Labour Leadership Campaign – day three

Written By: - Date published: 8:22 am, September 2nd, 2013 - 159 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

Cunliffe day 2 leaders campaign-7

The campaign is off to the North today.  There is a meeting at Whangarei this evening.  Powhiri starts at 6 pm.

The venue is Forum North which is in Rust Avenue Whangarei.

So far the campaign has been a positive light hearted affair.  There is even talk about the contestants forming a Boy band.  David Cunliffe prefers them to be called “West Life”, Grant Robertson prefers “One Direction”.  It is not known what Shane Jones prefers.

The signs of unity are welcome.  Hopefully everyone realises that the Labour Party needs both of its wings to fly.

And hopefully everyone will be focussing on the primary issue.  Who is able to counter John Key?  The successful applicant needs to have television presence, smarts and passion for the job.

The details about eligibility to attend are as before.

People entitled to attend include members, former members as long as they sign up again and new members who sign up at the door.

Media can attend but for the preliminaries and the speeches only.

If you are going you should get to the meeting early as there will be a vetting process and this could take some time.  People should bring their membership cards or ortherwise photo ID so that they can be identified.  Photos and social media can be taken and used during the open part of the meeting.

And a reminder that current members and those who have been financial members of the Party sometime between January 1 2011 and August 22 2013 but have not yet paid their membership for 2013 can renew their membership and vote, so long as they do so before 12.00am on Friday 6 September. This can be done by clicking here.  New members will not be able to vote.

159 comments on “Labour Leadership Campaign – day three ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    2 September 2013 at 8:42 am

    i mean..western springs didn’t even cater..!

    ..(that’s one up for you..levin..)

    ..and now..over to you..fongers..

    ..whangarei..the speed-bump on/of highway one..

    ..phillip ure..

  2. Saarbo 2
    2 September 2013 at 8:57 am

    What a fantastic process this is turning out to be. It seems to be really focusing the Labour Party on what is important i.e, the focus on The Living Wage, etc. The Institute of Economic Research reckons the Living Wage will cost $4 billion, I was just trying to work out their logic here, because it is a redistribution not a cost, its not going to be a cost to the workers receiving this money $4 billion???. But none of these right wing economists seem to be calculating the stimulatory effects of paying low paid workers more, interesting. This is classic labour policy which is actually good for small and medium size businesses because of the stimulation it has on spending.

    Anyway, its a credit to the 3 candidates the way they are presenting themselves, it also shows that the exercising of the power of members is far better than the cunning little factional power battles that Mallard, Goff and King have been playing in caucus.

    Go David Cunliffe, the only candidate that has what it takes to implement policy that will be attacked by our right biased media, but will turn our nation back into a fairer and better place for EVERYONE to live.

    Go Labour!

    • Tracey 2.1
      2 September 2013 at 9:04 am

      well, it is a cost, because they will have calculated how many people are currently on minimum wage and then multiplied it by the difference between that and the living wage.

      What they wont have calculated is the impact of the flow of that money through the economy and the possible increase in productivity from those earning more, worrying less. Example, reduce absenteeism and increase productivity. Improved retention of staff brings savings on recruitment for the employer, and there is higher work morale and motivation. They wont have quantified this.

      • Saarbo 2.1.1
        2 September 2013 at 9:20 am

        Yes agree Tracey, thats how THEY will have calculated it, but on that basis we could just isolate out the increase in wages of workers and suggest that this is a huge increase in revenue. In the end of the day it is a redistribution, generally from a P&L point of view, a redistribution from the Profit line back to the Wages line. And this is exactly what New Zealand has to do, companies have to set up their business models to pay their staff “The Living Wage” otherwise their profits are being subsidised by their people. Of course the other thing that will happen is that the Govt will not have to payout as much in Working for Families.

        • Tracey 2.1.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 9:26 am

          I was wondering about WFF Saarbo. How does that fit in with the living age?

          I do not have children so have never been into the minutiae of the WFF programme.

          In my opinion the best line for Labour I have seen to combat National’s punish the rich claims is that
          National has the highest tax rate at 70k… so that’s who they consider is rich…

          • Saarbo 2.1.1.1.1
            2 September 2013 at 9:44 am

            My understanding Tracey is that a pay rise to The Living Wage will displace the WFF if you are receiving WFF. So from that point of view it could save the govt some money (havent heard this from the economists???). But what this policy will do is implement a discipline on businesses to set up their business models to pay their workers more, and I think that is important. Because many kiwi businesses use the minimum wage as their pay guidance, I know of an incredibly profitable large business in hamilton that pays a huge number of their workers the minimum wage, the workers wont join a union because they reckon they cant afford it (their words).

            It is best summed up here taken from a quote from Cunliffes website

            “The relationship between workers and employers is not equal. It never has been; it never will be. That’s why we need policies and laws that are fair, just and provide protection.
            link:
            “http://cunliffe.co.nz/latest/

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.2
            2 September 2013 at 10:52 am

            Tracey, orthodox institutional economists always regard things like the living wage as a “cost”. The automatic follow up question is

            1) a cost to whom? Of course, the answer is that most of the cost is borne by corporations, large employers, and employers who employ people at significantly less than a living wage. Those are the groups that these economists are speaking for.

            The discussion is of course not complete until it is recognised that one party’s cost is another’s income.

