Is anyone ABC any more?

Written By: - Date published: 11:05 am, October 30th, 2012 - 178 comments
Categories: business, david cunliffe, labour - Tags:

It’s fine not to agree with someone’s politics. It’s fine to weigh up the attributes of one prospective leader against another and decide that one is the better choice. But the Anyone But Cunliffe clique didn’t do that. They literally wanted anyone who wasn’t Cunliffe. When Parker wasn’t going to win, they went to Shearer. It was a childish way to play with the future of a political institution that they don’t own, but inherited from those who came before them and hold in trust.

Because the ABC-er’s opposition to Cunliffe was personal, not political, they didn’t try to debate the issues but launched smears, instead. Rather than have an honest, respectable debate, they told lies. They were trying it as late as August when an abortive move was made to take Cunliffe out of play before Robertson rolled Shearer. That strategy has only hurt Labour, making it look petty and divided. But, an ABC position clearly isn’t putting Labour first. It is and always was illogical to say that anyone was better for the party than Cunliffe.

So, are the ABC-ers still out there? Has that been a good ploy for the party and the country? What do they think of themselves now?

I know there’s at least a rump still talking filth about Cunliffe rather than talking about rebuilding Labour.

Think about that: when the Nats are incredibly exposed on the economy, the rump ABC crowd would rather attack the Left’s most articulate economic communicator then join him in getting on with the job. It’s a shame that those people would rather spend their time stabbing their allies in the back when the enemy is over there, on the other side of the aisle, wounded and just begging to be beaten.

So, there are still a few ABC-ers out there, but is anyone listening to them and their self-centred murmurings any more?

lprent: The graph was apparently lifted from whaleoil’s post (he is whining about it). I’m sure that Eddie would have acknowledged it (or avoided it) if he’d known the source.

178 comments on “Is anyone ABC any more? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. fatty 1
    30 October 2012 at 11:26 am

    I was surprised Chris Hipkins was against Cunliffe…he always came across as quite intelligent.

      • The Baron 1.1.1
        30 October 2012 at 12:44 pm

        Got promised the Whip’s role by Shearer?

        Lets not pretend that all of this is going to be noble, high thinking.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 12:47 pm

          I think that was clear from the start, unfortunately.

        • KhandallaMan 1.1.1.2
          31 October 2012 at 4:05 pm

          Darien Fenton was rewarded with a whip position by Shearer also.
          Shearer, and the team that won him the tight leadership vote, promised roles in exchange for votes.
          Shearer publically and loudly said he was not doing deals. All who voted for him know that is BS.
          Shearer is not the innocent nice-guy he tries to portray: he is a vain weak man out of his depth.

          • Takere 1.1.1.2.1
            8 November 2012 at 2:33 pm

            Darien Fenton is a useless lazy lair. Work with her for a few years and found that she was only interested in the career-ladder not the workers who put her where she is now.

  2. Peter 2
    30 October 2012 at 11:35 am

    Well, I guess we’ll know in February, or maybe sooner, depending on what happens at Labour’s Annual Conference.

    I do fear that underperforming MPs will sit quietly and let the ABC faction run the party, because under a different leader, they’d be put on notice to perform.

    • One Tāne Huna 2.1
      30 October 2012 at 11:40 am

      put on notice to perform

      Or perhaps feel more motivated, given the ability of the current leadership to shoot themselves in the foot while participating in a trainwreck.

      • Peter 2.1.1
        30 October 2012 at 11:43 am

        Well, when on a nice salary, don’t underestimate the power of stasis 🙂 Especially if there’s enough of you.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.2
        30 October 2012 at 11:44 am

        Mixed metaphor, bad OTH.

        Although I guess it is technically possible to shoot oneself in the foot during a trainwreck…

  3. Peter Martin 3
    30 October 2012 at 11:40 am

    I wonder if it isn’t time for those Labour MP’s ,who have determined Parliament as their personal hospice, to retire.
    New blood. Fresh perspectives.Some dynamism . Who wants to hear Mallard for example, abusing folk over the parliamentary microphones?..Do we really need the pathetic ‘gotcha’ questions..which aren’t? Is there no other way of eliciting information that might later be useful? God only knows what goes on behind the woodwork…
    To be honest, I think Nact enjoy putting up more and more radical bills, secure in the knowledge that Labour won’t effect any change, rather, only the less muted outcry of the public seems to make any sort of difference.
    And that is where I see Labour at present: unable to make any difference and chasing it’s rather old and raggedy tail until it gives up and goes back to sleep.

    • gobsmacked 3.1
      30 October 2012 at 12:49 pm

      “Personal hospice”

      Line of the day.

    • Socialist Paddy 3.2
      30 October 2012 at 1:29 pm

      Aye

      They really seem to be jealous of Cunliffe because he is too smooth and urbane and far too bright and ambitious and interviews too well.

      FFS IT IS POLITICS.

      These qualities are necessities. 

      • King Kong 3.2.1
        30 October 2012 at 1:40 pm

        Good to see you here putting in your two cents worth, Cunners

        • bbfloyd 3.2.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 2:56 pm

          Boring to see you back talking childish crap again monkey kong…

          • King Kong 3.2.1.1.1
            30 October 2012 at 3:15 pm

            Pure genius.

            I see what you have done there…You have taken my comment then turned it back around on me by adding some insults.

            I’m embarrassed again by rapier wit.

        • QoT 3.2.1.2
          30 October 2012 at 6:21 pm

          Silly KK, lprent has made his position on MPs posting perfectly clear. And Cunliffe may be a lefty but I think the moniker “socialist” and the Che icon would be a bit far for him. And … oh wait you were just being a shit-stirrer, I see now.

          • lprent 3.2.1.2.1
            30 October 2012 at 11:14 pm

            Yep. But kk tends to be a bit umm “johnkey” when it comes to having binding principles, so you can understand his skepticism. It is what you’d expect after a lifetime around National politicians…. He deserves some sympathy.

        • Socialist Paddy 3.2.1.3
          30 October 2012 at 9:13 pm

          Nope I am not Cunners.  He is way prettier than I am …

        • KhandallaMan 3.2.1.4
          31 October 2012 at 10:06 pm

          KK, you have proven a point. RWNJs assume everyone behaves on a similar gutless moral base. Cunliffe does not, ever, fit into your paradigm. Cunliffe is WISIWIG. He, Cunliffe, would never engage under false pretences. Never a sham, never a pseudonym: Cunliffe is a straight shooter. The people of New Lynn know. 100% of the caucus know: sadly 50% are in job protection mode.
          That is why “Closed Club” writers, like Espiner and many of the Parliamentary Gallery possie, whine: Cunliffe will not travel half-way to meet them. Cunliffe is about change: not about blowing smoke up the areses of silly people.

