Join now to elect a leader

Written By: - Date published: 10:37 pm, September 29th, 2014 - 162 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

Labour’s leadership rules state that if you want to have a vote in this leadership election you need to be a paid-up member by Wednesday 1 October, 11.59pm.

https://www.labourparty.org.nz/join

If you want to have your say in who we hope to be the next PM of NZ, make sure you click the link above and pay your membership.

162 comments on “Join now to elect a leader ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Richard 1
    30 September 2014 at 7:01 am

    yeah, I joined a week ago, still they didn’t take the money and I heard nothing back from them. RE CC transaction.

    labour are so useless at the moment if you throw money at them they don’t even want it. Is that why they are broke?

    • Chris 1.1
      30 September 2014 at 10:23 am

      Labour is beyond repair. Join the Greens. We could make the Greens one of the main two parties like in some European countries. The Left could set up a progressive party to support the Greens, and Labour can be left to die a natural death. They’re certainly doing a great job of helping that along right now.

      • Naki man 1.1.1
        30 September 2014 at 3:24 pm

        Chris you might be right. I can see Greens or NZ First becoming the second biggest Party in NZ.

    • Ronnie Chow 1.2
      30 September 2014 at 1:51 pm

      Labour should have retired at the end of the Lange/Douglas years, because what it has morphed into is no longer the party of the workers. What they are arguing over now is which group has the rights to the branding.

    • mickysavage 1.3
      30 September 2014 at 8:42 pm

      No secret, the Labour Party is under resourced. There is a very good staff member trying to handle the surge of new membership applications that have occurred. Be patient please.

  2. b waghorn 2
    30 September 2014 at 7:46 am

    They should have a bank no as I don’t do credit cards so can not join on line.

  3. Te Reo Putake 3
    30 September 2014 at 8:30 am

    Richard and b Waghorn, if you have any difficulties, then please email via the contact page. http://campaign.labour.org.nz/contact-us

    Richard, I’m not sure what happened with your attempt. Either the CC transaction was processed or it wasn’t. Either way, you get an immediate notification of success or failure. Could I suggest you give it another try?

    And a word to readers generally; only one more full day to get signed up if you want to send a message to the dinosaurs in caucus. And please, please please, use the monthly option if you can afford it. Think of all those rowing boats you saw in the last week of the campaign. National have shitloads of dosh to throw at their campaigns. We don’t. But you can make the difference.

    • Richard 3.1
      30 September 2014 at 10:27 pm

      I got continuous membership email. an thanks for joining and saying a membership card will be sent, but I’m pretty sure the CC card transaction didn’t occur when I looked at my bank account. and I have heard nothing more via email or letter, leading me to the impression I can’t throw money at them they don’t want to take it, 🙂

      All good, I had assumed, they may not process new members until after the leadership debate, and was being more humorous than factual.

  4. Rosie 4
    30 September 2014 at 8:50 am

    Time’s running out.

    But folks, I still have a little quandary going on. I’ve never been a member of a political party. I’d rather be an aloof observer and be independent in regard to any political activities I get involved in. The only reason I would be joining the Labour Party is to vote for David Cunliffe, therefore my membership isn’t entirely sincere and doesn’t show a commitment to the party itself (even if I was 100% behind the policies announced prior to the election).

    Secondly, if, god forbid, DC lost I wouldn’t be at all happy about being associated with a party that may choose to go down a path that I couldn’t walk. If that happened, I guess, you just “suck it up”?

    Over thinking it?

    (Just as well they have an unwaged option, I see)

    • weka 4.1
      30 September 2014 at 9:33 am

      yes, overthinking it 😉

      Can you resign your membership later if you want to?

    • Chris 4.2
      30 September 2014 at 10:29 am

      Yes, voting for David Cunliffe doesn’t show much commitment to the party at all. Those who are committed to the party should be helping Labour to look outside for someone to lead them. National did that with Brash after English’s appalling effort in 2002 and nearly won in 2005. Sticking with the same tired old faces just reminds everyone of failure.

      • Rosie 4.2.1
        30 September 2014 at 10:55 am

        What I am committed to Chris, is Labour winning 2017 with Cunliffe as leader. It’s Cunliffe or bust as far the Labour party goes. He’s hardly a tired old face, he’s the face of change.

        • Chris 4.2.1.1
          30 September 2014 at 11:01 am

          I think he could be, too, but a political party is bigger than one person, and Cunliffe doesn’t have the support of the caucus full-stop. That won’t change. You only need to look at who the few Labour MPs who were returned are. They were publicly at each others throats straight after the election! And while they’ve been told to settle down Mallard’s gone public saying he won’t! How can Cunliffe credibly lead with all this going on?

          • Rosie 4.2.1.1.1
            30 September 2014 at 11:50 am

            Sure a party is bigger than one person Chris, but when a group or organisation is weak it does take someone strong who can unify a splintered group and rebuild it. Cunliffe has those leadership qualities.
            Those ABCer’s can like it or lump it, and they don’t make up the entire caucus, so why are paying so much attention to them? Cunliffe’s support is with the membership and unions. I’m more interested in them and their hopes than the hopes of the self serving few who behave like spoilt brats.

            • Chris 4.2.1.1.1.1
              30 September 2014 at 2:59 pm

              “Those ABCer’s can like it or lump it, and they don’t make up the entire caucus, so why are paying so much attention to them?”

              Because with a caucus constantly undermining the leader the party’s stuffed. It would be different if Cunliffe won the leadership again and the caucus were united under him (i.e. they like it) or if the ABCers buggered off (i.e. they lump it) but neither will happen which means the party will be stuffed under Cunliffe. Because of this it just doesn’t matter how good Cunliffe might be.

              • Puddleglum …
                30 September 2014 at 8:59 pm

                There’s a bit of a ‘moral hazard’ problem with your suggestion, Chris.

                It seems you’re saying that because people are deliberately undermining – and would continue to deliberately undermine – Cunliffe then he should not be voted for.

                Presumably, then, the lesson to be learned by the non-ABCers is to constantly undermine any ABC leader who might eventuate because that would mean that, come the inevitable loss or poor polling, the ABC leader would have to resign because if they didn’t they would be constantly undermined. And, I guess, you would be one who would be making that case?

                Similarly, those in the broader party who do not support the new ABC leader should also take the lesson that they should do their best to undermine the ABC leader?

                Giving in to undermining – i.e., ensuring that it is a successful strategy – is no way to solve undermining. You just encourage it as a successful strategy.

                A bit like allowing Dirty Politics to succeed.

                • blue leopard …
                  30 September 2014 at 9:03 pm

                  +100 Puddleglum

                • Treetop …
                  1 October 2014 at 11:52 am

                  Both Shearer and Cunliffe have been undermined.

                  The process used to elect the leader is what gives the result. Whether or not the result (elected leader) wins the election is up to the Labour caucus.