            And that an increase in wages at the lower end will increase the velocity of money through the system, helping everyone.

            You won’t get the orthodox economists pointing that out often.

            • bad12 2.1.1.1.2.1
              2 September 2013 at 11:02 am

              i would far prefer to see a Legislated ‘living wage’ than a rise in tax for the top income bracket,

              There are far greater economic gains across the whole economy including a positive growth in the Governments tax revenue from having all workers receiving the ‘living wage as a minimum…

              • Macro …
                2 September 2013 at 10:23 pm

                As things stand now the disproportionate inequality of incomes is hurting NZ and all similar economies quite severly and the best way to address this imbalance is through dramatically increasing taxation at the top end. That is actually requiring those who have benefited most from society to actually contribute to it. When this increased tax take is channeled back into society via increased social services, all benefit – including those who think they have been deprived of some of their income.

      • David H 2.1.2
        2 September 2013 at 10:41 am

        @Tracey “It’s not that they won’t have calculated the impact and flow on.”
        They probably have, and they KNOW that it will lead to the economy starting to grow, because when you have been down for so long and you get a little extra cash well you don’t stick it in the bank, you spend it. and there’s that nasty vicious cycle the Nats hate, starting to gain momentum.

        The Nats would prefer to have a low wage economy with lots of unemployed so they can demonise said unemployed. They probably have some perverse need to do this or their lives are not complete. That and pillaging all they can get from the, country before it wakes up and boots them out. What pisses me off about this, is they end up in some cushy job overseas, and still sucking on the public tit.

    • Poem 2.2
      2 September 2013 at 10:30 am

      +1 Saarbo

    • bad12 2.3
      2 September 2013 at 10:55 am

      Their calculation is of course flawed, and i would suggest deliberately so at that, they have simply calculated that the 600,000 workers who would gain from the ‘living wage’ are all receiving the minimum wage at present,

      That of course is utter bulls**t from the psuedo-economists, most of the workers effected by an increase to the ‘living wage’ are receiving wages above the $13.70 an hour minimum wage at present,

      And, any fool, excluding the psuedo-economists already mentioned would take into account the not insignificant fact that whatever the figure turned out to be in increased wage packets such monies will simply transit the economy, multiplying as it goes,and end up as profit in the accounts of the very people who put it into the wage packets of the workers in the first place,

      With regards to Working for Families, i doubt whether the Government would ‘save’ any money from the WFF tax credit as those receiving lower wages now would not necessarily transit to a higher tax bracket via the ‘living wage’,

      Government tho would receive a boost in tax revenue from the extra spending into the economy the living wage would create…

      • RedBaronCV 2.3.1
        2 September 2013 at 1:02 pm

        The Government should save money with this. WFF is calculated on the family income & nos. of kids, subject to some adjustments, mainly where people are low earning self employed. So upping the earnings reduces the subsidy although I don’t think it’s dollar for dollar abatement. WFF has some problems, one of which is take up, people don’t know it exists and don’t come into contact with anyone who will tell them. Also there a number of clashes around the various low earner measures and allowances and it reduces these.

        The best thing about lifting lower incomes is that it decreases the poverty trap so that beneficiaries can have a reasonable income that does not exceed the wages of the working poor.

    • Hami Shearlie 2.4
      2 September 2013 at 9:54 pm

      Go David Cunliffe alright, Saarbo – He really is head and shoulders above the other two, in every way!!

  3. Chooky 3
    2 September 2013 at 9:04 am

    Saarbo +1…. Steven Joyce on Morning Report and Radio NZ News is very concerned….a good sign

    • phillip ure 3.1
      2 September 2013 at 9:17 am

      quite telling that tv3s’ breakfast tv coverage of the meetings yesterday..

      ..was to have (their good-mate/benefactor..’gizza-loan steve..!’) joyce whining/fretting/spinning over muted images of the labour contenders speaking..

      ..thereby setting a new benchmark in craven-grovelling before he who has shed gold upon you..?

      ..of tv3 knowing which side of the joyce their govt-largess is spread upon..?

      ..phillip ure..

    • Poem 3.2
      2 September 2013 at 10:33 am

      Yes, very good sign 🙂

  4. Tracey 4
    2 September 2013 at 9:23 am

    Is Jones standing in Tamaki Makaurau at the next election?

    Is Kelvin Davis getting a high list ranking?

  5. One Anonymous Knucklehead 5
    2 September 2013 at 9:26 am

    No wonder the Tories are getting all upset. They will say that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment.

    They are ignorant or deceitful.

    On April 1, 1992 New Jersey’s minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment.

    Empirical findings challenging economic sacred cows “theory”. Again. Ho hum.

    Edit: also see “Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage” by David Card

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1
      2 September 2013 at 10:32 am

      On cue, here’s that mendacious wretch John Key, the lying Prime Minister, quoted by some Jonolist who can’t muster the most cursory of fact checks before going to print.

      “…a lot of people lose their job …”

      Yeah, nice one Andrea Vance. Slippery’s little helper. Why isn’t the story about how the Prime Minister can’t lie straight in bed?

      • Tracey 5.1.1
        2 September 2013 at 10:34 am

        with real wages pretty low under Key, unemployment is … zero??

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 10:41 am

          Nah, I think we need to reject his deceitful narrative entirely: make the story about how the Prime Minister is either ignorant or mendacious: Cullen raised the minimum wage every year for nine years and unemployment went down.

