Labour’s Leadership campaign heats up

Written By: - Date published: 7:44 am, October 20th, 2014 - 101 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, david parker, grant robertson, labour, Nanaia Mahuta - Tags:

The Labour leadership campaign is up and running.

Yesterday there was the first televised debate amongst the leadership candidates on Q&A.  The debate was rather messy, too many candidates and too little time.  It is hard to work out who won and who lost although I agree with Ngarimu Blair that Nanaia Mahuta presented a pleasantly distinct world view that needs to be respected.  On that subject I was impressed with Blair’s commentary, more thoughtful and nuanced that what we normally witness.  I hope he gets used more often.

Then Grant Robertson held his campaign launch at Auckland.  This was the most public event any candidate has ever held and Robertson is obviously well organised.  He has a very professional looking Nationbuilder website.  He also has tshirts and pamphlets.  He is the one candidate who ran last time and obviously is well prepared.

His choice to announce that he will nominate Jacinda Ardern as deputy leader is a predictable one.  But he may have been better to reach across and propose that Nanaia Mahuta or Carmel Sepuloni should be deputy.  Although Ardern may be the best choice in Robertson’s part of caucus it is hardly a decision that will unify caucus.  And to those who say that such a selection should be based on competence there is a whole lot of competence amongst the party’s female MPs to select from.

Sepuloni brings distinctly non beltway grass roots qualities that I believe are vital to the party’s interests.  If Robertson is intent on establishing unity then if he wins Carmel or Nanaia should be at the forefront of any list of potential deputy leaders.

Andrew Little also has his website up and running.  Stand by for cameo appearances by Buddy the Cat!  All candidates have Facebook pages.  If Nanaia Mahuta or David Parker have websites let me know.

This week the first two meetings are planned in Wellington (October 22) and Palmerston North (October 23).

Some other details about the contest:

  1. While the deadline for new members to vote has passed, unfinancial members (those who have not renewed their membership in the last three years) can still renew their membership (and be eligible to vote) before 11.59pm on Tuesday 11 November. It will be possible to renew memberships at husting meetings.
  2. Due to the large volume of new memberships, head office is still processing those submitted before the cut-off deadline. This will be completed as quickly as possible. New members are still able to join the Labour Party in order to attend husting meetings, however they will not have a vote.
  3. Head office will be sending votes out electronically to members who have email addresses recorded with them.  If the same email address is listed for more than two members, we will be posting out votes to each of them separately.  If two members only share the same email address, two emails will be sent.
  4. The party will be holding 14 actual and 1 online husting meetings. Candidates will speak, and answer questions. The meetings are open to Party members and members of our union affiliates who are not members of another political party.

101 comments on “Labour’s Leadership campaign heats up ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Stephanie Rodgers 1
    20 October 2014 at 7:48 am

    And if you’re not a member of the Labour Party but you are a member of an affiliated union you can attend the hustings meetings too! Just need to bring your membership card.

  2. Jan 2
    20 October 2014 at 8:15 am

    Can anyne tell us who the panel are set up to do the review on what went wrong at the election – we were promised the names some weeks ago. Sir Michael Cullen and Margaret Wilson were some names mentioned, personally i would have liked to have seen Sir Kerry Burke considered, his performance as Speaker was excellent and he has a long proud history with Labour

    • Olwyn 2.1
      20 October 2014 at 8:26 am

      The subject was discussed on Morning Report today.
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20153997

      Bryan Gould is one of them, and is interviewed. The others, (if I heard it correctly,) were Margaret Wilson, Stacey Morrison and Brian Corban.

      • Sanctuary 2.1.1
        20 October 2014 at 8:54 am

        I have a lot of time for Bryan Gould, he should make some useful and insightful observations.

        I watch Grant Robertson’s launch on telly last night. Apart from Jacinda, was anyone straight there? Running a generic feel good campaign launched at a K road pub surrounded by rainbow activists is a completely stupid thing to do.

        • Red Blooded 2.1.1.1
          20 October 2014 at 9:07 am

          You wouldn’t have a clue what the sexual orientation was of any of the people filmed at the launch other than Grant. Even questioning if they were all gay, well, that is a completely stupid thing to do. But so the bigotry begins and it is going to be a very difficult thing for Grant to stand up against the ignorance and intolerance of those who will use sexual orientation against him, from all sides, including the Labour Party..

          [lprent: I was there. I’d say that at least a third of the people there were either gay or damn well desperately trying to prove that they were. It rather surprised me as most of my gay friends and acquaintances are usually damn hard to pick out from a crowd unless they start holding hands.

          You could equally well observe, as I did, that it was quite different to any usual Labour party meeting because of small numbers of people with grey hairs. It actually looked like the entirety of Princes Street were there. I suppose that helped with the “new generation” motif. However if that was really the objective, then having a lot of 30 somethings with kids would have been a hell of a lot more convincing.