                  • Hanswurst …
                    1 October 2014 at 7:12 pm

                    What are the most serious examples of Shearer being undermined? I can think of several with Cunliffe, both before and after his becoming leader. Even cultivating the idea that there might be an ABC faction is an example of undermining him. With Shearer, the best I can come up with is the rather bizarre smoke-and-mirrors coverage of a purported coup-attempt against him at the 2012 conference, for which almost no evidence was produced, and which as a result looks more like a case of pre-emptively undermining Cunliffe.

              • Lan …
                1 October 2014 at 8:26 pm

                If David Cunliffe is committed and competent enough to work with a major consulting firm (not easy stuff) he should be given the chance to weather all this aggression and at least have another year. And apart from DavidParker (who is probably too mild, and too locally focused, and who has declined to stand anyway, twice) there is no decent/viable choice.

            • lurgee 4.2.1.1.1.2
              30 September 2014 at 4:07 pm

              Would you still be willing to maintain your membership if Cunliffe is not leader? If not, don’t join.

              It’s a democratic process electing the leader of the party and if you aren’t willing to accept the decision of the party, you’ve no business joining it. People doing that are simply trying to fix the result.

              I suspect they might often be the same people signing the ludicrous ‘recount’ petition and who are claiming the election was fixed …

              • Chooky …
                30 September 2014 at 6:47 pm

                -100 lurgee …dont bully people into not voting for their choice of leader who have worked hard for the Labour Party and vote Labour, as Rosie has

                you are trying to subvert the democratic process

                • lurgee …
                  30 September 2014 at 7:42 pm

                  She asked for advice about whether or not she should join. I provided advice.

                  If you are not willing to stick with the result of a democratically agreed decision, you have no business joining a party just to try to force the decision one way or another. People joining just to vote for any candidate are the ones really ‘subverting the democratic process.’ If you want to join a party, fine, but it is a commitment, and you shouldn’t be reigning just because your favoured candidate didn’t win. If your loyalty is that precarious, you shouldn’t be joining that party in the first place.

                  What if a horde of Nats joined up with the explicit intention of voting for Robertson? Would you be happy with that?

                  Don’t lie and say you would be.

                  • Hami Shearlie …
                    1 October 2014 at 4:52 pm

                    The party won’t be a true Labour Party if Cunliffe isn’t there to make the changes needed – it will be a stale entity full of toxic hasbeens on big money waiting to retire on big fat pensions. Major major changes are needed and frankly we need GRUNT, not Grant!

              • Rosie …
                30 September 2014 at 8:28 pm

                Fair point lurgee, that’s why I questioned my level of commitment to the party as a whole. But guess what, it’s too late! I’ve joined!

                Why? Because so much is at stake. David Cunliffe IS the right man, and something constructive has to done to turn the anti Cunliffe media tide and give the man a chance. He is the best chance, and if I can contribute towards him having that chance then I will.

                I’ve been voting Labour since 1993 and have voted for them every time except for 2008, when I voted Green (who I have a great deal of respect for and wanted to see in government alongside Labour after this election) This has been the very first time I have been actually excited by what Labour had to offer policy wise and who their leader was. The next logical step was to have a voice in the leadership decision.

            • Chooky 4.2.1.1.1.3
              30 September 2014 at 6:46 pm

              @ Rosie …you have done a lot of work for the Labour Party so join!…and vote for David Cunliffe if you want to …( you can always resign after the vote if you want)

              .( after-all the right wing want Grant Robertson…so QED !)

              I am encouraging people I know who vote Labour, but who are not members anymore to rejoin…and vote for whom they want …namely David Cunliffe

              (they say they will vote Green if Cunliffe is not re-elected leader)

              • Rosie …
                30 September 2014 at 8:33 pm

                Kia Ora Aunty Chooky. Lols, after some thought, and after all the Ohariu related non party aligned activities (and a little of the party related activities….) I figured why on earth not eh?!

                And like your friends, I will be Party voting Green in 2017 if DC isn’t elected.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  1 October 2014 at 1:09 am

                  Welcome to the party 🙂

                  We’re going to make this a grand old party once again 😛

                  One with a real vision for how to get all Kiwis through a tough, but rewarding future 😀

            • Princess 4.2.1.1.1.4
              30 September 2014 at 10:10 pm

              I agree Rosie. I just completed my new membership because I want to support DC. It is disgraceful and disheartening the way the ‘beltways’ have been behaving.

            • DC for PM 4.2.1.1.1.5
              1 October 2014 at 12:57 am

              +100 Rosie! I feel exactly the same way as you do!

            • Rodel 4.2.1.1.1.6
              1 October 2014 at 5:18 pm

              Rosie..Well said! My sentiments too. Membership and unions support Cunliffe and Labour reciprocates- We’re not here for the self serving spoilt brats.

        • Ronnie Chow 4.2.1.2
          30 September 2014 at 1:54 pm

          That’s right , Rosie , change is all you’ll have left .

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2.1
            30 September 2014 at 3:30 pm

            For someone who pays lip service to the concerns of workers you’re awfully short on detail and long on regurgitation of right wing faith speech.

            Let’s hear it champ, who are all these workers you pretend to speak for? Not me that’s for sure.

            [lprent: Ronnie won’t be answering for a while. Wrote a diversion comment off-topic in a post and caught a 16 week ban. ]

            • Rob 4.2.1.2.1.1
              30 September 2014 at 4:37 pm

              So you are a quantum mechanics worker OAB?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                30 September 2014 at 8:27 pm

                Choice. It’s not often you come across such a well-constructed lie.

                Rob is referring to my recent citation of Quantum Mechanics as explaining the observed behaviour of GHGs.

                My question is: does the poor cretin think that only Physicists can cite Physics, or does the malevolent ratfucker want to stifle debate without the heavy lifting required to counter the argument?

                Ronnie claims to speak for “workers”. I don’t. Rob’s drivel is drivel, and quite likely offered in bad faith.

                Why do so many right wingers resemble dishonest trash? Is it a coincidence, or a pattern?

        • Mark 4.2.1.3
          30 September 2014 at 7:18 pm

          Rosie,
          Cunliffe can not lead the labour party to an election win because the voters nearer the centre of the political spectrum who decide elections (like it or not) do not rate him.

          He ran a bumbling ineffective election campaign, starting off by apologising for being a man, then being caught out not understanding the implications of his own capital gains tax policy and giving an explanation that gave the average kiwi the clear inference that he was reintroducing inheritance tax then to cap it off he was seen to hang Kelvin Davis out to dry in his campaign to win Te Tai Tokerau (which Kelvin did despite Cunliffe rather then because of any support he received from him) and that while trying to get past the fact that he is not media friendly. Despite the dirty politics scandal, the Dotcom fiasco and sacking his minister of Justice Key remained far more comfortable in the media spotlight, more in touch with the average kiwi and he offered the electorate a more stable government. Labour offered a cobbled together group of the Greens, Labour, NZ First and potentially mana.

          I don’t support the election of Cunliffe or Robertson as I cant see either as a long term leadership solution. I would opt for either Nash or Adhern, despite their inexperience it is time to freshen the front bench, get rid of the acrimony and put someone in charge who has at least half a dogs show of making the next election a contest.