          The change is coming. Old certainties (and smug jobs) will go. The cosy easy acceptance of poverty for hard workers will be challenged and changes. We can win the next election with a Labour party that we can be proud of! Be organised for the party conference. It is only a couple of weeks away. Out-play the Robertson and Mallard cliques. The Labour Party is better than this.

        • mike e 3.2.1.5
          8 November 2012 at 12:16 pm

          KK I thought you were a wind up toy but the way you defend cronie capitalism 2 cents in the slot is a bargain but the wind up version is better for the bank balance and the exercise is good for your health.

      • Dr Terry 3.2.2
        30 October 2012 at 3:35 pm

        SP. Absolutely agree! Envy is an odious attribute. May Labour members note words of Nelson Mandela, “Unlike some politicians, I can admit a mistake”.

    • David H 3.3
      30 October 2012 at 2:58 pm

      Yep Mallard, King, Dyson, most of the back bench just have to go, even Goff and co. You really need a complete clean out.

      • Jim Nald 3.3.1
        30 October 2012 at 3:35 pm

        Dyson was superb in her time. Some time ago. Not sure about recent times.

      • Colonial Viper 3.3.2
        30 October 2012 at 11:20 pm

        Yeah and leave Goff alone. There’s a long list who need to be replaced but he’s not one of them. The role he played in forcing McCully’s MFAT backdown as well as how hard he worked in the 2011 campaign was a credit to Labour.

  4. Olwyn 4
    30 October 2012 at 12:11 pm

    I do not think it helps to turn on those who voted for Shearer last December. Many made up their minds at the last minute, at a time when those who held high positions in the previous configuration still retained enough of the vestiges of authority to have influence. I remember at the time thinking that the vote may have gone differently had the dust been allowed time to settle.

    The fact is, not to emerge as National Lite right now requires courage, intelligence and resolve; things have gone to far for it to be otherwise. The alternative is to flirt with, if not to actively entertain, future irrelevance. Nice will not cut it: no one thinks a person nice if they stand on the shore saying nice things while people are drowning.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      30 October 2012 at 12:39 pm

      It’s a generous opinion that you hold, Olwyn, and a reasonable one.

      However I then think of all the MPs who voted for Shearer in direct contravention of the majority opinion of their own branch and LEC membership; and also all the party members and commentators who stressed that Shearer even as a good guy was far too inexperienced an MP to lead the party against Key. All were basically ignored.

      It tells me that an awful lot of MPs have awfully bad listening skills and/or awfully bad judgement.

      I said to someone recently that Labour is in its last 2 to 3 terms of relevance as a historical political force. If it doesn’t re-find it’s heart and it’s courage ASAP its going to be painfully relegated for the long term.

    • blue leopard 4.2
      30 October 2012 at 12:39 pm

      @Olwyn,

      Yeah good point re not turning on those who voted for Shearer.

      …no one thinks a person nice if they stand on the shore saying nice things while people are drowning.

      This is exactly how I am reading Labour’s behaviour now. There has been too little passionate opposition for too long. Sad for the many people in that party that do appear sincere and passionate, for the party as a whole to have lost focus somehow.

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.1
        30 October 2012 at 12:41 pm

        Yeah good point re not turning on those who voted for Shearer.

        It’s about turning on those few who remain ABC to the core. They are sinking the ship.

        • blue leopard 4.2.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 1:09 pm

          Yes your comment above appeared only after I had posted mine. I take your point here (and above).

          I was thinking of some of the younger and talented MPs who were listed in the last few days as having belonged to this camp and hoping that everyone who voted for Shearer aren’t simply lumped into the same category simply because they did so. (If they did vote for such shallow and short sighted motives, however, good riddance to them)

    • Anne 4.3
      30 October 2012 at 2:35 pm

      Many made up their minds at the last minute, at a time when those who held high positions in the previous configuration still retained enough of the vestiges of authority to have influence.

      Yes. And it is to be noted they were – by and large – the newer members of the Labour caucus. That tells me there was some subtle (and perhaps not so subtle) bullying going on behind the scenes.

    • Blue 4.4
      30 October 2012 at 3:05 pm

      You’re very generous, Olwyn. I admire your ability to forgive those who blew Labour’s chance at 2014 just weeks after they lost 2011.

      I’m not so forgiving. As far as I can see, those who voted Shearer were either part of the ABC faction, blind toadies doing what the big shots wanted, nakedly self-interested or just plain stupid.

      Every single one of them has a black mark against their names now, as far as I’m concerned.

      • Olwyn 4.4.1
        30 October 2012 at 3:41 pm

        I do not think that people are particularly clear-sighted after a major defeat, and I also thought the leadership change was premature. I will be less forgiving if we stumble toward the next election unchanged, however.

        • tracey 4.4.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 4:12 pm

          I agree.

          I consider Goff needed to go pre-election. Nothing like a defeat and experience on the hustings to determine if someone has the stomach and passion for the job (opportunity lost). Then knee-jerk change. Should have kept Goff on for another 6 months and been honest. “I’m retiring in 6 months but will stay while the post-election process takes careful consideration”.

          Sigh.

          Any reason i should think Cunnliffe wont try to be Nat-Lite too?

    • Bill 4.5
      30 October 2012 at 7:38 pm

      @Olwyn Anyone who voted Shearer in the Robertson/Shearer manouvering should go. No exceptions. Some voted for Shearer becasue they were ABC. And the others betrayed their bullshit carreerist attitudes by the way they placed their bets. Were they subjected to pressure or smooth talking? Maybe. But the fact is that they fucked up. End of.

      • Olwyn 4.5.1
        30 October 2012 at 8:18 pm

        That is more than half the caucus Bill. No one could lead the party by cold shouldering more than half the caucus. I am willing to cut them some slack, given the circumstances, but as I said earlier, I will feel less forgiving if the party lumbers unchanged into the next election. It is one thing to make mistakes and another to learn nothing from them.

        • Bill 4.5.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 9:16 pm

          So there is half the caucus up for whatever positions of influence and the careerists get to make up the numbers and mark time til they find another career to pursue….kind of like as it is now, only reversed. …except for the advantage that new people will be attracted to the party and things will move forward rather than atrophy.

          • Olwyn 4.5.1.1.1
            30 October 2012 at 9:29 pm

            I am not in the position to know what persuaded them, but OK, for argument’s sake, I accept the claim that they are all careerists. At least with strong, motivated leadership they would need to either meet the challenge that came with it or slink away to find themselves more accommodating careers.

  5. the sprout 5
    30 October 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Well said eddie.
    Getting rid of the abc cancer will however require a new deputy leader.

  6. Rich 6
    30 October 2012 at 12:29 pm

    The Labour party’s stuck in a vicious circle.

    If one is a left-wing political activist with a desire to improve the governance of the nation, the only party to join is the Greens.

    Which leaves Labour with people who fancy a well-paid career as a spokesman/minister, or those who really want to join National, but have a family/peer-group affinity to Labour. (Shane Jones, just as a for instance).

    Those people then support whoever amongst leadership candidates promises to boost their career most, with a side attitude of avoiding progressive policies where possible.

    • Stephen Doyle 6.1
      30 October 2012 at 1:20 pm

      What makes the Greens left wing radicals? Thought that was more Mana.

    • lefty 6.2
      30 October 2012 at 8:17 pm

      If one is a left-wing political activist with a desire to improve the governance of the nation, the only party to join is the Greens.

      The Greens are not left wing activists. They are middle class capitalists with enough sense to see the writing on the wall for the planet. They want to make just enough change to save their own skins as things start hotting up (nothing wrong with that of course).

      The policies they push to this end can sometimes make them look like a left party.

      They have a couple of social democrats MPs to help give them left credibility.

      • weka 6.2.1
        30 October 2012 at 8:56 pm

        You think Metiria Turei is a middle class capitalist? Oh dear.

      • karol 6.2.2
        30 October 2012 at 9:34 pm

        I keep seeing such criticisms of the Greens.  Not left wing?  Middleclass?  And so, in comparison, the current Labour caucus is… left wing?  Working class?
        And +1, to weka below.

  7. J. A. Lee 7
    30 October 2012 at 12:48 pm

    “Getting rid of the abc cancer will however require a new deputy leader.”

    Yeah, it’s this so-called ABC faction that’s really into back-stabbing and in-fighting…

    Also, no, it isn’t illogical to say that there are people who would be better leaders than Cunliffe; you might disagree, and that’s ok, but it isn’t illogical.

    Personally speaking, I am sick to death of the Cunliffe camp’s shameless slandering of large parts of the caucus, and given that, ffs, I don’t even *like* most of caucus myself, that’s quite impressive.

    • alwyn 7.1
      30 October 2012 at 2:15 pm

      To paraphrase King Kong’s comment at 1.40pm (above).
      Good to see you here putting in your two cents worth, [deleted].

      [lprent: If you want to use peoples purported names, then point to where they ‘outed’ themselves (ie not some other moron like Whale making up stories). Otherwise I’ll start getting irritated at attempted violations of our policies. ]

    • wobble 7.2
      30 October 2012 at 2:16 pm

      Mr Lee. Instead of you getting stuck into people commenting here, tell us please, who would you like to see running the party. And why? Because crying about ‘Cunliffe’s camp’ sounds more like an attempted diversion than anything else.

      • J. A. Lee 7.2.1
        30 October 2012 at 2:46 pm

        Who do I want running the party? Well, to start with I don’t think the leader should run the party, I think that’s the General Secretary, President and NZ Council’s role. I think the Gen Sec and President are doing a good job, and if you really want I can give you my NZ Council endorsements.

        In terms of who should lead? I don’t care too much. I think Shearer’s perfectly competent, and is probably going to win the next election. On the other hand if he were to be replaced tomorrow well fine, that’s ok.

        I do think there’s a pretty toxic culture within caucus at the moment, in particular a real lack of discipline. And this kind of manoeuvring is part of that lack of discipline.

        • Michael 7.2.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 8:01 pm

          J. A. Lee – I don’t believe that anyone doesn’t care who leads the party. So you’re being less than truthful, or perhaps you lack the passion the comes with politics?

          Why do you feel the need to hide behind party bureaucratic language and ideas?

        • Saarbo 7.2.1.2
          30 October 2012 at 10:15 pm

          The lack if discipline comes from a lack of leadership.

  8. blue leopard 8
    30 October 2012 at 12:52 pm

    I came across an article last night on Pundit by Nicky Hagar written in Feb 2010 and his observation still seems applicable now.

    Article here: Second Year Blues A Failure of Governance.

    It is a bit shocking how little things have changed, re Labour ( things have somewhat changed re National-got more aggressive and hence destructive, yet still not offering a whole lot of policy.)

    I also recall Mr Chris Carter’s scathing comments relating to internal ructions regarding the direction the leadership was taking prior to the election, at the time I noted it, unclear whether it was simply “sour-grapes” speaking or something more. It sounded relevant at the time and with hindsight is a pity such issues weren’t addressed then.

  9. blue leopard 9
    30 October 2012 at 1:00 pm

    There was article dissing Mr Cunliffe written a few months ago by Duncan Garner (I think) and said to be caused by insiders of the Labour party approaching him.

    I increasingly feel it was a bad thing that this occurrence was not addressed by Labour leadership.
    It is becoming easier and easier to agree with National spin on the Labour Party.

    Wake up Labour. You are providing the worst Government ever with a gift horse. Stop being so generous and get your arses into gear!

  10. vto 10
    30 October 2012 at 1:30 pm

    ooo-eerrr, it sounds all nasty and horrid in the labour party lunchroom.

    So what goes on on a daily basis in this party thing? Do people talk to Cunliffe, or do they look away and do the big kiddie snub? Does each party viciously gossip like gossiping gossips as soon as one of the other team leave the room? How do you achieve anything if you, seemingly, have such animosity towards each other? How do you have normal conversations? How do you genuinely debate and decide policy? Or do you all just smile nicely and carry on like there is nothing wrong?

    I thought at the time that the wrong decision was made on leader, purely on how each is perceived and how they go about things in the public space. Silly eggs. Probably shot down your chances of more seats. Sheesh.

  11. Stephen Doyle 11
    30 October 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Not being an insider, you need to name names.

  12. just saying 12
    30 October 2012 at 2:05 pm

    This week’s listener (not yet online) has a feature on Cunliffe by Guyon Espiner. It is the most savage attack on a politician I have ever read in a mainstream publiciation. I wouldn’t mind if Espiner went for the jugular in all his reports, we could probably use a bit more highly critical reporting, but this report was unique. Highly sarcastic, (downright contemptuous) he didn’t much report the contents of the interview (except as occasional illustrations of his beliefs about Cunliffes faults) The article was mostly the contents of his own personal animosity imo.

