Labour’s 2008 list

40 comments on “Labour’s 2008 list ”

• Comments are now closed

1. george 1

   31 August 2008 at 2:54 pm

   Well that should put the cat among the right wing pigeons.
2. principessa 2

   31 August 2008 at 2:57 pm

   That scoop link has a heap of typos on it- there’s a few incrrect bits like lesley at 77- i don’t think that’s right
3. Daveo 3

   31 August 2008 at 3:05 pm

   Good to see Jacinda Adern so high on the list.
4. bill brown 4

   31 August 2008 at 3:10 pm

   Stuff says 77 too – idiots, so much for professional “journalists”
5. Ross Miller 5

   31 August 2008 at 3:31 pm

   Hmmmmmmmmm. Jacinda Adern, 26 YO living in London where she is “Chief Policy Advisor to the Home Secretary, Sir Ronald Flanagan”.

   Problem is the Home Secretary is Jacqui Smith and there are five other Ministers in the Home Office … but no Sir Ronald Flanagan.

   Has someone been doctoring their c.v. or has JA forgotten whom she works for. I thought you guys would have learnt your lesson after the Mary-Anne Thompson affair.

   Shambolic end to a shambolic week for labour.
6. lprent 6

   31 August 2008 at 3:34 pm

   Looks like the moderating committee did a pretty good job..
7. Inventory2 7

   31 August 2008 at 3:45 pm

   So doubtless a_y_b you’ll have lots of comment about the diversity of the Labour list – just as Steve did when National’s list was released.

   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2749

   Sauce for the goose stuff I would have thought…

   So Lesley Soper isn’t REALLY at #77?
8. Vanilla Eis 8

   31 August 2008 at 3:53 pm

   Two things:

   No George Hawkins? They’re treating him quite badly these days.

   Who the hell is Rajen Prasad, and what has he done to deserve #12?
9. lprent 9

   31 August 2008 at 3:54 pm

   IV2: You could just read the PDF to find out about Lesley Soper – I assume you can read PDF’s.

   Or was that a rhetorical question?

   I see that “Ross Miller” is a reader of No Minister. I suppose that we’ll have the blogs of the right going on about whatever this is for days. Quite boring and yet another round of triviality.

   Hopefully the Nat’s will release some more ‘policy’ (a4 bullet points) so we can discuss that.
10. Inventory2 10

    31 August 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Very rhetorical Lynn!!

    But don’t get into the debate about policy – not when this kind of info is in the public domain!!

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/eight-new-faces-labour-list
11. gobsmacked 11

    31 August 2008 at 4:26 pm

    If we’re going to get excited about politicians’ CV vagueness, here’s John Key’s:

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/3/7/8/48MP78101-Key-John.htm

    Compare that with the version in the Herald profile, and other public statements, when he professed a lifelong adherence to National.

    So, when did he leave the National Party, and why?
12. Steve Pierson 12

    31 August 2008 at 4:34 pm

    Inv2. 6 women in the top 30 on the Nat list, 12 in Labour – 40%, which is more than they have now.

    The top 20 of the Nat list is 80% pakeha male, 45% of the Lab top 20 – much more like the actual population.

    which indicates labour is selecting from a cross section of the population, whereas national represents the old power grouping – rich pakeha males
13. Janet 13

    31 August 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Great to see Jacinda Adern up there – a future PM if ever there was.
14. Julie 14

    31 August 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Here’s some shameful self-promotion – some analysis of the gender balance of Labour’s list:
    http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2008/08/womans-place-labour-party-list.html

    It’s quite a startling contrast with National, imho, and not just in terms of gender either.
15. Quoth the Raven 15

    31 August 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Who the hell is Rajen Prasad, and what has he done to deserve #12?

    Read the link:
    The highest ranking non-MP at number 12 is Dr Rajen Prasad the
    former Chief Families Commissioner and former Race Relations Conciliator. Dr Prasad has 40 years experience promoting positive relations amongst all New Zealand peoples, including social work, teaching and advocacy for families.
16. Tim Ellis 16

    31 August 2008 at 5:15 pm

    Ross, from a google search Sir Ron Flanagan is certainly not the Home Secretary. He is the chief inspector of constabulary at the home office. This organisation seems to be a police monitoring and advisory body. From what I’ve heard she’s very smart. Interesting that some of the hard-working up-and-comers from times past, like Jordan Carter, Michael Wood, Conor Roberts, and Kate Sutton have been given such a poor ranking on this list. I’m also surprised Hamish McDouall was rated so low.