          I’d say that was a fair political comment by Sanctuary. If you want to get wound up about it, then I suggest you examine your own personal reasons why.

          However I’d suggest that you get off silly labeling bit, before I start shoving some tags on you and your pissant behavior. ]

          • Sanctuary 2.1.1.1.1
            20 October 2014 at 9:24 am

            STFU.

            It is probably the most annoying rainbow tactic of them all – flaunt your sexuality as a point of definition, then dare anyone to mention it lest they get branded a bigot. That tactic worked in the 1990s, but these days people don’t give a shit if you are gay or not and they’ll call you on it if you try to use it as a factional weapon.

            So these days you don’t get to launch your bid for the party leadership across the road from Family Bar surrounded by rainbow activists and then get away with claiming anyone who notes the fact is a bigot. The symbolism was obvious. You might be so monumentally stupid as to not notice, but everyone else does.

            You know what? I just watched Harry Smith’s speech to the UK Labour party conference. Right now I’ve got no time for your screeching bigot routine.

            • Red Blooded 2.1.1.1.1.1
              20 October 2014 at 12:23 pm

              If you can’t handle the jandle pal, don’t swish in here accusing all Grant Robertsons supports of being Gay and then wail when you are called on it. Seems like you are the only one screeching here.

              [lprent: He didn’t. You did. ]

              • red blooded …
                20 October 2014 at 5:25 pm

                Can I just int out to people that Red Blooded and I are not the same person? I wouldn’t want it to get confusing…

                BTW, why do we use the word “accusing” when the concept of sexuality is under discussion? What’s the crime/sin people might be “guilty” of?

                Just an observation about language and assumptions…

                • Red Blooded …
                  20 October 2014 at 5:55 pm

                  My apologies for our name similarity, I have been a lurker here with this name quite a long time, you are more vocal here lately, clearly with better verbal skills that don’t get the ire of the moderator. My reaction to Sanctuary was based on the suggestion that all the supporters of Grant Robertson on TV were gay. I wasn’t there, I saw it on TV. It didn’t seem like a Big Gay Out party to me. For the record. I am Gay. I don’t know if I will vote for Grant Robertson, but it wont be based on his sexuality and I wish it wasn’t an issue. Regrettably there will be people from both sides of the fence using it as an accusation. Sorry you got caught in the middle.

            • Tracey 2.1.1.1.1.2
              20 October 2014 at 1:20 pm

              it never crossed my mind while watching what sexuality his supporters are…

              • Once Was Tim …
                20 October 2014 at 1:57 pm

                Me either, however I’d put bets on a shitload of the NZ voting public making such assumptions – which is what’s important.
                Sanctuary: “It is probably the most annoying rainbow tactic of them all – flaunt your sexuality as a point of definition, then dare anyone to mention it lest they get branded a bigot.”
                I have to agree wholeheartedly – and that’s coming from someone who’s travelled both sides of the fence (or as Tenessee Williams once said – I’m not gay but I’ve travelled the waterfront – or words to that effect) as far as actual ‘preference’ goes.
                I’d suggest there is/has been, at times what might best be described as an imbalance – as from time to time there always will be. Question is ….. whether what should be inclusiveness extends beyond that and becomes something resembling exclusivity.
                Still, I suppose it depends on who Labour think they’re trying to appeal to. Atm – not me

                • Tracey …
                  20 October 2014 at 2:02 pm

                  I am trying to understand… genuinely

                  john key is straight, apparently, but shamelessly camps it up for the bjg gay out = ok

                  robertson does a launch where apparently someone in the background looked gay = bad?

                  • Once Was Tim …
                    20 October 2014 at 2:38 pm

                    I don’t have any idea either – which is srt of my point – and nor do I actually CARE at all. I actually ‘assumed’ at one time that JK was a ‘closet poof’. IT doesn’t bother me in the slightest that GR is gay, and ‘out and proud’. One of my concerns is that a good many others DO care (unfortunately).
                    I don’t actually care if either fuck chickens – except from an animal welfare perspective.

            • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.1.1.1.3
              20 October 2014 at 1:54 pm

              Kings Arms , a K Rd Pub ?????….across the road from Family Bar ?????

              Only if you count dashing across 8 lanes of motorway, is it across the Rd.

              But of course being a dog whistle bigot, means that geography and facts dont agree with you.

              Nobody who has ever been to a gig at the KA would consider it part of the K Rd bars

              • lprent …
                20 October 2014 at 4:39 pm

                Yeah. I live across the gully from the Kings Arms just down from the corner of KRd, Ponsonby Rd, Newton Rd, and Great North.

                a. I didn’t know that the Kings Arms was that pub. I think I last saw it nearly 40 years ago before the interior turned black.

                b. It isn’t part of my side of town.

