Labour’s lineup emerges

50 comments on “Labour’s lineup emerges ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jake 1

   6 July 2010 at 2:05 pm

   I’m a leftie but if Chris Carter remains in the Labour Party line-up then Labour will not be receiving my vote. It is disgraceful to see Labour continue to promote politicians who are clearly out of touch with the electorate. Labour needs to get rid of some of these MP’s and replace them with “the true Kiwi battlers” rather than the abundance of unionists there now (I’m a union member, but there don’t need to be so many MP’s from the union movement). At this stage my vote will probably go to the Greens……..
   • ianmac 1.1

     6 July 2010 at 2:40 pm

     Jake: I seriously doubt that you are a leftie! Old trick that. Boring.
     Chris Carter has done what exactly to earn your displeasure? Using him are you?
     • TightyRighty 1.1.1

       6 July 2010 at 5:07 pm

       Yea Jake, how dare you question the all knowing gods of the labour parties new zealand office? This is an emerging line up, final confirmation has not been received from new york.
   • loota 1.2

     6 July 2010 at 3:06 pm

     Jake happens to be a leftie *and* a union member *but* thinks that Labour is out of touch with the electorate, and to get more in touch should promote true Kiwi Battlers (like John Key and Paula Bennett I suppose).

     I’m sure Labour will take your note under advisement, Jake.
     • Green Tea 1.2.1

       6 July 2010 at 3:31 pm

       A recent expenses scandal suggests that indeed Labour is quite out of touch with the electorate.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 2:39 am

         What “expenses scandal”? Oh, you mean the political beat up done by NACTs spinsters in the MSM.
         • Daveosaurus 1.2.1.1.1

           7 July 2010 at 7:51 am

           When I hear the phrase “expenses scandal”, I think of the unannounced relocation of Dipton to somewhere in Wellington.
       • the pinkpostman 1.2.1.2

         10 July 2010 at 2:41 pm

         Just a minute was not the Nats also guilty of credit card misuse?/
         Wasn’t English rorting thousands off the tax payers money?
         Have the Nats paid back the GST money they owe the tax department/
         Didn’t Key vote on issues that concerned his trust funds.
         And wasnt Brownlee found guilty of throwing an old age pensioner down the stairs at National Party Conference?
         I could go on and I’m sure theres a lot more to find out.
         This is only the a smidgen of National’s sleaze, and you “green tea ” accuse us of a scandal. !! What a two faced slober . Get your fact right before you make such comments.
   • Margaret 1.3

     7 July 2010 at 4:22 pm

     Jake, this election it will be more important to have union support than ever before.

     National is already rolling out policies designed to smash the unions, once they are gone National can really do exactly as it wants.

     You will literally be “doing as you are told until the rights to you are sold”.
2. Emp 2

   6 July 2010 at 2:15 pm

   Haha, please Labour keep promoting tired old bas-beens like Mallard Dyson King, Carter Goff, Street, etc. Eddie labour got dicked at the last election and their response is to PUT UP THE SAME PEOPLE. haha labour is so stupid, you hacks still think the voters got it wrong last time but if you put up the same people as last time voters will think “oh no we got it wrong, labour was right after all, we’ll vote the same crowd who had nine years already back in”.

   You don’t understand eddie, National doesn’t need to rejuvenate because it is over 50% in every poll. Why change a winning formula. Labour refuse to change a losing formula. This is so piss funny you labour hacks defending these clowns. Little doesn’t realise he’s going to get blamed for putting his parliamentary interests ahead of party rejuvenation. When labour get shit kicked at the next election little will be as much to blame for the failure as goff. Remember in 2002 both boag and english got dumped and blamed for that election, little will get the same blame if he is president of labour getting the biggest kicking of its history, because as president he is responsible for the party.
   • pollywog 2.1

     7 July 2010 at 10:22 am

     you hacks still think the voters got it wrong last time but if you put up the same people as last time voters will think “oh no we got it wrong, labour was right after all, we’ll vote the same crowd who had nine years already back in’.

     this would be the same voters who let Bill English in to control the county’s purse strings as finance minister and deputy PM after handing him his epic fail notice on a number of occassions in the past ?

     in much the same way as a vote for Key in the last election was a vote against Helen for backing up Winston, I reckon next election, it’ll be a vote against Key for backing up English cos given his form, there’s no way Bill’s finished making piles of poo from just about everything he touches.
   • Alexandra 2.2

     7 July 2010 at 8:26 pm

     I’d understand what you are saying, if only it was true. There is a lot of new blood emerging in the electorates and we’ll have to wait and see what happens with the list placings. Good try though!
3. ianmac 3

   6 July 2010 at 2:47 pm

   Good to see some of the experienced, and some newish faces. The List will also be a good for more fresh blood. Every institution need a blend of the experienced and new faces. Labour is managing this well. (Of course the predictible spin from the dark side will try to show otherwise but if they have nothing to fear why would they bother?)
   • lprent 3.1

     6 July 2010 at 6:05 pm

     Yeah. I’m going to be very interested in the list selections next year (?)
4. Jake 4

   6 July 2010 at 3:17 pm

   “Kiwi battlers” to me doesn’t mean those who have aquired material wealth when they have come from poverty. I actually meant those who are part of their communities and fighting to improve them. Labour should be the peoples party but it is hard to consider it so when it is mostly full of unionists and teachers. I’d like to see Labour have more small business owners, cops, health professionals, social workers, NGO leaders etc…..