          • Rosie 4.2.1.3.1
            30 September 2014 at 8:14 pm

            Nah, I didn’t see it through the Paddy Gower lens, such as you have described Mark.

            For starters, re your “apologising for being a man”, I wrote to DC, thanking him for understanding the pain of an abused women and being sensitive and thoughtful about that issue, as a man. Are you aware of the full quote? If not let me know, I can provide it.

            As for the centre voters, isn’t it about time we had a real difference between the two main parties? Thats what DC can bring and that’s why the media and the right slag him off at every opportunity. “Centre” isn’t really working out for ordinary NZer’s.

            • DC for PM 4.2.1.3.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 1:04 am

              I get so sick of hearing people say that elections are won in the centre. Isn’t that just code for “make your party more right-wing”?

              Goddammit, what about the missing 900,000 voters? Can’t we be a little bit more ambitious and try to reconnect with them as well? I’m sure most of them would love to feel a sense of hope again.

              I’m not saying ignore this mythical “centre” altogether (does anyone know who they are?), but pinning all your hopes for the Labour Party on them is never going to work out, because National and NZ First will always out-do Labour in the centre.

              • Colonial Viper …
                1 October 2014 at 1:12 am

                More like missing 1.1M voters. Don’t forget those not enrolled. It’s massive. Fewer than 1 in 6 adult Kiwis voted for the Labour Party. 170K under 30s not even enrolled. Shit has to change.

              • lurgee …
                1 October 2014 at 1:43 am

                If they didn’t show up in 2008, 2011 or 2014 I’m guessing they aren’t going to show up. If National attacking their quality of life didn’t get them to a polling booth, what the Hell can we offer them that will?

              • Matthew Hooton …
                1 October 2014 at 8:18 pm

                The centre are people whose voting record since 1984 has been Lange, Lange, Bolger, Bolger, Bolger, Clark, Clark, Clark, Key, Key, Key.

                • SPC …
                  1 October 2014 at 9:06 pm

                  Not everyone of the centre votes the same way.

                  And in 1993 Bolger would have lost under MMP – only a split of the opposition vote between Labour and Alliance under FPP kept him in office.

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    2 October 2014 at 6:05 am

                    Yes, I think you are probably right. The classic pattern (and I accept this is all just generalisation) might be more like: Lange, Lange, Bolger, Moore, Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark, Key, Key, Key.

              • Naki man …
                1 October 2014 at 8:23 pm

                What makes you guys think that all non voters are labour supporters.
                In the past there has been elections that I did not voted in, that was because I did not like any of the parties. I think if the non voters liked a party they would vote. Most people I hear talking hate Cunners. So you are shit out of luck if you think they will all vote Labour.

                • GregJ …
                  2 October 2014 at 7:27 am

                  Actually we’ve covered this before – see here.

                  However no one is suggesting that “all” non-voters are Labour supporters or even “left” supporters. There is though fairly extensive literature that show who those non-voters tend to be:

                  *More non-voters in younger age group
                  *People with inadequate income less likely to vote
                  *Unemployed people were less likely to vote compared with employed people and those not in the labour force.
                  *Recent migrants less likely to vote than long-term migrants

                  It’s not unreasonable to infer that those people have traditionally had a tendency to vote left and the literature and studies tend to bear that out.

                  Certainly it would not be inaccurate to say that these people predominantly come from Labour’s original constituency.

            • Mark 4.2.1.3.1.2
              1 October 2014 at 9:07 am

              Rosie the full quote on apologising for being a man is completely irrelevant. He created a ridiculous sound bite that simply turned voters off. It is a very good example of his lack media understanding. As for Centre isn’t working out for most NZ’s, Rosie its where the votes are that change governments. Some of this is about policy decisions that turned voters off such as CGT and a back door inheritance tax but much of it is about communication and delivering the message and how proposed policies will positively impact on middle NZ. That comes down to Cunliffe’s inability to communicate those effectively; he simply didn’t have the ability to get those key messages across.

              • KJT …
                1 October 2014 at 9:54 am

                Didn’t matter what he says. The right wing press will murder anyone who says anything about breaking the Neo-Liberal consensus that has destroyed the lives of so many Kiwi’s.

              • Rosie …
                1 October 2014 at 9:57 am

                Mark, I have written a very long and considered reply to you but it has disappeared and I don’t have time to rewrite it, as I have to head off now Very frustrating.

              • Tautoko Viper …
                2 October 2014 at 7:46 am

                I have felt embarrassed to be a Pakeha when I understood some of the injustices done to Māori. I am ashamed of the human race in the inhumane way that some of my species treat animals.
                It seems to me that there are many people who have a very limited sphere of empathy for anybody other than themselves and perhaps their immediate family and friends. It is this disconnect that enables them to vote for policies which largely ignore the plight of others who are struggling. Max Rashbrooke explained that as communities divided into monocultural or narrow range socioeconomic groups which rarely intermingle, there is a lessening of empathy and understanding of others.
                Mark and the others who have made much of a truncated Cunliffe quote taken out of context need to realise that this fact says more about the type of people they are (self-centred and short on compassion) than David Cunliffe. People with compassion know exactly where David was coming from when he made that statement.

            • boldsirbrian 4.2.1.3.1.3
              2 October 2014 at 7:08 am

              @ Rosie (4.2.1.3.1)

              For starters, re your “apologising for being a man”, I wrote to DC, thanking him for understanding the pain of an abused women and being sensitive and thoughtful about that issue, as a man.

              I wonder if at the same time you “apologised for being a woman” showing an understanding of the pain of men who are also abused or falsely accused of abuse, and being sensitive and thoughtful about that issue, as a woman?

              I’m not actually wondering very hard.

  5. weka 5
    30 September 2014 at 9:35 am

    So is the vote open to all new members? I thought last time it was restricted to members that had joined by a prior date, presumably to avoid the possibility of people joining just so they can vote.

    Is there not the risk of hijacking?

    • Te Reo Putake 5.1
      30 September 2014 at 9:58 am

      The vote is open to members as of midnight tomorrow, weka. Take the chance to make a difference.

      • Rosie 5.1.1
        30 September 2014 at 10:26 am

        What is the process for voting TRP? Do members get sent ballot papers via postal mail?

        • Te Reo Putake 5.1.1.1
          30 September 2014 at 11:41 am

          Good question! The last leadership election I attended a regional meeting where the 3 candidates spoke and if I remember correctly, I voted there and then. However, the process may be different this time. One thing I’m sure about is that every effort will be made to give every party member an opportunity to vote. If I can found out more about the mechanics of it, I’ll post again.

          • Rosie 5.1.1.1.1
            30 September 2014 at 11:54 am

            Cheers TRP. I’m sure what ever the process members will be informed.

            I think I heard on RNZ yesterday that the party will announce a voting date this coming Thursday. Bring it on!

        • Hami Shearlie 5.1.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 4:58 pm

          Last time I voted online!