                Mind you, I seldom bother going down K Rd either. Tends to be a bit of a wasteland most of the time.

          • lurgee 2.1.1.1.2
            21 October 2014 at 6:42 am

            I’d say that was a fair political comment by Sanctuary. If you want to get wound up about it, then I suggest you examine your own personal reasons why.

            It looks like a blatant dog whistle to me. I guess some people are too blinded by their own “personal reasons” to recognise it.

            • Red Blooded 2.1.1.1.2.1
              21 October 2014 at 9:35 am

              Thanks lurgee, that’s the way I saw it but I guess I was the stupid dog that reacted. The TV report I saw showed no sign of sexuality, homo or otherwise. As a grey haired gay man living in an isolated community in the far north I will be counting on the Standard for my information (as well as a 2 hr drive to Whangarei if that is the nearest meeting) to make up my mind on which leader to vote for so was disappointed to see a “was anyone there straight” by Sanctuary. My vote will be based on more than someone’s sexuality. Regrettably come 2017 there will be some who cannot get beyond it if Grant is elected. I do think that has to be factored in. Anyway am off to walk my beautiful Lab on beautiful Ninety Mile Beach. That’ll be the only Dog Whistling I’ll be involved in for the rest of the day.

        • Keir 2.1.1.2
          20 October 2014 at 10:21 am

          What a homophobic wanker. This is utterly disgusting, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

          (PS, dude, I know you’re terminally unhip, but the Kings Arms is a venue. It’s the spiritual home of live music in Auckland. That’s the reference, not your panty sniffing homophobia.)

          • Sanctuary 2.1.1.2.1
            20 October 2014 at 10:27 am

            Ah, the conqueror of Christchurch speaks! How did Labour we go down there again?

            • Keir 2.1.1.2.1.1
              20 October 2014 at 10:30 am

              Really man, you’re a fucking disgrace. You don’t use anti-gay bigotry against your comrades. You just don’t. And if you don’t get that basic principle of solidarity, why the hell are you even here?

              • Sanctuary …
                20 October 2014 at 10:45 am

                Look, Robertson is a machine politician with no idea. He would be a great technocrat, a perfect elected bureaucrat. But I suspect he hasn’t got the faintest idea of what makes most New Zealanders tick. If he had the slightest idea what he stood for (apart from one day being the top banana) then he might grow a pair and actually just say he is gay and everyone can build a bridge and get over it. But because he hasn’t got a clue about how to connect to voters and what may or may not sink his campaign he is to afraid to say boo to a goose about anything that might be in the slightest controversial, so we end up with this weird situation where he is being all things to all men while saying he likes rugby and beer while holding his launch with the rainbow faction but we don’t talk about that in case some one says his being gay makes him ineligible to be leader.

                The net outcome of that strategy is always going to be his being gay will therefore be at the centre of the debate.

                I am not the only person to pick this up – I see a post on Pundit about it as well. If Robertson can’t instinctively “pick” what to do when running for leadership of his own damn party, then to me it raises serious questions about promoting him to a position where he has to guess what the entire nation’s voters are thinking about.

                • Keir …
                  20 October 2014 at 10:54 am

                  I’m pleased to see you’ve realised blatant bigotry isn’t a go, but the veiled homophobia above’s hardly an improvement.

                  Grant’s gay. He’s pretty out about that, but it’s not the only thing he is. He also like rugby, and beer, and cricket, and Flying Nun bands. (This is not an unusual combination among men of his age.) You can be gay and like rugby. It’s not impossible.

                  Of course, if he talked about being gay more, because you’re a bigot, you’d be complaining he was TOO GAY, and WHY CAN’T HE JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THE GAY. It’s the bigot’s two step.

                  • Sanctuary …
                    20 October 2014 at 11:02 am

                    “…You can be gay and like rugby. It’s not impossible…”

                    Just hither too the last leadership contest unrevealed.

                  • Once Was Tim …
                    20 October 2014 at 2:11 pm

                    Please Keir – cut the crap on calling bigotry on behalf of the ‘gay community’ until such time as it’s free from it. To me it just comes across as hypocritical. I say that because some of the worst mysogeny I’ve seen emanates from gay men – whether its referring to women’s genitalia as the ‘gash’, whilst busy socialising with ‘fag hags (another of their descriptors) – often to disguise their own fundamental dishonesty; or in regard to ageism – denigrating older men whilst all the while desiring a ‘sugar daddy’.
                    It’s just an exercise in getting peoples backs up from the very people you should be trying to convince more sensible political views.
                    (Puhleeeeese!)

                    • Keir …
                      20 October 2014 at 2:18 pm

                      Actually I don’t give a damn about convincing people like Sanctuary – he’s a bigot, and he’s not for turning. I think the readers of a left-wing blog have the intelligence to see through his homophobia, and don’t need to be treated like children.

                      And I don’t care about whatever bad things gay people might do – although “fundamental dishonesty”? wtf – they doesn’t matter. What matters is that homophobia is simply wrong.

                      [lprent: I suspect that he isn’t. However I am pretty sure from your statements that you are a pretty strong bigot yourself from the way you’re throwing unsubstantiated tags around. Anyway, I can’t see you pointing to any proof that Sanctuary was being homophobic rather than making an observational political point.

                      However I’m perfectly happy to throw a tag on you when I have a go at your behavior. If you want to continue commenting here for the next weeks, then I suggest you learn some restraint or at least some better ability to word less stupid epithets of abuse. ]

                    • Once Was Tim …
                      20 October 2014 at 2:22 pm

                      Homophobia – being bigotry is of course W R O N G as is any other form of it. I must be a very very imperfect specimen however since I still consider it worthwhile trying to understand a bigot’s viewpoint and why they hold it.
                      It’s probably what Labour should be doing too right about now

                      Confession: I’m probably wrong to call you out on it because I’ve been known to slag people I consider wankers off from time to time.
                      Yea … but nah….. I’d suggest if you’ve characterised Sanctuary (or others on this site as ‘bigots’) then you’re being a bit precious.
                      Never mind – precious is ok, as are Christians, bogans, one or two mysogenists, the Murry Party, Winnie the Poo, quite a few ‘Okkers’, a lesser number of ‘Poms’, the occasional Gnat (not in current circulation), and two or three people who claim to be journalists working in the msm

                    • boyonlaptop …
                      20 October 2014 at 7:43 pm

                      “It is probably the most annoying rainbow tactic of them all – flaunt your sexuality as a point of definition, then dare anyone to mention it lest they get branded a bigot. ”

                      This is clearly homophobic. Grant has gone out of his way to make sure his sexuality is NOT an issue. He could have run in much the same way female politicians have in the past as breaking a glass ceiling but he hasn’t. Considering Sanctuary couldn’t actually give a single instance when Grant has tried to use his sexuality to his advantage. Sancutary needs to be the one that needs to put up or shut up.

                    • trendy lefty …
                      22 October 2014 at 2:15 pm

                      The worst misogyny usually just comes from men in general. At least gay men don’t rape and batter women.

                      You absolutely cannot determine someone’s sexual orientation by what they wear, who they hang out with or where they drink, or which politicians they support.

            • boyonlaptop 2.1.1.2.1.2
              20 October 2014 at 11:08 am

              You’re right people in Christchurch overwhelmingly rejected a straight leader who they thought was out of touch with New Zealand.

              • les …
                20 October 2014 at 4:55 pm

                yes but he was ‘sorry for being a man’…the haunting failed campaign that will last forever.

        • starboard 2.1.1.3
          20 October 2014 at 11:52 am

          Fantastic point. First mistake made by Mr Robinson with many more to follow Im afraid.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.1.4
          20 October 2014 at 12:58 pm

          Labour wouldnt be the first major party to have a gay leader.

          “Wendy” wasnt out, but still has a role in public life

          • Michael who failed Civics 2.1.1.4.1
            20 October 2014 at 9:42 pm

            Good point. Well said. Of course, Wendy had to stay in the closet the whole time, but that was then, this is now.

        • SHG 2.1.1.5
          20 October 2014 at 4:46 pm

          The Kings Arms is a what now?

  3. Tracey 3
    20 October 2014 at 8:28 am

    carmel also scared bennett off. new boundary and off scuttled ms bennett to her new favourite part of auckland.

  4. just saying 4
    20 October 2014 at 8:56 am

    I couldn’t watch the whole thing.
    One small good thing – Dann accurately representing discussion here at the Standard and amongst left-wing activists in general as being primarily about what rather than who.

  5. fisiani 5
    20 October 2014 at 9:09 am

    5 people wanted the job, 6 if you count Shearer. 4 are contesting. This is probably not the best way to unite a party and have a strong coherent team. Grant Robertson is correct however. If members do not accept the leader that emerges the they have to be purged.

    • Tracey 5.1
      20 October 2014 at 9:28 am

      the right really resent democracy and transparency dont they. there is an honesty to doing it this way if at the conclusion they all accept the outcome.

      we are in agreement fizzy that is the elephant in the room for labour. will everyone accept the outcome.

    • leftie 5.2
      20 October 2014 at 9:37 am

      @fisiani

      I find that statement from Grant Robertson hypocritical and contradictory, since Robertson, Shearer and co refused to accept the democratically elected leadership of David Cunliffe.