    Bill Brown, I wouldn’t blame Stuff for the list. Apparently Labour sent out three different versions. The first one had Judith Tizard as first equal.

    I am surprised at the number of new people on Labour’s list. They’ve done much better than I expected. No doubt the consequence will be a lot of ruffled feathers from MPs in unwinnable spots, but they’ve done well to be so bold given the need for renewal. I’ve had a bit to do with Raymond Huo a few times professionally, and he’s a nice, sharp guy. Rajen Prasad is hardly an agent for change, but Jacinda, Raymond, Phil Twyford, Carol Beaumont, Carmel Sepaloni and Stuart Nash should sneak through as new list MPs.

    I think Labour are being very optimistic about winning Maungakiekie. Carol Beaumont will have a real struggle winning it from Sam Lotu-Iiga. It seems even more likely that Judith Tizard will lose her seat to Nikki Kaye so will have to rely on Labour’s party vote holding up to stay in on the list.
17. lprent 17

    31 August 2008 at 5:33 pm

    IV2: Kind of different though.

    Labour are doing their policies from 2005 and releasing new stuff all of the time.

    National are just dreaming about their policies happening. Problem was that they were saying that they weren’t the policies from 2005. But they really haven’t said what their policies are, apart from A4 bullet points that are really just agenda notes.

    Do you really read that fool Whale ?
18. bill brown 18

    31 August 2008 at 5:47 pm

    “I wouldn’t blame Stuff for the list”

    They’re supposed to fcuking check – after all they do espouse to being “professionals” – any idiot can cut and paste from a press release.

    FFS – anyone with 1/2 a brain would have had some alarm bells going off especially since they also have some dross about needing 75% of the vote to get in or something. Pathetic, as usual.
19. deemac 19

    31 August 2008 at 5:55 pm

    if the journos don’t know who the UK home sec is unless someone writes it down for them – well it says it all, really…
20. Tim Ellis 20

    31 August 2008 at 6:06 pm

    Bill brown, you mean what, precisely? The Labour Party sends out one of its most important press releases of the year, and the media are supposed to assume that there is a high possibility that Labour would probably put out the wrong list.

    Don’t get me wrong, this was not a huge fuck-up from Labour. But it was Labour’s fuck-up. It wasn’t the media’s fuck-up.
21. George Darroch 21

    31 August 2008 at 6:07 pm

    I don’t usually have kind words for Labour, but I’m mighty impressed with that list.

    Fresh thinking is going to be needed to create the kind of New Zealand I’m enthusiastic about. Too many of the older Labour MPs in the last two terms have stood in the way of change.

    There are plenty of fresh minds in that list (both incumbent and newcomers). I was thinking the other day about which Labour MPs I have a lot of time for, and am very pleasantly surprised to see they’ve almost all done very well in this list. I don’t know some of the non-MPs, but I’ve heard good things about a number of them.

    When compared with the Green list it is also an inditement of the relative lack of cultural diversity in the Greens – which they’re going to need to deal with if they are to ever break past the “clean rivers and safe food” constituency and get out of the 5% ghetto.
22. bill brown 22

    31 August 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Tim, if this was:

    a) An isolated piece of cut-and-paste journalism
    b) Not compounded by the 75% of vote needed sensationalist beat up
    c) Not by a service that some how thinks they’re more professional than others
    d) Not STILL on their site – linked to the correct list

    I’d be tempted to cut them some slack.
23. George Darroch 23

    31 August 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Gosh, that makes me sound ageist! Just to clarify, I meant the MPs who had been in Parliament for long periods of time.
24. Idiot/Savant 24

    31 August 2008 at 6:38 pm

    George: I feel the same way – it’s a list aimed at renewing the party, which dumps the dead wood, and which looks like New Zealand. And yes, the Greens definitely need to work harder on their diversity as well (though they’ve at lest got gender equality sorted).
25. Inventory2 25

    31 August 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Lynn Prentice said “Do you really read that fool Whale ?”

    DEFINITELY worth a read tonight Lynn, if you like a good corruption movie!
26. lprent 26

    31 August 2008 at 8:31 pm

    IV2: Look I could read the “NZ Truth” and it’d have a higher fact to speculation ratio than the stuff that Whale peddles.

    Basically he tries to do an incompetent copy of Wishart’s journalist style, a few facts and a lot of sly insinuations. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to realize that you have to actually have to have sufficient facts to validate your opinions. Probably explains why he had to move sites recently.