          Taking the fight to Key isn’t about arguing on his terms, it’s about identifying his lies and making him justify them. Hammer him with the facts and figures until he breaks.

      • David H 5.1.2
        2 September 2013 at 4:08 pm

        Yeah but start into the 550+comments and see what people think. And their silly little poll is evening up too.

    • bad12 5.2
      2 September 2013 at 10:42 am

      Excellent comment, much more of this is needed to counter the ‘job losses’ bulls**t put about by the media, Joyce and Slippery the Prime Minister…

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.2.1
        2 September 2013 at 10:51 am

        I was surprised by how the literature gleaned from a Scholar search – “minimum wage effects” – was so unequivocal, from meta-analysis of competing “theories” showing that none of them were any good, to empirical studies where the predicted positive effects were present and the predicted negative effect were absent. As in, none of the negative predictions came true.

        Cullen already schooled Treasury on the issue. It’s time the National Party had its nose rubbed in it too.

        • McFlock 5.2.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 11:59 am

          yeah – I loved the discussions on the treasury paper that studied minimum wage in the last days of lab5. The only way they could demonstrate that a rise in the youth minimum wage increased youth unemployment was by assuming that youth unemployment would have stayed at the same level as the world entered the Global Financial Crisis.

          Talk about unyielding faith in the face of overwhelming evidence.

  6. Anne 6
    2 September 2013 at 9:48 am

    And hopefully everyone will be focussing on the primary issue. Who is able to counter John Key? The successful applicant needs to have television presence, smarts and passion for the job.

    And this where I have some concern. I wonder if some members are letting themselves get a little carried away with proceedings without consideration for that all important aspect… be able to counter John Key.

    Last night’s Auckland meeting was uplifting and all three candidates committed themselves well. That is, if you accept the premise Shane Jones is there to liven proceedings and to provide the laughs. He did so with alacrity and most thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

    Grant Robertson is impressive. A first class speaker and very intelligent. But he lacks the one essential ingredient that also dogged David Shearer. Experience. Some will scoff, but it is something that can’t be ignored in the Labour Party. Why? Because Labour (and Green) leaders are subject to so much more scrutiny and petty critiques by a largely hostile MSM than National leaders. The only way to counter it is to choose someone who has been through the school of hard political knocks, and who has had a solid period of time – preferably as a cabinet minister – to instinctively know how to avoid the political obstacles flung in their path. Helen Clark was a past master at it but only because she fulfilled all the criteria including the years of experience and hard knocks which in the end made her the strong and formidible leader she became.

    Only one of them has reached that point and it is David Cunliffe. In my view, he’s the only one who has had the opportunity to develop the skills needed to take it to John Key and actually win.

    • Hami Shearlie 6.1
      2 September 2013 at 10:24 am

      +1000

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1
        2 September 2013 at 11:38 am

        +2000

        And I’m very supportive of Grant getting the Deputy position and think he will do a great job there holding together a government with a lot of Labour MPs and also a lot of Green MPs.

        • Anne 6.1.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 12:03 pm

          Me too. He has shown he has the stuff for leadership but he needs a longer spell as second in command and, ideally, some hands-on cabinet experience first.

        • Ron 6.1.1.2
          2 September 2013 at 1:49 pm

          I think that if Cunliffe gets the leaders job then you don’t not want Grant as deputy. Its human nature to be bitter about losing an election and we do not want someone as deputy who just might take that bitterness out on his leader. The same would apply if Jones or Robertson were to win. I think we need a supportive deputy that is not tied to an opposing faction.
          Mahuta might well be considered for Cunliffe. But I am sure there are other good possibilities in the party without straying into factions

          • Sosoo 6.1.1.2.1
            2 September 2013 at 5:39 pm

            That depends. Robertson may lose, but has already done himself a huge favour by running a good campaign. He’s still young enough to let one more go before him and still be PM and will be the natural successor. Having him more in the spotlight as deputy will inoculate the gay issue.

            He’s already a more impressive candidate than I thought he would be.

        • Lou 6.1.1.3
          2 September 2013 at 3:54 pm

          That would be my dream team, too, Cunliffe as leader, and Robertson as deputy. One day, Grant may have the experience, but I don’t think he’s ready at this time (nor do I think NZ is ready to accept him)

    • Greywarbler 6.2
      2 September 2013 at 3:50 pm

      I think the new Leader will have to know how to cope better with the petty grievances and criticisms. Such as to Helen – you drove your car too fast. Well I didn’t realise that I was and I had promised to be there and didn’t want to let anyone down. Could have been repeated many times to deal with that accusation and whinging.

      You signed the back of someone else’s picture – shock horror! Answer, well I had the idea that being Prime Minister of NZ was pretty important and that my signature would have added a good few $ to the value, even $50 perhaps. Wry smile.

      There needs to be more humour and cheek from a Labour Leader to match John Key’s easy manner. Not a po faced approach which I think in the end rankled with some. And humour would deflate much criticism. Though not Shane’s I think.

      • Greywarbler 6.2.1
        2 September 2013 at 3:52 pm

        Damn thing won’t let me edit. I want to make it plain that I’m talking about the Labour Leader in first line.

  7. Kaupapa1969 7
    2 September 2013 at 9:52 am

    I wonder how today will go? Probably more of the same. Yesterday’s Otahuhu meeting was interesting, I thought Robertson and Cunliffe impressed me, were both deep thinkers, though Robertson to be honest bored me to sleep so I doubt if he should get elected as leader if we want to win. They both seem dead keen on the job that’s for sure and both managed to not sound sleazy, which is impressive for an MP.

    Shane Jones was more of a side show, he squeaked away like he was in an episode of Brotown and it was borderline racist, Billy T. is dead now and we’ve moved on from that haven’t we? Joking aside, Jones said that he was changing his story for the audience, and that sounds just like a politician talking. I wonder what he will say to Whangarei, and what he wants. A high place on the list?

  8. fender 8
    2 September 2013 at 10:11 am

    I’m starting to think it would be unwise to elect someone to be Labour leader who hasn’t been a minister before. It really should be a prerequisite for the job to have a proven track record of competence. We currently have a PM without prior ministerial experience who as well as being an incompetent PM has also turned out to be far less than adequate as tourism minister. The Labour Party would be (imo) foolish to copy the obvious failures of the current administration, and I urge voters to think long and hard about experience before casting their voting preference.

    edit: Snap…I see Anne has just brought up the experience issue too.

    • Winston Smith 8.1
      2 September 2013 at 10:18 am

      “has also turned out to be far less than adequate as tourism minister”

      – Got any links for that?

      • Tracey 8.1.1
        2 September 2013 at 10:21 am

        isn’t it framed as an opinion?

      • fender 8.1.2
        2 September 2013 at 10:38 am

        Unfortunately we have “the weakest link” in both roles currently, WS.

      • framu 8.1.3
        2 September 2013 at 11:57 am

        yeah it clearly opinion WS – “I’m starting to think it would be”

        but seeing as you countered – what would you consider as a tourism success by the minister of tourism?

        • Winston Smith 8.1.3.1
          2 September 2013 at 12:32 pm

          I’ve posted a few opinions on here and I get told to provide links so I thought I’d ask for some for a change

          • framu 8.1.3.1.1
            2 September 2013 at 1:46 pm

            fair enough – though i was asking for your opinion, not links 🙂

          • fender 8.1.3.1.2
            2 September 2013 at 1:47 pm

            IMO it’s less than adequate for the tourism minister to have so little faith in the NZ tourism industry that every time he has a holiday its never on NZ soil.

            That’s why he gets called minister for overseas holidays

            • Winston Smith 8.1.3.1.2.1
              2 September 2013 at 3:24 pm

              IMO if you have a holiday home then you’d be remiss in using it

              • fender …
                2 September 2013 at 3:33 pm

                The fact that the holiday home is in another country suggests the holidayer doesn’t rate their home country as being a place worth holidaying in.

                • Winston Smith …
                  2 September 2013 at 4:10 pm

                  Or that he brought it before he came back to NZ

                • felix …
                  2 September 2013 at 8:51 pm

                  Funny, aint it? Winston/Hooten/Farrar/whoever concern-trooling about Cunliffe not living in his electorate.

                  Yet they’re all in love with a PM who can’t even bear spending his leisure time in this country.

          • Tracey 8.1.3.1.3
            2 September 2013 at 5:26 pm

            WS that’s usually cos you have posted something asserting it is factual thats when I ask for a source

      • Greywarbler 8.1.4
        2 September 2013 at 12:46 pm

        fender
        I thought I’d check what I know about Jokeyhen. Google –
        Key entered the New Zealand Parliament representing the Auckland electorate of Helensville as one of the few new National members of parliament in the election of 2002 following National’s significant defeat of that year. He has held the seat since then.

        In 2004, he was appointed Finance Spokesman for National and eventually succeeded Don Brash as the National Party leader in 2006.

        After two years as Leader of the Opposition, Key led his party to victory in both the November 2008 and the November 2011 general elections.

        • fender 8.1.4.1
          2 September 2013 at 1:11 pm

          Yes GW, no ministerial experience before being elected as leader and PM. I’m not surprised the Nats installed this resourceful con-man as their leader, but it’s clearly been a mistake for the electorate to follow suit.

          • Greywarbler 8.1.4.1.1
            2 September 2013 at 1:37 pm

            I wonder why the PM wanted to come back here anyway? Had he reached the heights over in the usa and felt that he’s like to have a go at being a tin-pot leader of an actual small nation, using some of his nous and contacts over there, over there, the yanks are coming etc. (Song) Just to round off his career before he took up a chunky directorship at some prestigious address. Well I hope his hair all falls out while he’s running us.

            • fender 8.1.4.1.1.1
              2 September 2013 at 2:01 pm

              IMO he came back because he still felt empty despite his bank account being full. He felt it wasn’t enough just to be rich enough to never work again, his ego told him to do something that would secure his place in the NZ history books. So he did a crash course on politics and stupidly concentrated on Muldoons ability to govern via bullying, and now we are suffering as a result of this ego maniacs thirst for fame.

              • KJT …
                2 September 2013 at 2:31 pm

                I am sure Key will be richly rewarded by the beneficiaries of National’s scams, sellouts and financial cons when he leaves office.

        • Poem 8.1.4.2
          3 September 2013 at 2:24 am

          Amazing how john key’s wiki page is bereft of info isnt it? he was in the Bolger/Shipley government of the 1990s. When shipley overthrew Bolger she gave him (John key) her old Transport portfolio. And John Key was accused of insider trading when he sold the railways.