      • Olwyn 5.2.1
        20 October 2014 at 9:50 am

        I heard that statement of Robertson’s on One News last night, and it rang alarm bells for me. Given recent history I suspected it of being a thinly veiled threat to Cunliffe and his supporters; an echo of Shearer’s bolder remarks. Meanwhile, Shearer and the various leakers go on saying whatever they like to to whoever they like, with no consequences. It was as if Robertson was saying, “Anyone who gives my friends and allies any reason to start leaking again will be OUT!”

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1
          20 October 2014 at 11:32 am

          It’s a clear signal that Robertson intends his leadership to be anything but unifying.

      • Enough is Enough 5.2.2
        20 October 2014 at 10:02 am

        In what way did Grant not accept Cunliffe as the leader?

        Notwithstanding the fact Grant was demoted by DC, and that the polls generally went gradually south, Grant remained loyal throughout the year of Cunliffe’s leadership.

        Let’s not rewrite history and portray Grant as something he wasn’t and isn’t.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.2.1
          20 October 2014 at 11:35 am

          Funny: everything bad that was said about Shearer (mostly by me and I’m not even a party member) was supposedly Cunliffe’s fault, and Robertson’s hands are clean. If you can simultaneously believe those two statements you might be happier in a party with higher levels of cognitive dissonance 😈

          • Enough is Enough 5.2.2.1.1
            20 October 2014 at 2:38 pm

            I do not believe that everything bad that was said about Shearer was Cunliffe’s fault. In fact none of it was Cunliffe’s fault. Shearer was Mumblefuck….enough said.

            Now rather than playing AOB’s game, can anyone answer my question:

            In what way did Grant not accept Cunliffe as the leader?

          • boyonlaptop 5.2.2.1.2
            20 October 2014 at 2:39 pm

            “But he may have been better to reach across and propose that Nanaia Mahuta or Carmel Sepuloni should be deputy. Although Ardern may be the best choice in Robertson’s part of caucus it is hardly a decision that will unify caucus.”

            Mahuta is running and Sepuloni has been a firm Cunliffe supporter. I’m sure if he’d suggested Mahuta he would have been denounced as patronizing by not acknowledging her chances at the leadership and Sepuloni has been a firm Cunliffe (and now presumably Little) supporter proposing her as deputy would be seen as naive especially if she announced she was backing Little.

            To suggest Ardern is just the best choice in his part of caucus is demeaning to her political aptitude she is clearly the best candidate for deputy and the fact that she is a Robertson backer and loyal to Grant is an added bonus.

            • mickysavage 5.2.2.1.2.1
              20 October 2014 at 7:55 pm

              Um you have a strange world view when you think that Sepuloni should not be deputy leader because it would be “naive”. Don’t you get it? Many of us would prefer that Caucus was united and functioning well. That requires there to be no factions, no A team, no B team, just a diverse group of people treated with respect and getting on with the job.

              And Ardern has skills and capabilities but I have seen both her and Sepuloni operate and campaign and to be frank Sepuloni leaves her hands down. Who almost tipped out a front bench Minister last election against the trend, won a seat this time AND did really well in the party vote.

              And to suggest that Sepuloni would not be loyal is really strange, I have not seen any MP who behaved herself better in the past few years.

              • boyonlaptop …
                20 October 2014 at 8:14 pm

                Forgoodness sake, did you even read anything I said?

                Sepuloni has a bright future in Parliament for sure however what I said was it could well be perceived as naive if Grant announced her as his pick and then she public stated her preference for Little.

                Comparing Auckland Central to Kelston is also not a great comparison but if you want to compare anecdotal evidence I’ve also met both Ardern and Sepuloni and was much more impressed with Ardern.

                Again, I didn’t suggest she’d be disloyal to Robertson just that the role of deputy should be someone the leader has great confidence in and clearly Ardern fits that role. Nor does it mean there has to be further disunity, supporting a losing candidate to the winning one shouldn’t automatically qualify you for a front bench or deputy position. Caucus should rally behind whoever is chosen as leader.

                • mickysavage …
                  20 October 2014 at 8:32 pm

                  Fark me yes I did.

                  Sepuloni has not announced a preference and I am sure she will not. So she should be discounted in case she does something the has not?

                  I did not compare Auckland Central to Kelston, I compared it to Waitakere which at the time were both marginal. Sepuloni all but won it.

                  This time she did what she had to do. Win the party vote. MPs should be analysed on how well they do with the party vote. Nothing else matters.

                  I’m sorry but Ardern is not clearly the best candidate for Deputy. And how long have you been involved in the party? Did you read my comment “[m]any of us would prefer that Caucus was united and functioning well. That requires there to be no factions, no A team, no B team, just a diverse group of people treated with respect and getting on with the job.”

                  Why would you oppose that?

                  • boyonlaptop …
                    20 October 2014 at 8:48 pm

                    MPs should only be judged on party vote performance? Then I assume you’ll be listing Little last on your leadership ballot?