    I’m not wild about Cunliffe. I would prefer he lead Labour simply because he is an effective politician who espouses trad Labour beliefs and criticises neoliberalism. I’m sure Cunliffe does have ego problems. I’ve always thought that goes with the territory in his occupation. He admits as much in the article. I also tend to read his repeated proclamations of loyalty to Shearer as ” doth protest too much..”, and I have little doubt that he is still working towards another attempt on the leadership. But these sorts of issues are hardly unusual in any politician.

    Anyone else read it?

    • blue leopard 12.1
      30 October 2012 at 2:35 pm

      I haven’t read it, yet bought The Listener at election time with the belief that it would provide me with intelligent information on the main issues and policies surrounding the election. I was deluded in my thinking due to not having realised how things had changed since I was growing up, when this publication was reputable.

      I was absolutely disgusted with the clear right-wing agenda most of the articles supplied, including the editorial linking the sale of assets and the sale of google and stating that this was “a perfectly normal business practice” and in doing so, promoted the National party’s campaign (free advertising).

      I will never buy this trashy mag again, although will seek out the article just as a matter of interest to find out what the latest Nat party hogwash spin is. 😉

      • just saying 12.1.1
        30 October 2012 at 5:13 pm

        I’m a bit ashamed of having bought it having sworn off it ages ago. I saw they were featuring Cunliffe, and I miss the puzzle pages.You’re right, it reads like the National Party’s official newsletter.

        I’d usually agree with you Olwyn (below), but this actually worried me. This level of nastiness isn’t just a reminder that Cunliffe poses a threat the way Garner’s regular snide comments are. It signals a real problem. I know someone in the press gallery (waiting for a job in the PM’s office imo) who hates Cunliffe with the same deep passion – beyond the usual cynicism for pollies in general, and those with opposing views in particular. If this is an indication of the lengths to which the press is willing to go, the left might be in real trouble with the media if it starts to show signs of making any traction against the neoliberal consensus. There was absolutely zero attempt at even the pretence of balance, and it was the sort of personal malice rather than political criticism that is very hard to fight against.

        • felix 12.1.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 5:16 pm

          They hate him because he’s honest and won’t take part in their corrupt little circle-jerk.

          • Anne 12.1.1.1.1
            30 October 2012 at 6:01 pm

            You mean he refuses to play their game of tit for tat (read goss for goss) and do deals with them like… we’ll see you get a ministerial press officer job when we get back into power?

            • felix 12.1.1.1.1.1
              30 October 2012 at 6:41 pm

              Yeah that’s what I mean, but I’ve no idea if it’s accurate. Do you think it is?

              • Anne …
                30 October 2012 at 6:59 pm

                I think it may be close to the truth.

                Never mentioned this before, but I attended last year’s New Lynn Labour Party Xmas BBQ at the invitation of a friend who lives in the electorate. It took place soon after the leadership vote. I saw intense and genuine caring – by a group of some 150 members and supporters – for their Member of Parliament, David Cunliffe. What is more that caring was returned by David in full measure. There were tears shed by some of them. These are the people who know him the best and they love him.

                • mickysavage …
                  30 October 2012 at 10:34 pm

                  Kia ora Anne.

                  Well said. 

                  • Chrissy …
                    30 October 2012 at 11:10 pm

                    It’s true. New Lynn loves DC, and it’s absolutely mutual. There is a vast amount of compassion in this guy. As well as the smarts.

                    The attitude I’ve seen up close from people in caucus who dislike him really is like nothing more than a cabal of sneering schoolkids who’ve decided this new kid is not going to be liked, and who wont let that go, because their mates all think the same thing. There are various justifications for that, but almost all of it is too easy, self serving arrogance from people who consider themselves naturally superior and more authentic.

        • blue leopard 12.1.1.2
          30 October 2012 at 5:20 pm

          …sounds like you got the same feeling I did on having bought it at election-time lolz

          That is spooky what you relay 🙁

        • Olwyn 12.1.1.3
          30 October 2012 at 6:44 pm

          I suspect that this played a part in Shearer’s being chosen as leader: less likely to incur the wrath of the media, with the flow on effect of the loss of serious donors. If so, I am of the opposite view – I think that Labour needs to galvanise its supporters and then attract the donors through their fearing a loss of influence, rather than modify themselves excessively to get on side with the media and the donors, and lose supporters because of it. Not to mention lose their way because of it.

          • Olwyn 12.1.1.3.1
            30 October 2012 at 6:45 pm

            That reply was to Just Saying.

            • Anne 12.1.1.3.1.1
              30 October 2012 at 7:31 pm

              I suspect that this played a part in Shearer’s being chosen as leader: less likely to incur the wrath of the media, with the flow on effect of the loss of serious donors.

              Bang on Olwyn. IMO, that is exactly what happened.

              The MPs live for much of the time in the Beltway. They work and socialise in the Beltway. They’ve lost touch with the perspective of supporters and potential voters beyond the Beltway. That is the tragedy.

    • Olwyn 12.2
      30 October 2012 at 3:49 pm

      I haven’t read it, but the fact that Cunliffe scares the tories into trying to blacken his name is a positive by my reading, since it suggests that they fear he might be a bit too effective.

      • Barnsley Bill 12.2.1
        30 October 2012 at 6:20 pm

        You are kidding surely. There is literally gigabytes of material in the mock bank for when he ascends to the top job.
        Those of us that have struggled to maintain our blogging efforts with Labour at its lowest ebb are chomping at the bit for a crack at DC.

        • QoT 12.2.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 6:26 pm

          Oh please, Bill. If that were true people wouldn’t still be banging on about “silent T” every opportunity they get. But that may say more about rightwing commentators who think “cunt” is literally the most hilarious word ever coined.

          • McFlock 12.2.1.1.1
            30 October 2012 at 6:35 pm

            Well, I’m sure the 2 minute delay as their audience tries to spell using only the power of their mind is pretty funny.

        • felix 12.2.1.2
          30 October 2012 at 6:34 pm

          *yawn*.

          Cos that’s the main consideration when choosing political leaders: What will the 6th-tier internet fuckwits have to say?

          (Sadly with the current Labour strategy team this has actually been the case but hopefully the rest of the caucus has figured out how retarded that is.)

    • Saarbo 12.3
      30 October 2012 at 10:28 pm

      Espiners article on Cunliffe was a shocker, he recently did one on Key where he was so far up his jacksey he only had his bata bullets sticking out. The sad thing is Key probably couldn’t remember him if he bumped into him in the street.