      • Greywarbler 8.1.5
        2 September 2013 at 3:55 pm

        I don’t think that opinions really need links but I think that an extension of the sentence with ‘because’ makes things clearer. Just one example say.

    • Mary 8.2
      2 September 2013 at 10:28 am

      Robertson’s pretty thin on even opposition spokesperson experience, as well. Certainly when it comes to difficult portfolios.

  9. Enough is Enough 9
    2 September 2013 at 10:39 am

    I have always been a Cunliffe supporter and think he, given the opportunity, could lead this country back to where it should be.

    However, the media has it in for him. Almost every story has a negative spin on it. We are told all this bullshit about him being unliked, rich, a try hard preacher, all things to all men.

    My fear with this narration is he will never get a break and unfortunatley to win the election we need a friendly media. For that reason I am swinging in behind Grant.

    There will be less distraction with Grant at the helm and less rubbish for Gower to report each night.

    • fender 9.1
      2 September 2013 at 10:58 am

      Why let the media choose who runs the country. The media are supposed to report the news, not create the news. The lies and bias of the media needs to be exposed for all to see. If we don’t protest against the crooked behaviour of the media we may as well let the Gina Rineharts of this world control the message.

      • Hanswurst 9.1.1
        2 September 2013 at 11:14 am

        + 1. Plus: they picked Shearer and then still proceeded to dump on him from a great height. Sure, he was a terrible leader and I would never have chosen him in the first place, but it was a bit rich to eviscerate him after cheerleading for him prior to his being annointed leader.

    • Colonial Viper 9.2
      2 September 2013 at 11:16 am

      So you’re saying that you will let the MSM effect work on you, although you know about it full well?

      Backing Grant is not going to help if he can’t bring the economic and financial credibility needed to beat Key next year.

      • Enough is Enough 9.2.1
        2 September 2013 at 11:36 am

        Not exactly

        If I was going to let the MSM work on me then I would be voting for one John Key.

        This selection process is about finding the person who first and foremost stands for Labour’s values and secondly can express them in a way which will get the party elected.

        There is no point being the first if you can’t get your message out.

        • Anne 9.2.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 11:51 am

          This selection process is about finding the person who first and foremost stands for Labour’s values and secondly can express them in a way which will get the party elected.

          And who has shown time and time again he is an expert at doing just that? David Cunliffe.

          This is what the old guard who cut their political teeth during the Rogernomic years seemed so concerned about – the fact that Cunliffe stood for Labour values and wasn’t afraid to express them effectively. They appeared to see that as a threat to them.

        • Olwyn 9.2.1.2
          2 September 2013 at 1:41 pm

          The problem is that anyone who effectively upholds Labour Values will be treated with media hostility, and anyone who is ineffective will end up being treated with media contempt. I prefer the hostility; since it tends to rally supporters. And once you have a groundswell of support you start to look like a going concern, thus attracting more supporters.

    • Belladonna 9.3
      2 September 2013 at 11:49 am

      The media would stop being ‘friendly’ towards Grant Robertson the minute, god forbid that he gets elected as leader of the Labour Party. How can anyone think Labour will get into power with him as leader. Dont be naive.

      • Sosoo 9.3.1
        2 September 2013 at 5:48 pm

        The reports will go like this:

        “Labour leader Grant Robertson – a homosexual – said today – remember he’s a fag everyone – that Labour would – gay gay gay – consider repealing the government’s – pillow biter…”

        • Colonial Viper 9.3.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 10:18 pm

          You forgot the following phrases:

          “career civil servant”

          “lacking private sector experience”

          “long time Wellington political operator”

          etc

    • stargazer 9.4
      2 September 2013 at 1:21 pm

      any reason to think that the same won’t happen to grant robertson if he’s elected leader? we saw the same thing with shearer: lots of positive coverage until he was elected & maybe a couple of months after, & then it was hostile. the same will happen with grant, guaranteed.

    • Greywarbler 9.5
      2 September 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Write to the most offensive media and tell them enough is enough. Whoa. Give a guy an even break. Taihoa there. Fair’s fair. This is not the NZ way.

    • Rodel 9.6
      2 September 2013 at 9:13 pm

      There is a certain Hootenesque insincerity in your post. You can’t be that naive or think we are.

    • Hami Shearlie 9.7
      2 September 2013 at 10:01 pm

      And ZERO charisma as well with Robertson, just telling it like it very very apparently is! On television charisma is a MUST, so if it’s Robertson, many many South Auckland votes will go, many “Waitakere Man” votes will go, the election campaign will be zzzzzz boring, and it’s back to Opposition for Labour!!

  10. Ad 10
    2 September 2013 at 10:47 am

    That is a terrible trap for you to fall into.

  11. Watching 11
    2 September 2013 at 11:13 am

    And hopefully everyone will be focussing on the primary issue. Who is able to counter John Key?

    Not sure if this is primary issue. If Labour objective is only to win the 2014 election & then wing it then its true the focus should be on countering Key.

    However, around the world left and right wing incumbent government are struggling & Labour needs to think about the 2014 election plus day 1. Winning in 2014 is the key (excuse the pun) to anything else that could happen but expect 2015 – 17 to be a roller coaster ride & I am not sure if all those candidates have the individual ability to handle that daily leadership role.