                    I’m not opposed to unifying the party what I am opposed to is promoting mediocre candidates in a so called display of unity(not suggesting that Sepuloni is mediocre, just that Ardern would be a better deputy). Look at Cosgrove for example who was bizarrely promoted by Cunliffe yet by your own reasoning should be judged as the worst performing Labour MP after getting a pathetic 19% of the vote. Whoever is leader will undoubtedly make a front bench team from all sections of caucus, where I take issue with is the idea that you have to pick a deputy from the losing team.

                    • Jenk …
                      20 October 2014 at 9:31 pm

                      When the heck did Cunliffe promote Cosgrove, BoLaptop ?

                      And to call Sepuloni mediocre against Ardern who has ONLY ever held down political jobs from her friends is ignorant to say the least.

              • Anne …
                20 October 2014 at 8:15 pm

                mickysavage, you must understand that you know nothing. Did you hear me… nothing! Thirty odd years (or whatever) of Labour Party activity including LEC and regional chairmanships plus in-depth personal knowledge of the attributes of many Labour MPs simply does not qualify you to have an opinion on this matter. Do you understand?

                boyonalaptop – as his pseudonym suggests – may have only been around a handful of years but he clearly knows much more about everything than you. 😈

                • boyonlaptop …
                  20 October 2014 at 8:26 pm

                  Um that’s not what I said at all, to rebuild the party we need all the help and the experience we can get. I respect all Labour members including those who are backing different candidates. I truly think Mickysavage believed Cunliffe was the best person to lead Labour and presumably Little now, I disagree and that’s not a bad thing in constructive political discourse.

                  But let’s keep this to engaging in substance rather than attacking personalities, shall we?

                  • mickysavage …
                    20 October 2014 at 8:45 pm

                    Ta Anne 😀

                    bol

                    I agree that we should engage in substance and not attack personalities. I did not think I did this. And you need to understand that the Labour Party is a diverse church with many different tribes. Caucus has its own tribes. To unite them you need to make sure that the leadership represents them all.

                  • BM …
                    20 October 2014 at 8:58 pm

                    Shame Stuart Nash isn’t running.

                    He and Jacinda would have made a great pair.

                    • Jenk …
                      20 October 2014 at 9:32 pm

                      Yeah – a great pair of egoists !

                    • phillip ure …
                      20 October 2014 at 10:12 pm

                      @ bm..

                      ..yeah..brilliant idea..

                      ..lusk-acolyte nash running labour..

                      ..that’ll work..!

                      ..anyway..nash will lose his seat in 2017..(mcvicar won’t split the vote for him again..you’d think..?..)

                      ..so if he is kept far enough down on the labour list..

                      ..it’ll be bye-bye stuey..!

                      ..and seriously there b.m..!

                      ..you recommending a rightwing member of labour isn’t so much a kiss of death for that member…as a deep throat of death…

  6. phillip ure 6
    20 October 2014 at 9:33 am

    with robertson and ardern you really have the beltway-twins..(why have one..?..when you can have two..eh..?..)

    ..career arc for both:..student politics..working in helen clarks’ office…then an mp..and now now..

    ..and i hafta note that in all my yrs of doing commentaries on q-time @ parl..

    ..neither of them have ever got traction against those ministers they opposed/supposedly challenged..

    ..robertson was easily waved away by ryall..

    ..ardern was easily waved away by bennet…

    ..these things do matter..

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 6.1
      20 October 2014 at 9:41 am

      Gracinda are working hard presently to shift the ‘beltway’ perception towards the image of cauliflower-trimming boy and fish-and-chips girl.

      In another department, the carefully cultivated image of fiscal conservatism will be opening up to a show of passions.

      • phillip ure 6.1.1
        20 October 2014 at 10:32 am

        @ kiwiri..

        “..In another department, the carefully cultivated image of fiscal conservatism will be opening up to a show of passions..”

        ..heh..!..i am excited/on the edge of my seat over that one..

        ..the promised unveiling of parkers’ ‘passions’..

        ..has the date/venue been decided yet..?

        ..for the big reveal..?

        ..(i reckon he’s got a snake-tatt on his dick..)

    • SHG 6.2
      20 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

      Two childless urban pakeha with no experience outside university, the public service, and the Labour Party. Awesome.

      • boyonlaptop 6.2.1
        20 October 2014 at 3:42 pm

        You mean like Helen Clark and Michael Cullen? (Minus the childless bit on Cullen’s part)

        • SHG 6.2.1.1
          20 October 2014 at 4:23 pm

          You want the support of workers, it helps to have been one. You want the support of parents, it helps to be one. You want the support of small-business owners, it helps to have been one.

          What a slap in the face for all those Maori votes.

          Letting Ardern even open her mouth on issues of children is a communications fail that only the Labour Party could come up with.