    I seldom visit the site unless I’m tracking down the source of speculation for something I find offensive. Between Whales and No Minister I usually find it pretty well immediately. If it isn’t there then I look in the cesspit of the Kiwiblog comments section.
27. Julie 27

    31 August 2008 at 9:32 pm

    Thanks for the linky love 🙂 I wondered why we getting so many hits on a Sunday night!
28. Inventory2 28

    31 August 2008 at 9:32 pm

    Lynn – you’re always welcome at my site, and it’s movie night there as well. You can watch something funny from earlier in the day, or there’s something more topical….
29. lprent 29

    31 August 2008 at 10:37 pm

    Julie: I was looking around for more commentary on the list because our one was a bit light. So I added the links as I found them.
30. Bill 30

    31 August 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Good to see so many genuine workers on that there list.

    The Labour Party should be taken to the advertising standards commission for continuing to use what is a grossly misleading label.

    [a worker is anyone who works (or wants to work) and is not a capitialist. if you work on capital that someone else owns and the products of your labour don’t belong to you, you are a worker. Now, it’s never been the case that you get people coming straight from the factory floor to Parliament, there is a skill set that is needed to be an MP and most people develop those skills in other roles before becoming MPs – eg as union officials. Of course, one doesn’t have to be working on the factory floor to understand or represent the interests of workers – in fact having specialist, fulltime reps helps create a better voice for workers, specialisation leads to better effiency, that’s a foundation of human economy. That said, there are people who would fit your definition of a worker on the labour list, take don pryde – he’s the president of the EPMU but his day job is as a linesworker… he took his first media phonecall after his nomination for clutha-southland up a power pole. SP]
31. dave 31

    31 August 2008 at 11:27 pm

    he took his first media phonecall after his nomination for clutha-southland up a power pole
    So lets change the name of EPMU to EMUP – Electrical Man Up Pole. Now, back the the scampi video…..
32. Steve Pierson 32

    31 August 2008 at 11:35 pm

    good one dave
33. Phil 33

    1 September 2008 at 9:39 am

    “a worker is anyone who works (or wants to work) and is not a capitialist. if you work on capital that someone else owns and the products of your labour don’t belong to you, you are a worker. ”

    Steve,

    I really thought that kind of attitude died out in the 70’s when the vast majority of hippies grew up and got haircuts…

    For someone so tech savvy, why do you live in the past?
34. Anita 34

    1 September 2008 at 9:42 am

    Phil,

    So how do you define a worker?
35. Julie 35

    1 September 2008 at 9:43 am

    So Phil what’s your definition of a worker then? Rather just saying Steve is wrong, perhaps you’d like to explain what you think would be right?
36. Anita 36

    1 September 2008 at 9:44 am

    Julie,

    *snap* 🙂
37. Julie 37

    1 September 2008 at 9:46 am

    what can I say, great minds think alike! 🙂
38. Bill 38

    1 September 2008 at 11:25 am

    SP.
    “Now, it’s never been the case that you get people coming straight from the factory floor to Parliament” and then on Don Pryde – “his day job is as a linesworker” Erm, so anyway.

    The rest of your response comes down to a basic assertion that co-ordinators and managers understand my interests better than me or my peers. Coz they’re specialists.

    And this disempowerment ( you call it representation) of us ‘punters’ by our ‘betters’ is “a foundation of human economy”!!??

    It’s an aspect of representative parliamentary systems, but is it desirable? Is it right? Or does the concentration of decision making and power into fewer hands lead to undesirable outcomes? A cursory glance at the world as it is today should suffice to answer that one.
39. Steve Pierson 39

    1 September 2008 at 11:32 am

    if you call it illegitimate, you’ve already made your decision.

    i’m not sure what you want, direct democracy? i’m all for deeper democracy but there’s obvious benefits in having representatives who have the time and specialisation to make well-informed decisions.

    i am certainly not saying that people with experience in jobs like leading a union are ‘better’ than others, far from it, in fact i find it hugely insulting you would put such words in my mouth.
40. Bill 40

    1 September 2008 at 11:58 am

    Steve.

    What you said was that specialists are better positioned to represent my interests. Generally, that entails an expectation that people will defer to them…in common parlance their ‘betters’.

    No insult intended. I did not say they were somehow better apes then the rest of us and didn’t imply that you said any such thing either.

    Steve, if I want to construct a table, it would be sensible to attain a certain skill set associated with such a project.

    And if I wanted to represent other peoples’ interests, it would be sensible to to attain a skill set for that too.

    The question is, as I said before (and it seems you jumped in before my edit):- Is it desirable to concentrate decision making power into fewer hands?

    If it’s not, then where are the spaces in which we can develop the skills to represent our own interests…develop deeper democratic institutions?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS