing caucus colleagues and the mass media.

    • Colonial Viper 4.2

      “TeWhareWhero – I thought Cunliffe was your Corbyn. How did that work out?”

      That really is a nonsensical comment. Cunliffe was Leader first, for starters, before anyone in NZ had even heard of “Corbyn.”

    • Michael 4.3

      Agree.

      Being a good leader is not just about having policy or oratory skills. The leader is the leader of the Labour caucus, and Cunliffe failed at managing his caucus. Leading the caucus is just as important as leading the party. No matter how good someone is at the second part, if they’re shit at managing their caucus, then they won’t win. Perhaps Cunliffe lacked *management* skills that are ever-so-important for leadership. Little, on the other hand, has those management skills and you can see it reflected in the discipline and unity of Labour’s caucus. Cunliffe was and is toxic to the electorate, regardless of the reasons that made him toxic, that doesn’t matter – so even though he is very skilled, it’s time for him to sit on the sidelines as a former leader. Maybe he will be back in the action in the future, but now isn’t the time.

      • peterlepaysan 4.3.1

        Yep. That was a caucus that could ignore its membership.
        The caucus is not so bullet proof these days.

        Cunliffe was not obviously “toxic” to anyone except to the ABC faction of a bullet proof caucus unanswerable to its own party membership.

        Cunliffe made himself ridiculous by apologising for having incorrect genitals. Credibility = zero.

  5. Halfcrown 5

    “Good reviews” from the white press, but NZ is no longer a white man’s land.

    The only reason they gave good reviews is the right do not see little and the new team as a threat. They were all shit scared of Cunliffe, Gower was wetting his knickers this morning over Cunliffes demise.

    • Ch-ch Chiquita 5.1

      So, the last election were lost because the right were scared of cunliffe and made him none-electable; Llittle isn’t regarded as a threat so they will win anyway. So, what you say is it doesn’t matter who will be the Labour leader, they will lose.
      I can understand people disappointed and wanting a NZ Corbyn or Sanders; what I don’t understand is how many more years are those people willing to have National in government until such saviour will rise, and what they think will happen to NZ until such time.

      • The Chairman 5.1.1

        Little will change with a National lite in power, thus there is little to inspire voters to vote for the current Labour lot.

        • Ch-ch Chiquita 5.1.1.1

          So you believe that if Labour was in govt now they would have voted down reasonable bills that were introduced by themselves (latest example today – one that Cunliffe introduced) and the Green party?
          As said above, it might not be the amazing progressive left people dream about (though we don’t really know as they haven’t introduced any policies yet) but even if it’s slightly better than the lot we have now, I’ll take it as the alternative is beyond glooming.
          By the time the dream of a new real Labour Mana party comes to life and gains enough power to change the government there will be nothing left.

          • The Chairman 5.1.1.1.1

            Slightly better than the lot we have now doesn’t cut it.

            Welfare reforms

            Surveillance reforms

            TPP

            RMA

            Cunliffe demoted.

            Douglas and Bassett on the invite list.

            It’s looking more and more like National’s brighter future, thus voting for this lot will leave us virtually in the same sinking boat.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Arctic sea methane plumes and Siberian tundra sinkholes.

              Slightly better than the status quo is definitely not going to cut it.

  6. Jamie 6

    A third of Little’s shadow cabinet is Maori or Pacific. That’s the highest it’s ever been in a Labour caucus as far as I can see. Whaitiri and Henare (and Salesa) are bold calls too – he’s taking risks promoting new talent. And moving Kelvin Davis up the ranks to lead the caucus is the right call. People seem to be sniping for the sake of it here.

    • Wainwright 6.1

      Cosgrove and Nash given rankings so they don’t throw their toys vs David Cunliffe demoted to oblivion and handed the poisoned chalice of superannuation policy is plenty to snipe about.

      • The Chairman 6.1.1

        Indeed.

        Labour should have seen this discontent coming. Another example of their disconnect.

        There would have been far less rumblings if Little didn’t demote Cunliffe.

        As it is, he seems to have stirred up the party divide.

    • Reality 6.2

      Yes, sniping for the sake of it exactly. Possibly David Cunliffe has indicated he is moving on from politics at some stage and therefore obviously was not considered for a higher ranking.

      • Peroxide Blonde 6.2.1

        Not Reality.
        How many men do you know who choose to be humiliated?? Unless you are in the S&M business!!!!

        If Cunliffe had indicated that he was planning an exit do you for one fraction of a second thinks he would choose to do so in a lower position than MALLARD!

        Reality is NOT a good name for you.

        • Leftie 6.2.1.1

          Reality may be way more on to it than you would like to think Peroxide Blonde.

          Remember when David Cunliffe told John Campbell post 2014 election/leadership that he didn’t know if he would stay on and be around for the 2017 election?

          Not to mention that Cunliffe is still very much a target by the vicious, savage and woefully nasty msm.

          I am sure Andrew Little and David Cunliffe were in communications with each other prior to the reshuffle, and they have more of an idea about things than anyone on here who are making up assumptions/conclusions.

          • Peroxide Blonde 6.2.1.1.1

            Cunliffe would have announced that he was standing down at the next election rather than go through all of this damaging speculation. There is no upside for him in being seen to be humiliated.
            Psychology 101.

            • Leftie 6.2.1.1.1.1

              @Peroxide Blonde

              No, not at this stage, Cunliffe wouldn’t be saying a thing about it. Besides, he could still be tossing the idea around, and it could very well have been a subject that he and Little talked about. Only time will tell and given that no one knows what went on behind the scenes how do you know Cunliffe would be feeling humiliated?

      • Leftie 6.2.2

        Yep Reality, you may very well be onto something there.

  7. Vaughan Little 7

    cunliffe is brilliant, but also good at dropping the ball.from time to time. I hope he stays in politics. and I really hope he ends up with something more substantial soon.

    • Grindlebottom 7.1

      I don’t understand it. I’m not aware of anything Cunliffe’s said or done to warrant such banishment to the bottom either. Seems a waste of Ministerially experienced talent to me. But then I have no idea what’s going on with Labour anyway.

      • Gabby 7.1.1

        Maybe he wanted the challenge of deciding between a policy of working the working class to death, or stealing rich people’s holiday pocket money.

    • Peroxide Blonde 7.2

      Darling Little Vaughan

      Grant holds grudges for a very very long time. As long as Annette is deputy Grant will continue. That is more certain than gravity.
      BTW, If it was not Cunliffe it would be someone else.

  8. Jenny Kirk 8

    I also think quite a few of you are missing on Little’s message to his MPs with his re-shuffle – and with what he said when it was announced. It sounds to me like a “do some work or get out” sort of message, and he’s put various MPs in portfolios where they are expected to do just that. And if they don’t ……… then we’ll see later on.

    • Mike the Savage One 8.1

      So some are “lazy” or not up to it?

    • seeker 8.2

      Good comment Jenny @6.15pm. I agree with you and hope certain members will be shown up for what they really are and permanently removed from positions of power
      ( on the other hand I could be pleasantly surprised at a completely miraculous transformation of said certain members) and feel well happy to vote for Labour in 2017.

    • Wainwright 8.3

      Message was ‘this is the team for 2017.’ Loud and clear. Are you really trying to say Little expects to get a second chance when he loses the next election? Because he wanted to give useless turds a chance? As if.

  9. Peroxide Blonde 9

    So there ARE leader in Labour!
    Great to see the Labour Progressives in Auckland and Wellington setting up meeting. The usual FB pages don’t show anything happening in Wellington. Has anyone heard of one here?

    You CANNOT leave this Party to the antics of the Parliamentary schemers. Andrew promised that a new leaf would be turned. Has he forgotten that he won over Grant with votes from the members and the Unions>

    This is going too be fun!

  10. Mike the Savage One 10

    TBH I do not really find much in the way of “good reviews”, it is rather indifference or silence that I see in the MSM reportage, if you can call it that.

    The bosses and the majority of mercenaries working in the MSM have long “signed off” with Labour, and they are not even that interested anymore, I fear. It is a lost “brand”, a failed “brand exercise”, in my view a last, desperate last ditch attempt to get some recognition for Labour by Andrew.

    I am happy to take flak for this, but that is my assessment. It does not stand for what it once did, the party, many others are seeking a new home, some desperately, I take note of.