    • Jenk 6.3
      20 October 2014 at 9:33 pm

      + 100% Phil U

  7. Aerobubble 7
    20 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

    Robertson is Cunliffe mark two. Caught his interview post election on NR and had all the bureaucratic one lines about getting in touch yet never hitting the bat once. Same sad joke Cunliffe is. Labour get your act together.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1
      20 October 2014 at 12:55 pm

      Never hitting the bat once ?. You have never listened to anything John Key says. The only time recently he hit the bat, the ball hit Judith Collins, but he had run off to hide.

      • aerobubble 7.1.1
        22 October 2014 at 3:51 pm

        I meant Robertson, sounded just like a bureaucrat who like Cunliffe could not connect. But was ace at talking about connection.

  8. NeutObserver 8
    20 October 2014 at 1:59 pm

    C’mon guys, concentrate on Little, the soft-spoken and sure winner.

  9. AmaKiwi 9
    20 October 2014 at 2:54 pm

    I have a degree in political studies and a lifetime of party activism. So listen up, because here is my ultimate wisdom regarding coalitions, leaders, and policies.

    The three fundamental rules of politics are:

    1. Get elected.
    2. Get elected.
    3. Get elected.

    Which of those three do you not understand?

    • The Pink Postman 9.1
      20 October 2014 at 3:50 pm

      Well said AmaKiwi .Better still do as Joe Hill said .”Organize! Organize1 Organize!
      And that means organize behind the new leader who ever they are.

      • SHG 9.1.1
        20 October 2014 at 5:35 pm

        No, it doesn’t. It means that if the new leader can’t get elected, any effort spent organising behind them is wasted effort. It means that any dollar spent on supporting them is a wasted dollar.

      • AmaKiwi 9.1.2
        21 October 2014 at 2:26 am

        @ The Pink Postman 8.1

        Thank you, but I am from the Saul Alinsky school of organizing. That means organize people based on THEIR issues, not one’s own. Organize around ISSUES, not personalities, because personalities will always eventually disappoint you.

    • les 9.2
      20 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

      could take ,maybe another 6 years to sink in…probably too late then.Realpolitik..so simple .

    • alwyn 9.3
      20 October 2014 at 6:29 pm

      You remind me of Mike Williams on Jim Mora’s program this afternoon.
      He claimed that Helen Clark asked him in 1998 to explain why Labour didn’t get elected. He said he was given 3 months to come up with an answer.
      He finally did and came up with a single sentence.
      His explanation was “We don’t get enough votes”.
      Simple, accurate and quite useless about what to do about it.

      • phillip ure 9.3.1
        20 October 2014 at 8:42 pm

        “..Simple…and quite useless about what to do about it..”

        yep..!..i heard that..and guffawed..

        ..and that’d be why he wasn’t asked to do this review..

        ..that sterling 3 month effort last time asked..

        ..to come up with that..after ‘much thinking’…

        ..and that he is an unreconstructed rightwing/neo-lib apologist..

        ..cd have something to do with it..

        ..’that’s our mike..!’..eh..?

        ..and has anyone heard ‘mikes’ latest leadership victory prediction..

        ..all we can be sure of is that mike is in the abtgg-camp..

        ..the anyone-but-the-gay-guy-camp..

        ..so it won’t be roberston he’ll be boosting..

  10. nadis 10
    20 October 2014 at 4:01 pm

    With the new democratic election process, Labour looks to have created the same type of problem that the Republicans in the USA have. The candidate that will be successful in the primaries is likely to be unelectable in the general election.

    • tc 10.1
      20 October 2014 at 7:37 pm

      That and it gives out so much material for the executive producers of ‘ the MSM show’ to drive a narrative through to 2017 no matter which one wins.

      Wake me when it’s over as IMO labour are handing the Nats a massive distractive assist here which JK and the hollowmen will not pass up.

  11. Nick Morris 11
    20 October 2014 at 4:05 pm

    It’s hard to find the perfect woman, boy.
    These guys are all sincere and competent. It isn’t them, it’s you.
    Come on people. Pick your favorite and then get in behind whoever ends up winning. And I mean really get in behind. This bitching is bad for your souls.
    If you want to know why it is that Labour did so badly at the election, I suggest you start off by asking ” what more could I have done?” You might learn something.

  12. Zolan 12
    20 October 2014 at 7:47 pm

    If Robertson wins, having already chosen a deputy, doesn’t that create a dilemma for caucus to either confirm Ardern without consultation, or invite negative publicity by rejecting his choice?

    And bringing in a fifth person to pre-emptively lock out the other three candidates only emphasises an inability to work together. I’m rather looking for a leader who can use the strengths of all four to best effect.

    I’m relatively undecided on who’s best for the leader’s role, being more interested in the organisation and objectives that form around it. I’m hoping Labour will double-down on it’s commitments to the labour movement and not overextend itself, to provide a solid core for other Left parties and concerns to work with.