      • weka 5.1.2
        30 September 2014 at 11:36 am

        Sorry, am a member of the GP which means I can’t join another party. Otherwise would be in.

        • Mark 5.1.2.1
          30 September 2014 at 2:53 pm

          If the party impose Cunliffe on Caucus there is going to be 3 years of death by a thousand cuts as the Caucus members are never likely to support him as leader.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1
            30 September 2014 at 3:04 pm

            Target those caucus members for de-selection, 2016.

            • Hami Shearlie 5.1.2.1.1.1
              30 September 2014 at 5:44 pm

              The ancient/stale ABC brigade should have been politely ejected years ago – they can’t support a boss who is not their choice and are therefore very unprofessional, they’ve got far too comfortable with the big pay packet. They seem to love being in opposition, still on big money and so much less work to do – no-one else wants them so they stay, like a big wet blanket around the party – I think David Cunliffe is a victim of the Tall Poppy syndrome – jealousy is a very destructive thing! Frankly who they “like” is of no interest to Party members – they should just shut their traps, knuckle under and DO THEIR JOBS! People in the outside “real” world seem to manage it!

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 September 2014 at 5:56 pm

                Yep.

              • Mark …
                30 September 2014 at 7:00 pm

                Your problem is that the ABC is by far the biggest group in caucus and in the main have won electorate seats. That suggests two things, one they are going to be very difficult to move on if they decide not to go as you can bet they have the backing of their local electorate committee and secondly the way the voting went may give you a clue that the party line was unpopular whereas the ABC caucus members managed to retain their seats. This of course begs the blindingly obvious question “who needs to change?”

                • lprent …
                  30 September 2014 at 7:04 pm

                  Actually no. The number of hardline ABC’s are actually quite a small percentage of caucus.

                  The majority of caucus are probably the “for myself” faction – including some of the Cunliffe side.

                  The problem is that lot of them have a vast personal over-rating of their experience and capabilities. Robertson in my opinion currently is the leader in that. Although Stuart Nash and David Shearer are also candidates for that title. The all-time contender, Shane Jones, has left the scene.

                  The real issue is that if you let a novice into the leaders position without first having had some idea of the task from doing a senior ministerial role or some solid ministerial backing, then they will either screw up the leadup to the election (I still shudder at how Shearer would have done on the campaign trail), or they will screw up a victory as PM.

                  John Key had some solid support behind him in the form of his deputy and the effective party organization that runs the MPs (rather than being spat on by the MPs as happens at present in Labour).

                  What there is in reality, is a dearth of MPs “for the party” in actions rather than vacuous mouthing of the ritualistic phrases (the ones that Robertson appears to be so fond of).

                  • Mark …
                    30 September 2014 at 7:28 pm

                    Iprent, Shearer could not have done any worse on the campaign trail that Cunliffe did. Cunliffe was dire in this campaign but what absolutely capped it off for me was that John Key got in behind Kelvin Davis before Cunliffe did. How the hell could that happen, even Winston beat Cunliffe to the punch here. That was unforgivable for a Labour leader. Sure Key and Peters were politicking but Cunliffe left the door wide open

                    I will agree with you that Robertson is not a long term leadership option either. To me I would let the youngsters loose and accept 2017 is unlikely or perhaps Andrew Little who has to appeal to the left and the Unions yet will not be an anathema to the middle NZ average voter with one of the younger brigade – Adhern, Nash or perhaps Davis as deputy

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 September 2014 at 7:49 pm

                      I would do this, I would do that, and then this would happen, and that would happen…”

                      Sound like the drivel we hear from Rogernomes, “If the market were only free, cleaners would be paid more…” and other Quisling lies.

                    • lprent …
                      30 September 2014 at 8:23 pm

                      Shearer could not have done any worse on the campaign trail that Cunliffe did.

                      We probably won’t ever know as I suspect that he will be kept as far away from his weaknesses as possible from here on out.

                      However he was still muffing his lines and being unable to think on his feet as recently as this weekend. Really badly. As far as I can tell he shows a complete inability to lose that trait. I have this strange preconception that one of the prerequisites of a leader in a TV orientated world is to be able to speak fluently and adaptively. Why don’t you?

                      Similarly he completely misread the effect of his bene-bashing on his own party. Essentially he was trying to talk to the more dull-minded sloganeering part of NZ, and managed to lose the leadership because he deeply offended damn near everyone on the left including most of his party members (with the exception of the Paganis). The reason why? As far as I can tell he goes out of his way to avoid most of them, certainly all of the ones who’d be critical of him.

                      Finally, he has displayed a pretty good inability to understand the requirements of on-the-ground campaigning. That is my assessment and that of a number of other old-hands who have done that for decades in the Mt Albert electorate. At present he is cruising on the back of the extraordinary canvassing of the by-election in 2009 when something like 50% of the electorate was canvassed and the decades of previous concentrated hard work. But god help us if National ever put up decent candidates for a few elections.

                    • susannact …
                      1 October 2014 at 6:43 pm

                      Sorry Mark, that’s not true about John Key getting in before Dc re Kelvin Davis. Right from the get go, DC was clear about contesting TTT and supporting KD in doing this.

                  • Judge Holden …
                    30 September 2014 at 8:22 pm

                    “The majority of caucus are probably the “for myself” faction”

                    Whereas Cunliffe is a selfless man of the people. Get real.

                    “lot of them have a vast personal over-rating of their experience and capabilities. Robertson in my opinion currently is the leader in that.”

                    Cunliffe thinks he can win an election having just led the Labour Party to its worst result in almost a century. Stop with the spinning, you’re not good at it.

                    • lprent …
                      30 September 2014 at 8:44 pm

                      Whereas Cunliffe is a selfless man of the people.

                      Ah, did I say that? What a silly moranic thing to for you to say. It is the height of stupidity to read more into words than is actually said. But you do seem to be pretty damn stupid.

                      Clearly you didn’t read the crucial part of my comment. It was about experience and backing.

                      Cunliffe is merely the best of the available candidates because of his experience. Apart from probably Phil Goff or Annette – neither of whom seem to want it. Or Mallard who has impulse control issues. Or possibly Parker, who’d need a lot of work to get rid of the diffidence.

                      At present I can’t see *any* experience backing candidates like Robertson or Nash. I can for Shearer, but I simply think he is untrainable.

              • Rosie …
                30 September 2014 at 8:35 pm

                Nicely put Hami Shearlie

            • Chooky 5.1.2.1.1.2
              30 September 2014 at 6:51 pm

              +100 CV and Hami Shearlie…they are the tail of the dog

          • Princess 5.1.2.1.2
            30 September 2014 at 10:18 pm

            Your comment explains exactly why the Labour Party is so fractured and was unable to pull votes at the election. Disloyalty, disrespect for the leader, disrespect for Labour voters and members, loose mouths, distaste for team work, etc etc. People I have spoken with are regretting giving their vote for Labour.