    What a sad state of affairs, and I do not like to rubbish many in Labour, because there is some talent and valid candidacy in the caucus, but it is just not enough to convince and get traction, sorry, that is what I see.

    • The Chairman 10.1

      Although you’re happy to take flak for this, I think you’ll find many of us concur with you.

    • Chooky 10.2

      so whats stopping a new Labour Mana Party?

      ( all the good ones could abandon ship from captain little’s disaster)

      • te reo putake 10.2.1

        I guess the only thing stopping such a party is the dead set certainty of electoral oblivion.

        • Jenny Kirk 10.2.1.1

          Yeah ! I agree trp.

          Labour is not a failed brand. You guys (and gals) who spend all your time criticising Labour are not thinking clearly. The MSM tries hard to undermine everything Andrew Little does. Little explains his reasons, and expects intelligent people or people with political views to follow his reasoning. And he has the guts to follow thru on his own reasoning. So go back and read his statements. The majority of us do NOT know what goes on behind the scenes, but there is enough put out there into the public arena for people to guess, and think about.

          I’m getting very fed-up with the constant criticism on this blog re Labour – Labour is damned if it does something, and damned if it doesn’t.

          The only thing that will change this rightwing fascist government and the clown who leads it is a strong Labour Party – along with its coalition partners. I’m not going to ask you to stop the sniping – I am asking you to start thinking !

          • weka 10.2.1.1.1

            “The only thing that will change this rightwing fascist government and the clown who leads it is a strong Labour Party – along with its coalition partners.”

            As a GP member I agree. We might not agree on what a strong Labour Party is though 😉

            I think Little’s hardest task is to overcome Labour’s history. He may well be doing all the right things and people are still not going to trust him because of the history. That’s to be expected though, the trust has to be re-earned.

            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1.1

              dont worry weka, Labour has done an outstanding job of “overcoming” its origins and history.

          • Olwyn 10.2.1.1.2

            I do not constantly criticise Labour, but it is true that Labour has lost the trust of a lot of people since Helen made her exit, and trust has to be won back, it cannot simply be granted at will. On the face of it, the cabinet reshuffle looks as if the very people who weakened that trust are being rewarded, while people such as Cunliffe, who have at least given a glimmer of hope, have been punished. However, you may be right – people may be being asked to put their efforts where their mouths are, and Cunliffe may have agreed to taking a low profile position for strategic or personal reasons.

            The thing is, over the past seven years, John Key has incrementally done everything that Brash threatened to working class NZ with a smile on his face, while Labour have been too busy fighting either with each other or the members to pose a challenge to him. They have to show that they are on our side if they want us on their side. I like Andrew Little, I voted for him, and I sincerely hope that you are right. But I do not blame anyone for criticising Labour – it simply shows that where trust is concerned, we are not there yet.

          • The Chairman 10.2.1.1.3

            @ Jenny

            At this stage Labour are doing a great job of undermining themselves. Their handling of the TPP is a prime example of that.

            Demoting Cunliffe was another.

            I’d be happy to talk the party up, if only they had something of late to talk up.

            I feel supporters are becoming fed-up with the constant let down Labour has become, hence the constant criticism.

            As for their potential coalition partners, Labour continues to distance itself from them as it moves more to the centre. Points to the RMA as the latest example. And that is something Labour has to think about.

            Kiwibuild was the last decent policy they have brought out.

            Kiwiinsure had potential, but the TPP has probably put an end to that.

          • Leftie 10.2.1.1.4

            @Jenny Kirk
            Hear hear !!!

            +1000 totally agree with you.

          • Michael 10.2.1.1.5

            People are thinking Jenny Kirk – and when their thoughts turn to the Labaour Party in 2015 they don’t like what they see. The Party must earn the trust of the voters before it can ever hope to be elected into office again. While I understand the strategy of keeping a low profile and calculating that, eventually, enough middle class voters will get tired of Key and give the box next to the B Team logo a tick, that hardly fixes the Party’s legitimacy problem. Many of us have ideas and suggestions but the hierarchy isn’t interested in a dialogue with us and I, for one, have no confidence they won’t rat on their members again as soon as they move into the Beehive.