    • Molly 11.1
      2 September 2013 at 12:04 pm

      +1. Countering John Key is like taking a step down a murky rabbit hole into Wonderland (or Planet Key).

      Perhaps the alternative approach for Labour’s leader:
      Who is best able to frame, articulate and provide details about Labour policy that Key will be unable to counter?

  12. MC 12
    2 September 2013 at 11:52 am

    What a shocker [deleted]. Those numbers for Labour are only going to get worse with either Cunliffe or Roberston. Jones is the only candidate who seems to realise that the way to win is to take votes away from National.

    [lprent: what a shocker! An occasional fuckwit troll does a fire and forget statement on a unnamed poll without a link.
    A cruel and grumpy moderator with a cold bans the arsehole until after the election. ]

  13. Sable 13
    2 September 2013 at 11:54 am

    Hmm will be interesting to see who plays Brutus to Caesar. Lots of blood on the floor….

  14. phillip ure 14
    2 September 2013 at 11:56 am

    cunnliffe is doing a live chat/q&a on the herald website..starting @ noon..

    phillip ure..

  15. RedBaronCV 15
    2 September 2013 at 1:09 pm

    I know it’s a small detail but Jones appears to be wearing a blue tie. Robertson has a red blue tie and Cunliffe solid red – probably doesn’t own a blue tie-but who let Jones out like that?

    • Lanthanide 15.1
      2 September 2013 at 1:16 pm

      He should probably be wearing anything but a blue tie, really.

      What was worse was David Shearer wearing a blue tie on TV when at the celebration for Ikaroa-Rawhiti win.

    • Chooky 15.2
      2 September 2013 at 7:41 pm

      @ RedBaron….this is very psychologically significant…it reveals who is a true socialist and who is an undercover Nact or AC/DC…..smirk

  16. Ron 16
    2 September 2013 at 2:03 pm

    I went to Otahuhu meeting after decided I would be more comfortable among real people (joke) I think
    It was an interesting afternoon. I agree that Jones is a clever gifted speaker but I was worried that everything was treated as a bit of a joke. We all like a good joke but when it goes on for two hours it can be come tedious. He also seemed very weary. I know that campaigning can be very tiring but its only the second day and how about a full election campaign, would that be too much for Shane as a leader. I make him 54 this week which is pretty young and would have thought he would have been far more energetic. Watching him get up to speak each time was to me, agonising.
    I think either of the other two would be fine and could support either, but feel Cunliffe would be better than Robertson at being able to think on his feet and not stuff up when speaking in public.

    Interesting that this morning MSM is running the “Shane is the man line.” I would hope that no real labour people would take any notice of that sort of propaganda. If the Tory press/radio/tv support Jones its a sure bet we should not.

    • Boadicea 16.1
      2 September 2013 at 5:24 pm

      I agree. Jones walks like a man of 84. I would not be at all surprised if Jones has to miss some events due to exhaustion! He comes across like someone with ver poor stamina.

      Grant Robertson will find it hard going also. He only ever travels within a 2km radius of the Beehive.
      I heard he packed his passport when heading to Levin!

      • Greywarbler 16.1.1
        2 September 2013 at 6:28 pm

        I wonder if Shane Jones drinks alcohol a bit too much.? It starts to show up as you get older, and the brain and mind become brutalised and insensitive. It could explain his lack of sharpness and his rather simplistic attitudes.

  17. Not a PS Staffer 17
    2 September 2013 at 2:30 pm

    I don’t get it that Robertson was able to talk about party unity last nigh without blushing!

    We have wasted so much time and energy over the past couple of years because of the divisive games played by Grant Robertson and his acolytes!

    He has ZERO ministerial experience.
    He was deputy leader in the worst Leadership team that Labour Party had in its history.

    He should be greeted with derision rather that respect by the party faithful who have watched the Roberson/Shearer train-wreck happen in slow motion.

    • Craig Glen Eden 17.2
      2 September 2013 at 5:11 pm

      Yeah Robertson and Mallard were meant to be in charge of the election campaign last time, what a bloody disaster that was. Then they put up Shearer and Grant was the deputy and look what happened Grant has Street do the numbers on him, go figure. This is of coarse after having pledged 100% support. So given Robertsons history surely its time that Gower followed him around shoving a microphone in his face asking him if he was elected did he want the same kind of support he gave Shearer.

  18. captain hook 18
    2 September 2013 at 2:42 pm

    This is all goood.
    I just hope that when the dust settles then everyone gets on with it and sheds all the internecine blah.
    time to kick the tory bludgers out.
    Robertson said on the news this a.m. that at present it is a bosses government.
    I care to disagree.
    Its more a government of Neanderthals that are in power solely to enjoy bashing up people that cant fight back.
    The supreme psychological satisfaction and never forget it.
    and.
    Great to see the whining fatboy farrar was not allowed in.
    who the hell does he think he is?

  19. phillip ure 19
    2 September 2013 at 6:14 pm

    shane jones:..

    “..i’ve found i’ve always been very popular with women..”

    “..i’m after the type of women who read the womens’ weekly..not those who read germaine greer..”

    (ed:..he’s a laff a fucken minute..eh..?..that jones..)

    phillip ure..

    • Anne 19.1
      2 September 2013 at 6:21 pm

      And Patrick Gower is claiming that David Shearer is supporting Jones because he was the only one of the three who stood by him… inferring that Robertson and Cunliffe undermined him?