  6. paddy 6
    30 September 2014 at 10:23 am

    My vote is for Cunliffe and that’s why I joined. Robertson is a Party Vote loser, a third place reject in Wellington Central.

    • Chris 6.1
      30 September 2014 at 10:34 am

      They’re all unfit to lead. Cunliffe could lead but the party’s hell-bent on undermining him. How can Labour overcome that? Even if the caucus swore total allegiance to Cunliffe after the contest, which they would of course, the ABCers would work against him. And even if they don’t the high risk would always be there and that’s no way to run a political party.

    • lurgee 6.2
      30 September 2014 at 4:10 pm

      If that means anything, you won’t be voting for Cunliffe either, who also lost the party vote in his electorate and has halved his majority since 2005.

      In 2005 Cunliffe polled almost 50% party vote. Now he’s barely scraping 35% …

      At least Robertson has managed to prove his appeal to his constituents, even if his party has not.

      • lprent 6.2.1
        30 September 2014 at 5:27 pm

        *sigh* What a dumbarse analysis.

        There have been two boundary changes since 2005 in 2007 and 2013. Being Auckland and at the edge of the isthmus, they are pretty major. In the case of New Lynn, from memory, they gave up the lucrative Avondale area to Mt Albert in 2007 or was that in 2002? Since the electorate got reformed in 2002 have at various times had large chunks exchanged with Mt Roskill, Mt Albert, Waitakere, and now Kelston.

        To have any hope of validity, you need to do a polling booth analysis (as inaccurate as those are in Auckland) *after* the specials are in. That is because many people in Auckland don’t vote in their electorates. They vote at polling booths on the main roads heading somewhere. The specials will probably be at the end of this coming week.

        But really all that I have to say is that you’d have to be bonkers to make a decision on that basis for any electorate in Auckland.

        • lurgee 6.2.1.1
          30 September 2014 at 6:59 pm

          *Sigh* you overlook my subtle point, oh King of Cats. The analysis to which I was responding is every bit as dumbarse. Bleating about Robertson’s supposedly lamentable performance in Central Wellington ignores any changes made since 2005 (I know Wadestown was moved into Ohariu, dunno what other changes may have been made over the years, or what impact they might have had, but I bet others don’t either), the fact it is an urban electorate so probably has a fluid population, the fact it has been targeted by the Greens sniffing about for urban-liberal votes, and the fact that Robertson has increased his majority, in the face of the declining popularity of his party.

          If CV, Rhinocrates and paddy are going to repeat their lazy analysis, I’ll respond with mine. Go *sigh* at them.

          • lprent 6.2.1.1.1
            30 September 2014 at 8:51 pm

            I didn’t look at the conversation because your comment wasn’t a reply. But I’ll take your work for it.

            I suspect that the demographic and boundary movements in Wellington are an order of magnitude less than the isthmus and near West in Auckland.

            The only vaguely useful analysis is booths for particular electorates. That isn’t particularly useful through much of Auckland based on my post election Mt Albert analysis in 2002/2005 on where people actually voted compared to their addresses. Almost a third of them voted a long way away from their addresses.

          • GregJ 6.2.1.1.2
            30 September 2014 at 10:12 pm

            For Wellington Central no changes in 2002 (for the 2002 & 2005 elections). A minor change around Newtown/Wellington Hospital in 2007 (2008 election) – would have marginally affected Labour/Green votes (Greens more from memory). No change for 2011 election.

            Both the Wadestown booths (Wadestown School & St. Luke’s, Pitt Street) voted National by significant margins in 2011 (St. Lukes was more than twice the Labour vote and more than the combined Labour/Green vote). Theoretically Wadestown moving should have slightly improved the Labour party vote.

            Labour party vote fell from 43.35% (2005) to 34.57% (2008) to 25.56% (2011) to 23.85% (2014 – Provisional).

            Green Party Vote: 15.75% (2005); 20.62% (2008); 27.69% (2011); 27.98% (2014 – Provisional)

      • AmaKiwi 6.2.2
        1 October 2014 at 8:19 am

        ” Cunliffe lost the party vote in his electorate and has halved his majority since 2005.”

        Utter b.s. The 2014 boundary changes were dramatic. The New Lynn electorate lost large portions of Avondale and Kelston. New Lynn is now more likely a National seat.

  7. Blackcap 7
    30 September 2014 at 10:31 am

    Isn’t this system of voting a bit “silly” dare I say it. I considered becoming a member so that I could too have a vote…. for Nash, or Davis, of Jacinda or…. Grant. This is open to hijacking and does Labour no favours. Don’t worry, I am not joining and thus have no vote but the system is open to manipulation for the cost of a $20 donation (1 year membership “waged”)

    • Chris 7.1
      30 September 2014 at 11:03 am

      If you like what these four are about you’d probably be more at home in ACT.

    • Bob 7.2
      1 October 2014 at 11:52 am

      Blackcap, “Isn’t this system of voting a bit “silly” dare I say it. I considered becoming a member so that I could too have a vote…. for Nash, or Davis, of Jacinda or…. Grant”
      Not really, the way this “democratic process” is set up means that a Union Delegates vote is worth about 55 members votes, and a caucus vote is worth around twice as much again.
      This process really just pays lip service to the members while letting the Unions choose a leader (the caucus will be split between the leadership hopefuls so the Unions can conspire to place their choice at the top).
      It would take thousands of stooges all voting the same way to have any effect at all on the outcome.

  8. phillip ure 8
    30 September 2014 at 10:33 am

    i toyed with the idea..

    ..but i already belong to another political party..

    ..one not currently represented in parliament..

    ..but one that will be back..

    ..and the only party that has the policies that inspire me..

    ..so thanks..but no thanks..

    ..and/but for the future of the labour party..

    ..and the best chance for a progressive victory in 2017..

    ..i hope cunnliffe wins..

    ..i really do..

  9. Rosie 9
    30 September 2014 at 12:21 pm

    Right! it’s done!

    • Te Reo Putake 9.1
      30 September 2014 at 2:18 pm

      Good on ya, comrade! If you feel really keen, I’ll be your local branch or LEC would love to hear from you. It’s a labour of love 😉

      • Rosie 9.1.1
        30 September 2014 at 2:32 pm

        Aw! Niiiiiice song!

        Local branch members and I, are acquainted. Just a little more formally now 🙂

        • Te Reo Putake 9.1.1.1
          30 September 2014 at 3:26 pm

          Sweet, look forward to seeing you at the next conference. Cunliffe’s leader’s speech will be a cracker!

    • word 9.2
      30 September 2014 at 4:53 pm

      @Rosie. Feel the same as you do about it being David Cunliffe to lead the Labour party. I want to join Labour but I’m in a quandary on which option to go for, would appreciate any advise.

      • Chooky 9.2.1
        30 September 2014 at 7:01 pm

        @ word …take the $5 short term option

        ….then you can resign if it goes against what you want and you have only lost $5

        …the Labour Party caucus needs to know they are on notice from their grassroots voters

        • word 9.2.1.1
          30 September 2014 at 7:08 pm

          Thanks Chooky, that’s what I will do.