  13. Michael 13
    30 October 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Labour must stop trying to appear all things to all people and decide who it represents: the urban proletariat; public servants; trade union bosses; self-employed sole traders; denizens of the “rainbow”; or their dear friends in “the business community”?
    Only then can it decide who is best to lead it.

    • Jim Nald 13.1
      30 October 2012 at 3:24 pm

      “decide who it represents”

      In the next issue of Shearer Stays, you might read (again) “I’ll be talking about this plan in a speech next [insert day of the working week] in [insert name of city] and about how we’ll take an active approach to [what we decide about who we represent]. Labour will tackle that issue”.

      “These ideas are just the start. We’re not coming out with a manifesto now, but we have begun developing ideas that will be the foundation of our […] policy for 2014.”

      These sound familiar?

  14. blue leopard 14
    30 October 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Is this issue indicative of a need for [yet] another left-wing party?

    I though we had quite a good range to choose from in the last election,
    however perhaps there needs to be a middle-of-the-road unthreatening slightly left-of-centre nothing-much party
    and another whom are actually prepared to work in the interests of people (not legal entities)?

    Mana, perhaps too threatening to some?
    A party that has some policies that Greens don’t persue?

    I would be very interested to see who people would vote for if this choice was available.

    • Jim Nald 14.1
      30 October 2012 at 3:40 pm

      An option already exists. Restore the Labour Party to its membership.

      • blue leopard 14.1.1
        30 October 2012 at 3:46 pm

        What I am saying is, perhaps there is a need for the nothing-party that Labour appears to be intent on aiming for; that this is what some voters want.

        If those wishing for mediocrity won’t change, then perhaps another has to set up. (Labour party members would then choose what they most prefer-to stay with the name, or support the new party.)

        Be better than having the main left wing party squabbling and bitching amongst one another and looking like a right pack of fools.

        • Jim Nald 14.1.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 3:55 pm

          Cheers. I did get what you meant but opted to provide a pithy comment.

          Ok, how about this now: Shearer, the ‘personal hospice’ candidates together with the indifferent mediocrity can exit the Labour Party and form that nothing-party.

          • blue leopard 14.1.1.1.1
            30 October 2012 at 4:02 pm

            Yes… it has to be decided which is easiest; er…digging the stalwarts out, or creating something new. (lol)

            It would be nice to see things pan out the way you suggest.

          • fatty 14.1.1.1.2
            30 October 2012 at 6:36 pm

            “Ok, how about this now: Shearer, the ‘personal hospice’ candidates together with the indifferent mediocrity can exit the Labour Party and form that nothing-party.”

            Peter Dunne is looking for friends…they’d enjoy each others company – talking about common sense and the average Kiwi’s values

            • PlanetOrphan 14.1.1.1.2.1
              30 October 2012 at 6:38 pm

              🙂 , burnin the midnight oil, cramin the textbooks

            • One Tāne Huna 14.1.1.1.2.2
              30 October 2012 at 8:34 pm

              Fatty, spare a thought for poor ol’ Pete George – if these mediocrities join UF he’ll just end up further down the list 😈

              • lprent …
                30 October 2012 at 11:23 pm

                Please, we all realise that he obsessively reads these comments and writes posts that somehow equate random commentators with parties. But there really is no need to torment him.

                Be kind to the animals. 😈

              • mike e …
                8 November 2012 at 12:20 pm

                OTH the list is not very long these days!

  15. tc 15
    30 October 2012 at 4:47 pm

    It’s great work by the NACT unknowingly supported by gutless MP’s who ignored LEC directive and put DS in as leader.

    DC frightens the NACT as they know he’d clean out the dead wood, sharpen the game and storm back into power without such boat anchors like Mallard, Dyson, King etc cluttering the decks.

    Espiner and Garner attacking DC should be seen as simply an extension of the NACT spin machine, they are to decent political journalism what Key is to honesty and integrity, nowhere near it !

    • J. A. Lee 15.1
      30 October 2012 at 6:19 pm

      This is the David Cunliffe that was going to install Mahuta deputy? (Mahuta who has since failed to land a single blow on the weakest education minster in 25 years…)

      Yeah, he’ll clean out the dead wood! No-one who can’t perform hanging around for political reasons, no sir!

      • Michael 15.1.1
        30 October 2012 at 8:03 pm

        To be fair, Mahuta would probably outperform Shearer as leader. In fact, so would a ham sandwich.

        What does that say about your choice J. A.?

      • mickysavage 15.1.2
        30 October 2012 at 9:37 pm

        Geez JA Lee 

        I am not sure if you are a member or not but your comments about Mahuta are rather poor.  

        The Cunliffe Mahuta team presented a perfect symmetry, male female, Pakeha Maori, urban rural, extroverted reflective.

        I thought that Mahuta presented during the leadership debate a stark and interesting contrast to the others.  She presented a world view that is important. She more than held her own. She actually emerged as an important leader in her own right.

        A Cunliffe/Mahuta team would stop the flow of support to the Greens.  They would also relate to ordinary NZ the way that no other leadership team does.

        So diss Mahuta as much as you want.  Sure she has not landed “a single blow” and if we want our party to be full of violent misogynists then she obviously does not belong.

        But I am tired of the beating up of Nanaia.  She actually represents a constituency that the Labour Party needs to win back and there is a decency about her that many of her colleagues are lacking. 

        • karol 15.1.2.1
          30 October 2012 at 9:42 pm

          micky, that’s an interesting and valuable perspective.  I’m a bit over the idea that all successful political leaders need to be into aggressive macho posturing.

          • Olwyn 15.1.2.1.1
            30 October 2012 at 9:50 pm

            Nanaia was also excellent at the meeting in Auckland about the constitutional changes. She was unpretentious and very attentive to what was going on. She had gravitas but no vanity.

          • mickysavage 15.1.2.1.2
            30 October 2012 at 9:59 pm

            Thanks Karol.  I am also really over the idea that the biggest ego makes the best politician.

            Brains and smarts are really important.  So are decency and understanding.

            We (political junkies) get sucked into the importance of Parliament and especially question time.  Us lefties should get sucked into the importance of community and being actual representatives of all of us. 