      He doesn’t reveal where the information came from of course.

    • phillip ure 19.2
      2 September 2013 at 6:28 pm

      can i suggest that a good way to take the piss out of jones..

      ..would be for women to wave copies of the womens’ weekly (or germaine greer..or both..) at him..

      ..and go ‘yoo-hoo!..over here..!’..

      ..and i guess men could join in too..?..eh..?

      ..phillip ure..

      • lprent 19.2.1
        3 September 2013 at 12:45 am

        ..would be for women to wave copies of the womens’ weekly (or germaine greer..or both..) at him..

        Nah, he is so last century that he probably wants to be John Rowles. Divert him by throwing dirty knickers at him.

    • Steve Withers 19.3
      3 September 2013 at 7:30 am

      My goodness, didn’t TV3’s evening news have a woody for Shane Jones on Monday night, though! They barely said a word about Cunliffe or Robertson. Maybe tomorrow night will focus on another candidate for the labour leadership. But if you only watch TV news occassionally (because it’s usually horrendous, slanted, no-detail crap)……you’d think TV3 was Shane Jone’s biggest supporter.

  20. mickysavage 20
    2 September 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I am at the venue. There is a delay in proceedings because so many people want to get in. And there is a line of people wanting to renew or sign up. Democracy is alive and well in the Labour Party.

    • Alanz 20.1
      2 September 2013 at 6:57 pm

      I’d like to give my heartfelt thanks to those who voted for the constitutional reform at the November conference last year. They opened the path for what is able to take place now.
      Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

      • mickysavage 20.1.1
        2 September 2013 at 7:07 pm

        Ouch. Jones just talked about Robertson and then sung “somewhere over the rainbow” while then talking about bringing back the party to its core.

        He is also pushing the parochial button big time.

        • Tanz 20.1.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 9:24 pm

          Jones is doing well in the debates and will attract the left and the centrist votes. He is good on camera and is quietly confident. Over the Rainbow?

          • lprent 20.1.1.1.1
            3 September 2013 at 12:25 am

            Doesn’t seem likely. Anyone who has followed his political career knows how much of a screwup wonder he has been since 2005. Since Labour’s members tend to follow political news I suspect that he will achieve little support.

        • Tracey 20.1.1.2
          3 September 2013 at 7:36 am

          were you joking MS, or did he really sing it?

  21. amirite 21
    2 September 2013 at 6:19 pm

    I reckon Jones has been overindulging in Viagra with his new squeeze. I had to check twice which party he belongs to. Because listening to him is like listening to Alasdair Thompson’s anti women tirades. And the arrogance is just overwhelming.

    I’m not voting for Labour if he wins the leadership.

    • karol 21.1
      2 September 2013 at 6:38 pm

      And as for Gower promoting him!? When did the 6pm news become an op ed column?

      • Steve Withers 21.1.1
        3 September 2013 at 7:32 am

        Agree totally. I was scratching my head watching that segment…and the smug wee piece of the other guy at Parliament. Maybe they are trying to ‘balance’ Campbell Live’s trenchent criticism of the (right wing) government by being nice to the (right-wing, more mining) Shane Jones.

    • Maureen 21.2
      2 September 2013 at 8:00 pm

      Agreed

      • amirite 21.2.1
        2 September 2013 at 8:16 pm

        Another Shane promotion yet to be aired, TV 3, 3rd degree on Wednesday.
        I guess TV 3 has received more financial help from the Government, they have to return the favour by promoting a National Lite Labour contender.

    • karol 21.3
      2 September 2013 at 8:59 pm

      Jones as labour leader would do nothing to attract ex Labour voters back from voting Green Party. And then who would be Laour’s potential coalition partner/s?

  22. the sprout 22
    2 September 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Agree with the comments that Jones was entertaining but largely a sideshow. He got a lot of laughs but not much applause. Robertson came across as clever and clearly a good speaker, but also still a bit too soft and unconvincing – to me his demeanour lacked the toughness that only comes with experience.
    Cunliffe came across as the least showy, and the most solid and ready of the three.

    • Perplexed 22.1
      2 September 2013 at 8:57 pm

      I agree with that, my old Sprout.

      Cunners was on a different plane. He is taking this in a well measured stride. Top marks.

      Grant was a tres tres “try hard” and is someome who has come to the fullness of their reach. I see now why Shearer went nowhere with Gant as a trusted advisor.

      Shane! Shane? Shane o Shane. Why? Will treating us as simpltons win our support? Jesus wept.

  23. gobsmacked 23
    2 September 2013 at 6:52 pm

    Candidates react to endorsements by former leaders …

    Helen Clark’s – “Woo hoo! Victory is mine!”
    Phil Goff’s – OK.
    David Shearer’s – “Nooooooo …”

    Perhaps Robertson/Cunliffe have promised Shearer a front-bench role – as long as he agrees to endorse Shane Jones.

  24. Clement Pinto 24
    2 September 2013 at 9:06 pm

    CUNLIFFE’S BRILLIANT REPLY TODAY REGARDING ASSET SALES:

    I like it! Here it is. Enjoy!:
    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/david-cunliffe-fails-elaborate-key-policy-video-5557310

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      2 September 2013 at 9:14 pm

      That’s simply Prime Ministerial.