          • Akldnut 9.2.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 12:04 am

            Don’t listen to Chooky, take the first option.
            Build up member numbers, activists,combined skills…….etc.
            The National Party need to know they are on notice from Labours grassroots voters by increasing the above.

            • word 9.2.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

              @Akldnut. Too late, took Chooky’s advice and signed up last night, got a best friend to sign up as well. If David Cunliffe wins the leadership then I will see if I can change to the first option if that is allowed.

  10. Jesse 10
    30 September 2014 at 12:52 pm

    I am concerned about hijacking too. Seems to be plenty of money around to support the right wing cause, wouldn’t be too hard to rally the troops and get them joined up en masse to vote for Robertson. Even though I joined the Labour party on the weekend to have a vote, I think the cut off joining date for voting should have been the day before the election.

    • Stephen J 10.1
      30 September 2014 at 2:06 pm

      The constitution says that the cutoff date is the resignation date. Since DC resigned effective today, even though he announced earlier, that should be today. However NZ Council agreed on an extra day “for administrative purposes”, which does give people time to get paper membership forms sent in and that kind of thing.

    • Te Reo Putake 10.2
      30 September 2014 at 2:11 pm

      5500 members voted in the last leadership election. 3200 for Cunliffe. In order to rort the election, a least a thousand or so righties would have to pay $20 each to join. That’s quite a commitment, from quite a lot of people. And how would it be organised? And how would it be kept secret?

      And that’s just to alter the members’ 40% of the total vote. In order to negate the affiliates and Cunliffe supporters in caucus, the membership vote for Robertson would have to be close to unanimous.

      So, no, there will not be hijacking.

      • Jesse 10.2.1
        30 September 2014 at 3:25 pm

        I hope you are right. I would like to think the result, whatever it is, represents the will of the left. I am increasingly getting the uneasy feeling that the left is up against a huge right wing machine, possibly run from overseas given the unlimited funds the right seems to have, with great organizing power.

        • Te Reo Putake 10.2.1.1
          30 September 2014 at 3:30 pm

          Nah, it’s no right wing conspiracy. It’s just half a dozen over the hill hacks with more ego than ticker who think they know best what’s good for the party. A vote for DC is a vote of no confidence in the likes of Goff and Mallard. I’m mulling over a campaign to have term limits/rights of recall in time for the next conference. It’s time the members took responsibility for the team, not just the leader.

          • Jesse 10.2.1.1.1
            30 September 2014 at 3:44 pm

            Agree completely about the term limits/right of recall, I hope you succeed in your campaign. Labour wouldn’t be where it is now if it had been able to get rid of the now destructive long term troughers and bring in new talent.

            • Chooky 10.2.1.1.1.1
              30 September 2014 at 8:00 pm

              +100…”term limits/rights of recall”….probably one of the most important policies to be implimented

          • weka 10.2.1.1.2
            30 September 2014 at 4:21 pm

            “I’m mulling over a campaign to have term limits/rights of recall in time for the next conference. It’s time the members took responsibility for the team, not just the leader.”

            Really good to hear that TRP, good for you.

            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.2.1
              30 September 2014 at 4:29 pm

              The direction of thinking is certainly good, I think that there may be quite a few mechanisms which could be used.

              The National Party just manages the MPs it does not want out the back door, of course. Sometimes unceremoniously, sometimes with a golden handshake.

          • word 10.2.1.1.3
            1 October 2014 at 3:57 pm

            +1 Te Reo Putake

      • Chooky 10.2.2
        30 September 2014 at 7:08 pm

        the “righties” are also probably NACT members… and I dont think you can be a member of two parties

        …the most likely people to join the Labour Party are Labour voters, not already joined members..and/or who have let their old Labour Party membership lapse

        Green Party and Internet /mana Party members will be watching with interest to see if the Labour Party implodes…… and alienated Left votes in future head their way

  11. Kiwiri 11
    30 September 2014 at 1:05 pm

    The deadline for NEW members could/should have been an earlier date that had passed, but the date for membership renewal as well as to be financial can still be at a prospective near-enough date.

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    30 September 2014 at 2:56 pm

    A heartfelt open letter by James Macbeth Dann as to why, if you want Labour to be Labour again, you need to vote @DavidCunliffeMP

    http://publicaddress.net/9490

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      30 September 2014 at 3:03 pm

      This was James Macbeth Dann yesterday tweeting out that David Cunliffe (and his Labour supporters) were “delusional”

      https://twitter.com/edmuzik/status/516442993184612352

      • Rosie 12.1.1
        30 September 2014 at 8:52 pm

        Harsh! As was the public address open letter.

        Good on you CV and Mickey Savage for your comments on James’ Dann’s twitter. Great points.

    • Ant 12.2
      30 September 2014 at 3:04 pm

      Classic, having a big sook because Robertson couldn’t organise a caucus stitch up. How unseemly.

    • GregJ 12.3
      30 September 2014 at 6:18 pm

      The letter summed up seems to be – “I didn’t support you then, I supported Grant, I grudgingly supported you while you were leader (and I was campaigning for Ilam), we did badly, it’s your fault, some people don’t like you, I still don’t support you, now it’s Grant’s turn”.

      On the back of overseeing a 1.67% drop in Labour’s Party vote (on a slightly lower turnout in the electorate). A credible local electorate vote performance in a National stronghold – although seems to have mainly benefited by the absence of a strong Green candidate like Kennedy Graham (Green party vote declined over 3%).

    • Blue 12.4
      30 September 2014 at 9:55 pm

      Another excellent reason to vote for David Cunliffe.

      Handing the media yet another stick to beat Labour with while they are already down – I would never want this guy to be a candidate for us ever again.

  13. paddy 13
    30 September 2014 at 3:19 pm

    If you want a change of government then you need a Labour leader who will be able to raise the party vote by getting the missing million to turn up. That leader is David Cunliffe. He has passion and oratory. He won the debates. Robertson is a 3 times Party vote loser 2008,2011 and 2014
    Wellington Central – Party Vote Labour 2008 14,244
    Wellington Central – Party Vote Labour 2011 10,459
    Wellington Central – Party Vote Labour 2014 7,351 before specials likely to be just 9731 if specials split like other votes.
    Remember these numbers. Robertson did not run a Party Vote Campaign for 2011 or 2014.

    • Harry Holland 13.1
      30 September 2014 at 11:10 pm

      My concern is that the missing million are mostly permanently missing. They didn’t come out to play last time around, so I don’t see why they would in future.
      .
      Leads me to the conclusion that if the centre-left are to govern then Labour needs to take a significant number of votes from National. That can surely still be done with policies similar to the Clarke/Cullen years, assuming the public can be convinced that the leadership is competent and steady.
      .
      Are party members suggesting Labour should go further left than that? if so, in what areas in particular?