        • Barnsley Bill 15.1.2.2
          30 October 2012 at 9:58 pm

          Mickey, you have gilded that lily to a blinding shine.
          On the one hand we have a multi millionaire Herne Bay resident and the other a member of Tainui royalty.
          Quite how this dream team was going to connect with ex labour- new green supporters is a mystery to all but you. Nobody has suggested that Mahuta should be a violent misogynist (Mallard has a lock on that position) and I am struggling to to identify the constituency you seem to feel they will win back.
          Cunliffe is undoubtedly the only current Labour member that seems to have anything akin to support amongst the noisy public lab supporters but we have seen nothing to suggest that everybody else in the country shares your slavish devotion to him.
          You would be better placed searching for an “everyman” * to connect with core Labour support.
          If there is such a person
          *Or Woman.

          • mickysavage 15.1.2.2.1
            30 October 2012 at 10:06 pm

            Um Barnsley I think you miss the point.

            Diss DC as much as you like.  Sure he lives in Herne Bay.  Get real.  He has enough smarts that he could be earning way more than Key himself let alone any MP in the house.  So he earns less than he could and he is the Member of Parliament for New Lynn.  I tell you he is proud to do this.  I do not understand your reference.

            If you read my comment carefully I did not suggest that Mahuta should be a violent misogynist.  In fact I suggested that those that criticised her could be accused of being so.  Read it again.

            The constituency is the vast majority of ordinary Kiwis who just want leaders who look like them, talk like them and want to make their world a better place.

            As for the rest of your comment well if I said something I would give coherence to it that it does not deserve. 

          • felix 15.1.2.2.2
            30 October 2012 at 10:07 pm

            Nobody gives a fuck what you think.

        • Antonina 15.1.2.3
          31 October 2012 at 11:11 am

          Very well said thank you.

        • J. A. Lee 15.1.2.4
          31 October 2012 at 7:10 pm

          Oh ffs — yes, I am a member — and I hardly see how pointing out that it’s been Chris Hipkins making all the running on education is `rather poor’. And oh dear, Mahuta is important because she’s a rural Maori female? It’s a bit tokenistic isn’t it?

          Cunliffe backed Mahuta big time, and she hasn’t made a good fist of education. That’s pretty clear. The reason Cunliffe backed Mahuta was pretty shameless pandering. That’s also pretty clear. (Remember Keith Ng’s post at the time?)

          (And, by the way, get fucked with the misogyny crap.)

          • mickysavage 15.1.2.4.1
            31 October 2012 at 9:27 pm

            Hmmm JA

            You show up yesterday and say all sorts of things like accusing Cunliffe and Co of having a real lack of discipline, then accuse Mahuta of being “dead wood”.  Then you somehow complain because you were pointing out that Hipkins was making the running when you said nothing of the sort.

            And then you accuse Cunliffe of shameless pandering and me of being tokenistic.  Well I actually said that Mahuta essentially outperformed Grant Robertson and that she was decent and important to the party.

            So who is being tokenistic? 

  16. AmaKiwi 16
    30 October 2012 at 6:09 pm

    I am ABC.

    If after the Jan./Feb. leadership vote Labour is led by Anyone But Cunliffe, I am leaving the party.

    • felix 16.1
      30 October 2012 at 6:18 pm

      Why?

      • felix 16.1.1
        30 October 2012 at 6:51 pm

        Actually let me ask that another way, AmaKiwi:

        Would you rather have, say, Clayton Cosgrove as leader than Cunliffe?
        Or Lianne Dalziel?
        What about Annette King?
        Su’a William Sio?
        Phil Goff again?
        Parekura Horomia?

        Just how committed are you to this premise?

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 7:13 pm

          Personally, I’m looking for Cunliffe in a top 3 position. If Shearer’s long signalled pre-Christmas reshuffle demotes Cunliffe, as has been suggested, there is going to be hell to pay.

    • QoT 16.2
      30 October 2012 at 7:21 pm

      Hang on, AmaKiwi, do you mean If after the Jan./Feb. leadership vote Labour is not led by Anyone But Cunliffe? Your two statements seem to be contradictory.

      • Colonial Viper 16.2.1
        30 October 2012 at 7:23 pm

        I think you read “anyone but Cunliffe” as normal English, not as a pronoun for a group…

        • QoT 16.2.1.1
          30 October 2012 at 7:25 pm

          Possibly I just have Tuesday-brain, but that’s still confusing me. Wait, is “Anyone But Cunliffe” now a nickname for Cunliffe? I think I need a drink …

          • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1.1
            30 October 2012 at 7:44 pm

            It’s a nice day out there, I’m currently having a drink…

            If after the Jan./Feb. leadership vote Labour is led by Anyone But Cunliffe, I am leaving the party.

            Assuming AmaKiwi is a Cunliffe supporter the quote actually works both ways.

            If one of the ABC agitators leads Labour in Feb, they’re bailing.

            Actually, if anyone except Cunliffe leads Labour in Feb, they’re bailing.

            Sounds like they want Cunliffe, to me.

  17. Anne 17
    30 October 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Too much for me. I’ve had my drink. 😕

  18. Draco T Bastard 18
    30 October 2012 at 8:03 pm

    And Stuart Nash becomes another Labour MP that needs to be removed.

    That guy who killed toddler JJ Lawrence should be shot. Would happily pull the trigger.!

    Screenshot

  19. AmaKiwi 19
    30 October 2012 at 8:35 pm

    Democracy is a keystone of my religion. Shearer stole the leadership by using the caucus to disregard what the majority of the members wanted.

    I do not forgive that.

    In the Jan/Feb leadership vote democracy means the MEMBERS to decide. One member; one vote. Caucus should have NO SAY.

    In the unlikely event the majority of the members vote for Shearer, I will accept that. But if caucus uses it power to overturn what the majority of the members want, I will walk because the party is too undemocratic to bother with.

    What I meant by my earlier ABC comment is it seems clear the membership want Cunliffe. If the caucus uses its unfair voting advantage to put anyone else in, I quit.

    I know, there are other possible scenarios. Maybe Cunliffe doesn’t stand. Or maybe the cow jumps over the moon. I’d say the odds are about the same for both of those events.

  20. Fisiani 20
    30 October 2012 at 10:46 pm

    The natives are restless. Shearer has raised the Labour vote and still the knives are out.
    Did the latest Roy Morgan poll spook some people? For goodness sake there are still 24 months to go. Shearer will get equal exposure in the three weeks of the campaign. He will obviously demolish John Key in the pre-election debates just like Phil ” Show me the Money” Goff did in 2011.Admittedly it may be tough in 2014 as by then NZ may well be the fastest growing economy in the OECD with rising employment and great prospects but the public are gullible. They can be bought for the price of a KFC six pack.
    Keep strong. 4 losers can still beat one clear winner. Greens +Labour+Winston First+ Mana could form a strong and stable centre-left coalition. That’s the government that NZ wants surely? the only question is how to share out the portfolios?