    • Anne 24.2
      2 September 2013 at 9:16 pm

      That is the winning performance of a first class Prime-Minister in waiting. The only parliamentarian who matched – but never bettered – that performance was Helen Clark.

  25. dewithiel 25
    2 September 2013 at 9:33 pm

    I guess journalists are going to have to up their ante if DC is placed where he should be. Best soundbite response I’ve seen, ever, anywhere! And, by the by, the political editors of the TVNZ website would be advised to clear up their bias: David Cunliffe doesn’t fail to elaborate key policy; he’s absolutely, totally, crystal, clear in explaining as to what his policy is in respect of asset sales.

    • fender 25.2
      2 September 2013 at 9:59 pm

      “We will preserve all options to protect the public interest….”

      that reporter(?) is rather slow or has bad hearing.

      “So let him return some of that silver to the crowns coffers before we get criticised for running a referendum.”

      Beautiful. Warms the cockles of my heart that does.

      • weka 25.2.1
        2 September 2013 at 10:37 pm

        The bit at the end was good. But “We will preserve all options to protect the public interest….”. To people who don’t know what the options are, doesn’t that come across as hedging his bets?

        • fender 25.2.1.1
          2 September 2013 at 11:00 pm

          He’s being careful not to speak as the leader, he can’t do that just yet.

          • weka 25.2.1.1.1
            2 September 2013 at 11:29 pm

            Sure, I’m not suggesting that he commit to specific policy (like the journo was trying to get him to do). I was more thinking that he could explain what the phrase meant.

        • Colonial Viper 25.2.1.2
          2 September 2013 at 11:26 pm

          Too people who are permanently cynical about politicians, it will. But then you can’t really convince them anyways.

          To right wing politically aware types, it’s pretty worrying. Cunliffe looked serious and he was not taking any options of the negotiating table. It’s a smart move and exactly what a canny commercial negotiator would do.

          To the centrist politically aware type…Cunliffe took a tack which can be seen as being that of a smart politician. Not over promising, not making threats, not making any hasty or ideological moves. Points won against the thicko journalist too.

          To the left wing politically aware type…it’s good shit. We all know it. Cunliffe can play poker bloody good.

          To the vaguely unaware NZer half tuned out of the 6 o’clock news – Cunliffe looked strong, certain, and didn’t get rattled by a stupid giggly journalist who didn’t seem to have much of a grasp of anything. Someone from Labour who had a backbone. Plus points.

          • Hami Shearlie 25.2.1.2.1
            3 September 2013 at 1:56 am

            Look at DC’s eyes – very astute, steely and determined with just a wee trace of “What on God’s green earth am I talking to?” Not many people could repress their need to burst out laughing at that “jonolist”!!! Great, great stuff indeed!! The mettle of a man of this calibre will be up to any task!!

          • chris73 25.2.1.2.2
            3 September 2013 at 7:35 am

            I’d advise Cunliffe to keep going along this track as hes learnt from Key the lesson of being vague, evasive yet sounding good (good to the people hes appealing to I mean) which is effective

            I’d also advise him to lay of the jokes and to keep presenting himself as a statesman because hes not really that funny but he does come across well as being “serious”

  26. amirite 26
    3 September 2013 at 7:25 am

    Matthew Hooters and his jonolist honcho Claire Trevett keep pushing the lie that Cunliffe is JoKey’s preferred opponent, as if Key can out-match Cunliffe’s abilities. (Reverse psychology, anyone?)

    Warning: your gag reflex may go into override when reading this farticle:
    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11118455

  27. Ron 27
    3 September 2013 at 7:59 am

    I am a little perturbed that an alleged member of Robertson’s Parliamentary support group (reported by news this morning) should try to influence the leader vote by releasing the support figures for inside caucus. Apart from how one can tell what members may or may not vote in a secret ballot it shows a possible attempt to convince the other two arms of the new voting system that they should get in behind the Politicians.
    Personally that is the last thing anyone should do. It has taken a long time for the party and affiliated unions to get some say on the leadership and if we blow it away now by blindly voting the way politicians want we may as well give up the new system and revert back to MP’s choosing the leader.

    • Tracey 27.1
      3 September 2013 at 8:06 am

      …contrary to code of conduct??/

      • Ron 27.1.1
        3 September 2013 at 8:36 am

        I would have thought so but considering the people named as supporting Grant it sounds like the ABC mob doing a suicide bid. Surely they must realise that if anyone but Grant wins, their tenure in parliament may well be short lived or at the very least they will be relegated to back benches for ever.

        • the sprout 27.1.1.1
          3 September 2013 at 10:13 pm

          ABC are in Berlin Bunker mode. Rightly so.

          • Comrade Coba 27.1.1.1.1
            3 September 2013 at 10:28 pm

            Don’t right them off, this contest cud be a lot closer than people think.

            • Colonial Viper 27.1.1.1.1.1
              3 September 2013 at 10:51 pm

              You’re quite right. Some of them have been at the game the longest of any in caucus. They were players in the worst of the Lange/Douglas days.

              Complacency on Cunliffe’s team or on the part of members voting will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before you even blink.

    • Colonial Viper 27.2
      3 September 2013 at 2:08 pm

      You should be perturbed Ron. I think that this behaviour has a very familiar pattern about it.

    • Clement Pinto 27.3
      3 September 2013 at 4:32 pm

      I am curious to see or read that news item. Can you please give a link? Cheers

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