    • boyonlaptop 12.1
      20 October 2014 at 7:54 pm

      If Robertson’s wins it will be undoubtedly with the support of the majority of caucus so that shouldn’t be an issue. Even if it hypothetically didn’t, caucus would have to be incredibly stupid not to nominate the deputy leader of the new leader. Even though last contest Robertson won the majority of MPs there was still no challenge put to Cunliffe over the choice of deputy and they supported his choice as deputy and whips.

      I disagree about locking out the other three they could still get senior roles on the bench if Robertson won(although I really don’t think Little would deserve it).

      • mickysavage 12.1.1
        20 October 2014 at 7:59 pm

        Um Cunliffe sought to unite the caucus by making sure that all factions were included and went for Parker as deputy. I would hope that Robertson would do the same.

        • Jenk 12.1.1.1
          20 October 2014 at 9:42 pm

          Didn’t work tho, did it, MS. They all hated him. A bit of the tall poppy syndrome there. Will they all hate the new leader, whoever it is ? Maybe not, because all of them are a bit mediocre and no tall poppies among them. So they’ll all quieten down, and everyone will put it down to the leadership skills of whoever is chosen …. but the policies to come out of the “new” Labour caucus (aka membership) will be watered down to reach out to the “middle” . And THEN we’ll see if Labour can make a difference (or not). (I’m picking “not”).

      • Karen 12.1.2
        20 October 2014 at 8:39 pm

        I think Robertson has been incredibly stupid to say at this stage he wants Adern as his deputy. He has probably lost caucus votes because of this arrogant attempt to sew up both positions.

        I like Adern but have yet to see any evidence of leadership ability, and neither she nor Grant have had experience in government, let alone as cabinet ministers in government. Having the two of them just doubles the risk.

  13. Michael who failed Civics 13
    20 October 2014 at 9:49 pm

    Parker is someone who has worked in business and learned from a failure or two. He is also a good father to his three children, although separated from their mother. He has a brain and a heart and can see where politics is taking the Labour Party – which is what happens when it doesn’t have a credible leader. Parker isn’t perfect but I think he’s a better bet, and more likely to get Labour elected (in 2020 as it will take a long time for it to recover from this year’s debacle). I’m voting for him and I don’t care who his deputy is.

    • Nick Morris 13.1
      21 October 2014 at 9:38 am

      It doesn’t matter who gets elected leader, because calm, confident, assurance from someone comfortable in their own skin and with the absolute support of their fellows in caucus are quite possibly sufficient requirements for success.

      Details of policy and route may vary but there is little enough variation in the end goals of all parties for us to support whoever wins the selection process. I hope that even the most obstreperous among us can acknowledge that.

      I’m pretty sure that even the ABCs put the Labour end-goals into the contract they signed with Satan.

  14. venezia 14
    20 October 2014 at 9:55 pm

    les..and all the other white middle class males who don’t get it…can we just stop this ridicule of David Cunliffe for acknowledging the reality of male violence towards women? Check out this link for what he actually said:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/women-s-refuge-hails-cunliffe-apology-gutsy-6018734

    “I’m sorry for being a man right now because family and sexual violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men.”
    He was addressing a Womens Refuge gathering. The issue was violence towards women by men.

    It suited the MSM to take it out of context, the right wing bloggers, John Key and Grant Robertson in particular to ridicule that statement for their own political purposes, but all the women I have spoken to about it thought it was a great acknowledgement of the real lived experience of many women and it is about time men in power fronted up and challenged it.

    When you continue to ridicule Cunliffe for this statement, you trample on the efforts of some more enlightened men than yourselves to address the issue. Think about it.

    And as for the stunt of choosing a woman as running mate, I will be voting Robertson the bottom of my list for the leadership. He has chosen to align himself with the misogynists in ridiculing Cunliffe on this issue.

  15. Cheryl 15
    21 October 2014 at 10:38 am

    Totally agree Venezia. I think the media needs to realise they are there to report the facts, not miss bits out to distort it and to “enhance” their story.

  16. SeanExile 16
    21 October 2014 at 7:10 pm

    I struggle to see why people are against candidates announcing who they will have a vp. To me the more information I get the better choice I can make. Grant thinks Jacinda is the girl. Good then I have an idea what coalitions he is looking at building.
    Now Id love to see the other candidates show their hands.
    Thats good and honest democracy at play and holding back who your preferred vp candidate is I can live without. Nah transparency all the way.
    Id love if all candidates were to declare their votes publicly too. Like in America where thats usually the case.
    Would make my choice easier.

    Hmm first ok with some really questionable gay comments. Followed up by calling K road a bit of a wasteland. But the worst, no clue about the iconic Kings Arms. Someone needs a ticket to the 21th century…

Links to post