    • blue leopard 20.1
      30 October 2012 at 11:07 pm

      “Admittedly it may be tough in 2014 as by then NZ may well be the fastest growing economy in the OECD with rising employment and great prospects”

      …at which time I trust that purple and pink polka dotted unicorns will be flying too 😀

    • Craig Glen Eden 20.2
      31 October 2012 at 8:34 am

      “Admittedly it may be tough in 2014 as by then NZ may well be the fastest growing economy in the OECD with rising employment”

      Fisiani still believing in Shonkeys brighter future? = GULLIBLE

  21. peterlepaysan 21
    31 October 2012 at 1:11 am

    If the LP cannot figure out how to get a lot of non voting electors to tick it does not understand very much about politics.

    Caucus is a very long way away from the electorate.

    No electorate = no caucus. A simple equation that a lot of caucus members do not seem to understand.

    We all know that the NP stands for Wall Street values, Hawaiian values, Hollywood values.

    WHAT THE HELL DOES THE NEW ZEALAND LABOUR PARTY STAND FOR?

    san fairy ann

  22. Frank Macskasy 22
    2 November 2012 at 9:07 pm

    *sighs*

    From the jaws of victory, they snatched defeat…

  23. Takere 23
    3 November 2012 at 9:32 am

    The ABC’ers are right. C*%$lifes name is bad enough let alone his prejudice he shows towards Maori & Pacific Island people who are the backbone of the Latte/Labour party. The working class deserve better than this for all the years they’ve supported the party as well as giving their vote which has been taken for granted. Time for the factions to get over themselves and put the Working Classes needs ahead of their own! For f*$ksake!!

    • blue leopard 23.1
      3 November 2012 at 2:57 pm

      @Takere,

      What prejudice has he shown toward Maori and Pacific Island people?

      • Takere 23.1.1
        4 November 2012 at 6:43 pm

        August 2012. NDU/First Union members meeting. they were all pretty shocked & upset many left part way through.

        • blue leopard 23.1.1.1
          7 November 2012 at 12:34 am

          belated response to Takere,
          I haven’t got enough info to really understand where you are coming from, (have tried to google, yet come up with nothing) From the face of what you say,and to be frank, it doesn’t sound great. Is Mr Shearer any better? I can’t imagine many politicians from either party are particularly enlightened in this way, …although I guess some are better than others. I can imagine there are “attitudes” toward Maori & Pacific people, workers and poorer people on both sides of the divide. This certainly seems to be the case at present.
          It will be good for all of us when NZ gets over its seriously stifling attitudes.

          • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1.1
            7 November 2012 at 1:00 am

            Sounds like utter bull shit to me, bl. Takere has no credentials and has given no details. Assertions are made about some union meeting but Takere gives zero details about anything of substance or why people walked out.

            What I do know: Cunliffe gets along bloody well with the Maori and Pasifika communities of his own electorate and is well regarded by them.

            They helped to *increase* his majority in 2011, one of only a few Labour electorates to do so.

            • Saarbo 23.1.1.1.1.1
              7 November 2012 at 11:08 am

              Takere is talking crap, he couldnt be further from the truth. why are all of the negative things we hear about Cunliffe based on rumour?

              • blue leopard …
                7 November 2012 at 10:53 pm

                Cheers CV & Saarbo,

                I thought it might be bull at first, (see 23.4 below) then having gotten a response I thought perhaps it wasn’t.

                Good to hear he has good relations with Maori & Pasifika communities in his own electorate. As I said in response to Takere; I wouldn’t be surprised if there were issues in this regard amongst politicians; particularly those in the largest parties.

                • sarrbo …
                  8 November 2012 at 12:08 pm

                  Ta BL. Further to my comment re all negative comments about cunliffe being based on rumours. The other point to make is that so much of the anti cunliffe comments are currently coming from people associated with other political parties (and they seem to be really turning the heat up at the moment), i.e: Willie Jackson (Mana) Matt Mc Carten (Mana) Hooten (National and Act) His name slips me but the over weight political guy on TV3 (National) and the list goes on. The worry is that these people do have an impact on peoples views and most people are not aware of their agendas.

                  But after watching parliment yesterday, the most deserate to ensure cunliffe doesnt become leader is bill english and the rest of the national party, I wonder why???

            • Takere 23.1.1.1.1.2
              8 November 2012 at 2:40 pm

              No CV, I was there at the meeting and observed and payed close attention to all that was going on at that meeting. Fact.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                8 November 2012 at 2:56 pm

                Sweet, Takare, give us the details then and I’ll ring a mate in the First Union to confirm you aren’t making this up. I’ll post the results here ASAP.

                Edit: rather than wait for Takere, I’ve made a couple of enquiries … nada, nothing, never happened.

                • Jim Nald …
                  9 November 2012 at 12:27 am

                  ‘Takere’ on TS smacks of the supposedly clever modus operandi of phoning into a talkback radio show pretending to be an unemployed Maori called Hone!

                  This is a move like that attempted by a Natz politician with another fellow Natz some years ago.

                  Sheesh.

                • Takere …
                  9 November 2012 at 2:10 pm

                  Rubbish Te Reo. Try asking Robert Reid. or Syd Keepa or even C*$tlife himself.

                  • McFlock …
                    9 November 2012 at 2:20 pm

                    You made a vague assertion. Be specific. You claim to have been there: what happened?

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    9 November 2012 at 2:52 pm

                    Did you miss the bit where I said I made a couple of calls, Takere? Give me some details and I’ll call again, but as it stands, you seem to be full of it, because no senior official at First Union currently backs your claim.

                    • Takere …
                      9 November 2012 at 6:49 pm

                      Te. Your obviously talking to the arse ….. because if you know the “Officials” at First you’d recognise the names. Dipshit.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 November 2012 at 7:29 pm

                      Details Takere. Details. Let’s have them.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      9 November 2012 at 8:07 pm

                      Takere. You are lying.  I’ve made the effort to find out if there is any truth in what you say, and there is none. Your allegation is so weak you can’t even tell us when this incident happened, despite you paying “close attention”.
                       
                      That deliberate misspelling of Cunliffe’s name marks you as just another Whale blowhole, I’m afraid. Put up or shut up, creep.

                  • mickysavage …
                    9 November 2012 at 7:34 pm

                    Takere I know many of the people involved and I have never heard about this.  Are you Matthew Hooton?