  14. coaster 14
    30 September 2014 at 3:56 pm

    What a mess, im not keen on either 2. I thought the idea of a no bs reveiw was the best option and then a leadership election after. Nz wont accept a gay pm, and alot dislike cunliffe yet here we go again. Labour is supposed to be about the average jo, or jane not about personalities or pandering to special interest groups with there own agenda. Where has the voice of reason and common sense gone?. Im starting to understand how national won the middle. Personally if labour disintegrates ill have no other option other than votiong national, I wont vote green or nz first they dont represent me. Get your s., t together labour.

    • weka 14.1
      30 September 2014 at 4:24 pm

      It’s not really about the leader, it’s about whether Labour returns to its left wing roots, or is entrenched in its centrist neoliberalism. This will affect the long term viability of the party well beyond whoever gets picked as leader this time.

      DC on the left, Robertson on the right.

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1
        30 September 2014 at 4:32 pm

        To be honest, its up to us to keep DC on the left; late 2013 before he started accommodating to the ABCs and watering down the message was when Labour was polling highest.

        • GregJ 14.1.1.1
          30 September 2014 at 6:31 pm

          Yes I’d agree. In fairness though you can see he was trying to be inclusive, collegial, and positive and try to focus the party on the considerable challenge that was ahead (Given that the meme was that he was divisive, arrogant, difficult to work with, and no one liked him).

          It pretty much looks like all the accommodation was on his side though.

          (Imagine if he tried to rid the party of the ABC and the right straight after becoming leader – could you imagine the flak he would have received? Admittedly not that there was time for it anyway).

        • weka 14.1.1.2
          30 September 2014 at 8:55 pm

          “To be honest, its up to us to keep DC on the left”

          +1

  15. venezia 15
    30 September 2014 at 5:33 pm

    Ah well… I showed James Macbeth Dann’s letter to my 89 year old Mother who voted for him in the Ilam electorate. She said to me, ” How do I sign up so I can vote for David Cunliffe?” And now its done!

  16. Scott1 16
    30 September 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Dann is a hero of the labour party for winning the ilam electorate and massively increasing labours share of the party vote…. oh wait a minute, maybe Im mistaken….

    • Ant 16.1
      30 September 2014 at 7:36 pm

      Maybe looking to be hipster Steve Gibson, less idiocy and casual racism but far more entitlement.

      Will be calling out Sonny Bill Williams next. 😀

  17. Martinc 17
    30 September 2014 at 7:11 pm

    If Cunliffe wins the leadership ballot, isn’t it likely that the caucus will rinse him again? As they are clear in their view, of the need for change?

    • lprent 17.1
      30 September 2014 at 8:31 pm

      The other side is just as important. What happens if Robertson (for instance) manages to win with very small percentages of support from the members and/or affiliates and an overwhelming majority in caucus?

      He and the caucus keep running it tight wellington centric caucus as the party disintegrates away? Because that was what was happened every other time that it has happened. It is why the party had such a teeny membership 2 years ago.

      Of course some of our professional politicians probably think that they can live without a party. I suspect that it simply isn’t possible as a party of the left. They will keep moving right chasing their major donors agendas.

      It is a negative sum game for a centre-left party.

  18. BM 18
    30 September 2014 at 7:17 pm

    How about Su’a William Sio for leader.

    Probably the largest voter block of labour would be islanders, so it would make sense for the labour leader to be something who represents that block.

    To me it seems bizarre for labour to keep choosing pakehas as their leader when they’re not the demographic that votes labour.

    Lock in that support for life by voting Su’a William Sio for leader, you know it makes sense.

  19. Reddelusion 19
    30 September 2014 at 7:47 pm

    Cunliffs on the Kool aid if he thinks he can win middle nz. labour no longer represents labour of old. it is a group of niche factions fighting over a once proud brand. I can see some waka jumping and new parties forming after this charade is over. If Cunliffs had the proverbials he would be standing on “You back me and my vision or I am gone” similarly Robertson, Thats what a real labour man of old would be doing, standing behind their convictions, not some weak ass I will support the winner or make the looser deputy

    • Chooky 19.1
      30 September 2014 at 7:51 pm

      lol x2…speaking of “on the Kool aid”

      …however agree with you on the contending leaders putting forward their vision…but it better be specifics…people are sick of the generalities, waffle and spin

    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2
      30 September 2014 at 7:59 pm

      Right wingers know what is best for the left, of course they do.

      No, wait, this just in, it turns out that the physical structure of a right wing brain renders it handicapped by fear and morbidity (Kanai et al 2011), and therefore ripe for ridicule and contempt.

      The National Party’s owners know this. Pity their dupes.

  20. meconism 20
    30 September 2014 at 8:21 pm

    The conflict within the Labour Party isn’t fixable by changing the leadership and a review of the election result. It is more fundamental than that and if they think that it is a quick fix they are doomed. Cunliffe announced prior to the election the death of neo liberal trickle down Rogernomics, Ruthanasia call it what you will. That schism has to be dealt with fully and finally. It may split the party wide open; all the better, it may take a year or eighteen months; so be it.

    If you keep sitting in the middle of the road all that will happen is you will get run over.

  21. Weepus beard 21
    30 September 2014 at 8:25 pm

    I am too depressed to join. Especially when they are all fighting.

  22. Reddelusion 22
    30 September 2014 at 8:27 pm

    Right wing, left wing blah blah blah hey one annoying bloke get your head out of the sand and try to see what’s going on here. National is the new labour (ie a pretty wimpy right wing party at best ) , this right wing left wing, class warfare rubbish doesn’t work any more. Its people like you or your ilk who are in the minority but have come to dominate and influence labours selection and policy over the silent politically inactive majority ( beyond voting every 3 years) that will drive labour into the ground. Labour needs to start listening less to your ilk and probably take some advise from what you term as the right

    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1
      30 September 2014 at 8:38 pm

      That’s your distended amygdala running your mouth again.

      Kanai et al don’t describe political theory, or class warfare, or any of your febrile imaginings, poppet. They discuss physical brain structure.

  23. Reddelusion 23
    30 September 2014 at 9:16 pm

    One annoying bloke haven’t got a clue what your going on about. Cut back on your prescription

  24. Reddelusion 24
    30 September 2014 at 9:16 pm

    One annoying bloke haven’t got a clue what your going on about. Cut back on your prescription

  25. Reddelusion 25
    30 September 2014 at 10:10 pm

    I noticed that, overly agreesive on the send button with slow response tonight typical right wing over exuberance,

    One annoying bloke I have no time for your link but I am sure the photo snaps of your asylum are interesting

    [lprent: I have to look at that. It is getting more common as the numbers of cores increases. The code is meant to detect duplicates and reject the second one. But it clearly misses some.