  11. Stuart Munro 11

    Meh – between elections doldrums – nothing to see here but Key’s interminable screw ups. The Kremlinology of opposition positions at this stage isn’t especially meaningful.

    Take the Cunliffe ‘demotion’. Does Labour need a credible alternative to the retirement policy it ran with last election? Did they leave the task to a competent architect or to a blithering Rogergnome? Might see real policy there eventually.

    • AmaKiwi 11.1

      “Does Labour need a credible alternative to the retirement policy it ran with last election?”

      There are only two choices on retirement policy and Little has previously ruled both of them out because they are politically unpalatable: 1. raise the retirement age; 2. means testing. Little has commanded Cunliffe to turn a dog’s breakfast into a banquet fit for a king.

      Silencing Cunliffe is not just a personal humiliation for him. It is a humiliation for all of us who look to him as the most eloquent spokesperson for the Left.

      This is OUR humiliation! That’s why I have decided to leave Labour. That’s why I will support Cunliffe wholeheartedly if he becomes an independent MP, starts a new party, or finds some other format to continue to be a voice against the neo-liberal, radical Right.

  12. ZTesh 12

    It’s a little bit ironic to see all the racists coming out of the wood work to claim that Mahuta’s demotion was because they didn’t value Maori or their votes.

    I think it indicates the opposite is true. She was complete dead wood, who achieved and contributed very little of merit. The fact that she is even in parliament is miracle in itself.

    • Jenny Kirk 12.1

      Yep to ZTesh. And they’re all under-estimating Kelvin Davis. He’s in there for Maori – and he’s getting to grips with what’s required of a spokesperson for Maori.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        underestimating Kelvin Davis. What a joke.

        • Chooky 12.1.1.1

          +100 CV…Kelvin Davis with the help of Labour (and it would seem Lusk and some payment bribery to Maori in the TTT electorate) took out Hone Harawira and lost the Election for the Left….and gave it to jonkey nact

          Kelvin and Labour are a pack of self- serving incompetents

          I would join the one million non-voters before I would vote for this current Labour Party …

          • Jenny Kirk 12.1.1.1.1

            Chooky – you really believe the rubbish you write ? Do you live in the north ?

            Kelvin Davis would not go within a mile of the weird and corrupt Lusk. How about a different scenario …… something along the lines of northern Maori not liking Hone’s attachment to DotCom and that affecting the result of the TTT vote ?

            • Chooky 12.1.1.1.1.1

              @ Jenny Kirk…I am not saying Kelvin Davis did this…but he was supported to defeat Hone Harawira by Labour….and apparently Simon Lusk …

              (again I am not saying Labour was behind Lusk , although apparently Labour’s Nash has had dealings with Lusk…)

              ‘Dirty Politics players back in the frame’

              http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201779410/dirty-politics-players-back-in-the-frame

              …”Simon Lusk also claimed on Story he had been instrumental in unseating Mana Party co-leader Hone Harawira in the last election. Unnamed “businessmen” had paid thousands for that, he said. And in conversation with his co-host last Monday, Duncan Garner said money had been paid to get Maori electors to vote in Te Tai Tokerau.

              Was political operative Simon Lusk really paying people on behalf of clients to influence an election? Disappointingly, no more was said about this claim.The following day, Duncan Garner posted a statement from Simon Lusk on the websites of TV3’s Story and Radio Live. In it, Simon Lusk said:
              Iwi now have extensive databases of members who they can easily mobilise. Assembling a team of 50 or 100 iwi members to get out the vote is straightforward, legal and effective if it is possible to raise some koha.
              He added that “if you’re not paying for votes or offering anything in exchange for a vote, or treating,” it is not against the law. But that statement didn’t answer key questions: How much was paid? By whom? And for what purpose? …

              (…”Duncan Garner also revealed supporters of Labour’s Napier MP Stewart Nash paid Simon Lusk to canvas the option of a new political party…)

              • Leftie

                @chooky

                Of course Labour is going to support their candidate Kelvin Davis, why wouldn’t they? Labour had no deals with Mana and made it clear they wanted to win back the Maori seats, which apart from one, they were successful at.

                Since when do RWNJ’s like Lusk and Garner tell the truth? Do you believe everything because it suits you?