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 November 2012 at 12:54 am

                No CV, I was there at the meeting and observed and payed close attention to all that was going on at that meeting. Fact.

                seems like you are a little disingenuous fraud

          • KhandallaMan 23.1.1.1.2
            7 November 2012 at 11:27 pm

            Takere is a “first time caller”.  The name has never been used  before.  He/she is a fiction writer.  

            Cunliffe had 6000 voters over the party votes in New Lynn: have a look at the profile. Cunliffe engages well across the board.  He is phenominally popular there.  

            New Lynn profile

            [lprent: fixed link. ]
             

    • Colonial Viper 23.2
      3 November 2012 at 3:30 pm

      Actually Takere, the thing which is bad about Cunliffe is his lack of support for Martian Equal Rights. Also I’m pretty sure he denies the Roswell UFO incident. But you’d have to ask him.

    • just saying 23.3
      3 November 2012 at 4:24 pm

      Shearer went to school with kids from Otara. Then once he turned twenty he voted National. This was the time when National was deliberately vilifying Pacific people to win the Pakeha vote. The dawn raids happened around this time under the government he supported. And lest you think he might have been the victim of peer pressure, his electorate was overwhelmingly Labour at that time.

      Just saying….

      • Frank Macskasy 23.3.1
        8 November 2012 at 9:23 pm

        JS – Since the ballott is secret, how do you know how Shearer voted? Did he tell you? Were you standing beside him?

        • just saying 23.3.1.1
          8 November 2012 at 10:01 pm

          He said so. Publicly.

          • Frank Macskasy 23.3.1.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 12:21 am

            …

            Ok… go on. Don’t keep us in suspense.

            • just saying 23.3.1.1.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 7:44 am

              There is no suspense Frank, Shearer saying he voted National when he left school was discussed here at the time he said it. It was during one of the longer interviews not long after he became leader. If you really are interested, the search engine will give the link. Unfortunately, there would be a thousand hits for ‘Shearer votes national’ because the search cant be refined to “includes all the words”, and “together”, and I haven’t got that amount of time right now.

              The rest I know because I was at primary school about 500 metres away when Shearer was at High School. And the vicious racism I saw every day still enrages me, as it did then.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                9 November 2012 at 8:42 am

                In fact, I did carry out a search using the parameters “David Shearer voted National”. (Quote marks used)

                The result was: ‘ No results found for “David Shearer voted National”. ‘

                Also tried “David Shearer votes National”.

                Same result.

                Your call.

                • Bill …
                  9 November 2012 at 9:05 am

                  @ Frank

                  Shearer did indeed vote National the first time he was eligible to vote. He himself said so in some ‘Who is David Shearer’ type piece in the msm after becoming leader. The same piece (from memory) reported on the mango peel story. I don’t think there was a specific ‘standard’ post done on that fact, but it was certainly commented on in threads and I believe I might have reiterated the fact in one of my posts somewhere – although I can’t say so for certain.

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    9 November 2012 at 9:25 am

                    I’ve searched for “Who is David Shearer” and found these two items. Nothing referring to him voting National.

                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6131377/Who-is-David-Shearer

                    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/david-shearer-4635020

                    I’ve searched for >david shearer voted national mango peel< and found no reference to him voting National.

                    This should not be that difficult to prove and the only conclusion is that no such event occurred.

                    (And even if it did, so what? I was much more right wing in my younger days and I voted for Social Credit. Pffft! People change, become wiser as they grow older, and look back in dismay at some of the dumber things we did in our youth.)

                    Anyway, I look forward to any evidence you can present to us. Otherwise, this looks pretty much like an amateurish smear job…

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      9 November 2012 at 9:34 am

                      Voted for Social Credit as a kid, too. Helped Bruce Beetham win Rangitikei. Before that, I was a teenage tory. That’s not unusual at all (I think LPrent once shyly admitted the same failing!) and there is a whole tranche of future lefty activists whose first vote was for John Key in 2008. Smile and wave fades fast, thankfully.
                       
                      I’d have to say, I don’t regret stopping the Nats winning that seat back then, nor do I regret electorate voting Green in Coromandel for the same reason. Both tactical votes and both succesful. But it’s been two ticks Labour every other time.
                       
                      If Shearer voted nat as a teenager, it’s a big ‘meh’.

                  • RedLogix …
                    9 November 2012 at 9:28 am

                    People change, become wiser as they grow older, and look back in dismay at some of the dumber things we did in our youth.

                    Hell I voted ACT once …

                • just saying …
                  9 November 2012 at 9:11 am

                  I’d love to know how you were able to refine the search to just bring up the three words where they appear together. When I typed in Sheaer voting national, I got every item in which those three words appeared separately.

                  I haven’t got time now, but I will dig up the reference when I have.

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    9 November 2012 at 9:25 am

                    I look forward to it.

                    • just saying …
                      9 November 2012 at 9:36 pm

                      For the meantime I concede defeat and withdraw my statement that Shearer said he voted National when he left school.

                      I’ve read thousands and thousands of words, but I can’t find the article in which those words were spoken, and I can’t stand to read another sentence in puruit of the link. It was a long time and hundreds of thousand of words ago.

                      Under the circumstances, I won’t reply to TRP and Redlogix until I can provide the link. However, my argument relates to a whole pattern over a long period of time, of which this was just one piece. I agree (if Shearer did in fact vote Nat as a young man) that that single action is insignificant in and of itself, the significance, as I saw it, was part of a bigger picture.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      9 November 2012 at 10:29 pm

                      No harm, no foul, js. Never doubted you were genuine in your belief. Not everything is on the net and it’s not that unlikely a scenario anyway.

                  • weka …
                    9 November 2012 at 10:19 pm

                    Google is fairly useless now that they’ve removed the + option. You’d think by this stage in the interwebs we’d have much more sophisticated search engines.

    • blue leopard 23.4
      3 November 2012 at 5:15 pm

      ….I am smelling a lot of Nat Party PR spin people popping up on The Standard over the last week or so.

  24. Tracey 24
    9 November 2012 at 8:50 am

    Have wondered a little about that too blue leopard… just cos we are paranoid doesn’t mean their spinmeisters arent everywhere… as expounded int he bruce jesson lecture a few weeks ago.

  25. Caleb 25
    12 November 2012 at 1:11 pm

    It’s becoming more and more obvious that “Anyone but Cunliffe” effectively means “Key rather than Cunliffe”. It’s disgraceful that any Labour MPs are able to get away with this kind of treason to their party and their (apparent) ideals in the name of petty personal conflicts and grudges… let alone a faction that’s able to control the whole caucus.