    I suspect that the simplest way to fix it is to either make the KeepAlive for a TCP connection longer than its current short interval or to set a single server process to accept comments to ensure better queuing or to put in a memcached/shared memory lock on the check. I will try the increased KeepAlive first. ]

  26. newsense 26
    30 September 2014 at 10:38 pm

    On Calvary Street are trellises
    Where bright as blood the roses bloom,
    Where two old souls go slowly mad
    Labour Mum and Labour Dad

    James Dann said Cunliffe was a dick
    because so many
    in his electorate
    told him that this was the case
    Cunliffe’s stress told on his face
    when he called out the beltway bunch
    who lazed around (he had a hunch)
    and didn’t try their best to win
    though they did and were united
    behind him-
    when the campaign was
    a going thing

    Why comment here or twitter there?
    mumble all round everywhere
    how this is good
    and that is bad
    how we were cheated
    NZ’s been had

    And so these two old fools are left,
    A rosy pair in evening light,
    To question Heaven’s dubious gift,
    To hag and grumble, growl and fight:
    The love they kill won’t let them rest,
    Two birds that peck in one fouled nest

    The best the party has to offer
    what our generation
    poured in the coffer

    and unity is just a word
    and knives are sharper
    so I’ve heard

    for Yin and Yang won’t ever meet
    In Calvary Street, in Calvary Street.

    • lprent 26.1
      30 September 2014 at 10:51 pm

      Hah, I’d moderate it out as being off topic. But I don’t have the heart to kill the art…

      • mac1 26.1.1
        30 September 2014 at 11:55 pm

        How about for misquoting Baxter, “National mum and Labour dad?”

        I was wondering just last night what James K would be saying about NZ forty years on. New Zealand needs a prophetic voice like his again.

  27. Dont worry. Be happy 27
    1 October 2014 at 7:35 am

    I rejoined. I will vote for David Cunliffe. He showed courage, intelliegence and grit in the campaign. I think he will make a fine PM.

    But here is the main reason.

    He may wince to hear it but the only leader with more knives in his back was Hone, one of them, to his shame, planted by the leader of Labour.

    There is a lesson there for Mr Cunliffe…not only are you known by your friends….it is the range of enemies who oppose you and the bitterness and obsession with which they do that which help the rest of us identify you.

  28. Kaplan 28
    1 October 2014 at 8:57 am

    I’ve watched since the election in total dismay at Labour’s inability to maintain any sense of discipline. I know the Media are part of the problem but so do Labour and they have totally failed to manage the message.

    As a result, I’ve joined the greens and will support them from here on in. At least until such time as Labour can present a united front and prove they can manage their media issues.

  29. Jimmie Dimmick 29
    1 October 2014 at 9:44 am

    I voted for Labour [and Virginia Anderson in Ohariu] and joined because Labour’s policies are the best hope NZ has got to address the future.
    I’ll give DC the benefit of the doubt for now but my vote for DC is not a forgone conclusion.
    We must stop self eviscerating in front of the media. Policies for NZ’s future are more important.
    After another 3 years with further weakening of the RMA, worker protection and giving away sovereignty to the US they will be even more important.

  30. Barfly 30
    1 October 2014 at 11:59 am

    Well I phoned Labour Head Office enquiring how to pay for a membership via Internet Banking (I don’t have a credit card). A friendly chap told me to email a lady at finance@labour.org.nz which I did yesterday afternoon…no reply as yet but hoping I can get it done as I would like to support David Cunliffe,

    • lprent 30.1
      1 October 2014 at 12:43 pm

      There is usually only one person processing that, and they usually do it only part of their time. Expect delays…

      Labours head office is grossly understaffed for the kinds of things that the fatcats in caucus expect them to do..

  31. Adrian 31
    1 October 2014 at 12:41 pm

    Lurgee you mentioned “ridiculous recount petition”, I am not in any way a conspirist and I agree the concept of having a recount in NZ seems ludicrous….but.
    There are 1400 “missing ” votes in Ilam, the difference between Dann and Labour vote, another 1000 or so in Kaikoura.
    I was under the impression that to be valid the paper had to have 2 ticks.
    The Electoral office proudly signed up an extra 20000 voters over 2011, but about 150,000 more were eligible. massive fail.
    Electoral officers had no budget for lokking for voters and TV advertising was minimal.
    Who was in charge of the Electoral office and hence the count etc.
    Judith Collins.
    Maybe somebody should be looking harder at what happened.

  32. dave 32
    1 October 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Labour party has always fought its not party of yes men if you like yes men national is the party and where else would get to vote for a party leader instead of a vested interest appointee

  33. dave 33
    1 October 2014 at 12:55 pm

    No one douts there needs to be reform and that will be done
    But let’s not lose fact that new zealand s best economic times are behind it with tax revenue in free fall john will deliver a fat zero

  34. SPC 34
    1 October 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Sorry, I party vote Green so it would not have been honest.

    I do however note that the MSM is on the side of the centrists in Labour and on the side of caucus over the more left wing party members. Thus the attacks on Cunliffe are a means by which it seeks to turn Labour into an alternative middle class party to National.

    Any new leader will be under pressure to move policies to the centre, and if they resist will also come under attack.

    The media is calling on Greens to abandon the left and become a centrist environment party, this will not happen but is reflective of the fear that it is the Greens as an alternative left wing vote that prevents the Labour Party moving into the centre (it would cost them votes if there was a continuing centre-left vote option) as they in the MSM would wish.

    This is why I will continue to party vote Green, because it is one way to prevent Labour capitulating, because some in its caucus think being in government, by whatever betrayal of principles necessary, is enough.

  35. Barfly 35
    1 October 2014 at 4:08 pm

    Well perhaps I should retrospectively start a bucket list…..

    never thought I’d be a member of a political party……

    apparently there have been more than 2000 applications for membership of the Labour Party in the last week….

    Vote David Cunliffe 🙂

  36. venezia 36
    1 October 2014 at 9:17 pm

    Barfly …..I hope that means you got that sub through OK. If so well done!

  37. Reddelusion 37
    1 October 2014 at 11:11 pm

    I don’t respect cunliff or approve of his behaviour or principals but I don’t hate him, some of the stuff that is coming out now is plain ugly hate, as where some of the attacks on John Key on this site. good on cunliffs wife for standing up for him.

  38. SeanExile 38
    2 October 2014 at 2:06 am

    Its great that so many are joining the party now. You must be staunch Labour supporters to realise that its time to join after the election instead of before when the party needs all money it can get.
    What is it they say, with such friends you don’t need enemies.

    Me I was a member before the election. Worked with the election and voted Labour on both accounts.

    And i also wonder why some think we should be more like the greens? or mana?
    One party that cant get over 10% and the other than cant get 1%.
    hmm Id rather be a Labour under a normal left centrist leader who scores 35-40% of the votes thank you.
    But of course we can instead aim to follow Dc towards the greens and their 10%. 22% in this election and if we loose as much ground as we did under DC this time were almost there…

    • Barfly 38.1
      2 October 2014 at 8:40 am

      @ SE

      Thank you for that rousing heartfelt welcome to the broad church of the NZ Labour party.

      You do realize that that over the last 30 years the neo-liberals have picked up the “centre line” of politics and parked it next to Attila the Hun’s horse don’t you?

      By the way the word you meant to use was lose not loose in your last sentence, a peculiarly common error these days.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.