            • Leftie 12.1.1.1.1.2

              @Jenny Kirk

              That’s exactly it. People should talk to Northern Maori, they won’t mince words and will tell you that they were not at all impressed with Hone needing a white man to win. That’s what cost him his seat, and it didn’t matter what Labour or anyone had said either, it wouldn’t have made an iota of difference. If Hone/Mana had of stood independently, no doubt he would have kept his support and seat.

            • Michael 12.1.1.1.1.3

              Nash did. Davis is an ally of his. Why wouldn’t he deal with Lusk? Davis’s conduct since announcing his candidacy and winning his seat have all the hallmarks of Lusk-directed Dirty Politics. As does Nash’s conduct over the same period. Whoever these guys represent it sure isn’t working class kiwis.

              • Jenny Kirk

                Nash is a colleague of Davis. That’s a bit different from being an “ally”.
                And there is nothing that Davis does that is at all “Lusk-directed dirty politics”.

                However, having said that – it seems to me there’s a bit of a concerted attempt to now undermine Kelvin Davis on TS – coming from people who may be misunderstanding northern Maori politics, or trolls – take your pick which group you belong to.

                And Michael – I don’t know what you call working-class kiwis, but Kelvin Davis is representing Maori in Te Tai Tokerau – no doubt some of them are working-class, no doubt some of them might describe themselves as middle-class, or whatever type of class they fancy – but if they’re Maori, Kel Davis is intent on representing them.

    • Chooky 12.2

      @ ZTesh and Jenny Kirk….re “She was complete dead wood, who achieved and contributed very little of merit. The fact that she is even in parliament is miracle in itself.”

      ….so the Labour Party sees Mahuta as “dead wood” ( really?…sexism?…racism?)

      I thought it was commonly agreed that Mahuta worked very hard behind the scenes to bring in the Maori seats for Labour …when it was losing most other seats it was one of their victories

      (Is this little Labour rewriting history?)

      Time Mahuta and the Maori Seats jumped ship from little Labour

  13. TepidSupport 13

    NZ needs a strong and well led opposition, not just to hold govt accountable but for robust debate.
    The opposition needs to find what resonates with the bulk of NZers and not try to tell us what we need to believe/ feel..
    I really hope this Labour reshuffle will help with this…

  14. savenz 14

    What the F is Little doing?

    It’s like a message saying F off existing Labour voters.

    Little seems to be a guy that reads the herald and other right wing propaganda, not a guy that even understands Labour voters, how to find out what they want and why they did not vote Labour last time. Like Clark, his National background as a kid is shinning through, and like some ideological Bernard Hickey telling us for 20 years about the house price falling in NZ, he has calculated the wrong future, even if he thinks it is for the right reasons.

    Little’s decision are over thought and coming to the wrong conclusions, like most of Labour current decisions. At least Clark even though a neoliberal, was intelligent and able to navigate better though complex situations. Little is trying to be Clark, but we are in different times, and quite frankly Little is no where near as steely, decisive and intelligent as Clark, who can tell off the Israelis, negotiate with China and keep Michael Cullen as a smart side kick.

    Little needs to play safe, and that would be to get a smart guy next to him, like Cunliffe, even if he feels he needs a right winger too. At least he looks like he has not picked which direction to take Labour.

    Unfortunately his clear bias to the right wing neoliberals has shown his cards and direction, while his speeches point to the left wing labour.

    Confusion and misdirection is a Natz trait, but they at least do it well.

    Little doesn’t, hence the howls of anger from his voters.

    Labour needs to close the Clark years, and turn back in time to pre 1984 (like his popular speech).

    The other big neoliberal mantra is MONEY, MONEY< MONEY.

    Actually there have been plenty of political changes without money, Mandela, Malcolm X etc. When people with a vision of a better, fairer future changed history by bringing people with them, not selling their soul at breakfasts to business lobbyists and asking people to push the donate button.

    You don't need money and donations to create change. But you do need to have ethics and a vision. Sadly Labour has abandoned both.

    Remember Nash and his public view to abandon principals on TDB! He should be the one out in the cold as a message… but nope another royal F up by Labour!!!

    I hear clinks of drinks in the MSM and Natz brigade!!!

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