   Chris Carter USED to be an effective politician, but his misuse of public funds and lack of remorse and insight is unforgivable in my opinion. If Goff kicks him to the curbside (or the party really because of the democractic structure) then I could contemplate a vote for Labour.

   I am not going to defend my leftie credentials but I find it amusing that my claim is instantly dismissed because I commit the treasonous offense of criticising Labour. The Greens got my vote last election and they are likely to get it again unless Labour reconnects with its roots.
   • Bunji 4.1

     6 July 2010 at 4:26 pm

     As long as Te Atatu want him, Labour’ll be pretty much stuck with Chris Carter. He may well end up well down or not on the list, but if those locals will have their say…

     And you’d like to see more Labour MPs who are health professionals like Annette King & Steve Chadwick, or small business owners like Clare Curran & Damien O’Connor or NGO leaders like Phil Twyford & David Shearer or social workers like Winnie Laban? There are quite a few I found without looking too far down the list of MPs. There are also scientists, engineers, lawyers, farmers, high falutin’ academics and lots of manual labourers.

     Yes there are a lot who have been involved in the union movement at some point of their careers, but it is the Labour Party, which comes from the Labour Movement, and that’s where workers tend to start their political careers, agitating for better pay & conditions for the common people, working their way up to parliament where they can really make a difference. As unions are meant to represent the workers, and “workers” (as opposed to small business owners, farmers & capitalists) make up ~85% of the population, one could see a party of unionists being a “party of the people” as you describe.
   • Galeandra 4.2

     7 July 2010 at 9:50 pm

     So I presume you actually care/d about Green policy then? I did and do.
     Carter’s greed annoys me – as much as does the greed of the others, of all stripes – but I won’t let him stand in the way of what I believe to be the best policy for NZ’s future. It was a media beatup and why should those shallow pricks do my thinking for me? Labour didn’t offer much from my point of view last time. Next time? Jury’s still out. Why not listen up, Jake?
     • Jake 4.2.1

       8 July 2010 at 3:40 am

       Well my choice is really between Labour and the Greens, and Labour is not looking like it has a good shot. I would hate to see Labour elected with its current batch of MP’s without the need for a Greens coalition.

       The issue here for me is why are they keeping Carter on? I know Labour is democractic so it isn’t simple for Goff to just banish him but otoh if he made it clear Carter will not be in a Goff Cabinet then I think Carter wouldn’t contest Te Atatu in 2011.
5. Green Tea 5

   6 July 2010 at 3:22 pm

   Hard to get excited about more of the same crap.
6. gingercrush 6

   6 July 2010 at 3:32 pm

   Please tell me someone else will run in Invercargill rather than Lesley Soper who for years contested Clutha Southland. Invercargill should always be a very winnable electorate for Labour particularly if National find themselves in a position where its party vote can simply go no further. But with Soper in the running for the Invercargill electorate it will no doubt go to National for a third time.

   And remember Invercargill in 2005, Labour had the highest party vote.

   I do worry about some of Labour’s selections. I.e. Maungakiekie and Carol Beaumont, Sue Moroney and Hamilton West and Damien O’Connor and the West Coast. I personally like Beaumont but I’m not sure she’s the type of candidate that is going to win Maungakiekie and Maungakiekie should be a Labour-held seat. Meanwhile O’Connor was an excellent electorate MP in the past but in losing that electorate in 2008 and unlikely to find himself as a Cabinet Minister in the future, I’d suggest that electorate could have used a fresher face.

   The same goes for South Auckland where likely once again Ross Robertson and George Hawkins will run. The fact both will never find themselves in Cabinet at any stage in the future. The fact both have been around for so long. Its an area where Labour runs supreme but the results in 2008 for South Auckland were rather disappointing. Now is the time to put in two new or future MPs in very safe electorates who have the motivation to rally in South Auckland and get a better turn-out there.

   There still remains questions of the Shadow Cabinet. And while advancing Chauvel was good same with Robertson still leaves the likes of Twyford (who still finds himself in no electorate and could yet be screwed when the list rankings come out eventually) and Davis lowly ranked within Labour. Though no doubt we can look forward to *shudder* Clare Curran and Carmel Surpuloni (I’m sure that is entirely spelled wrong) being advanced. Exactly the wrong people to be advancing.

   Oh and if policy is simply reversing what National is doing then it doesn’t actually offer much of anything. The most painful thing to hear from Labour is everything they seem to be proposing they never did when in government (i.e. monetary policy reform) or grossly overlooked when in power (greenhouse emissions, carbon neutral economy, peak oil, prison numbers) or outright encouraged (housing inflation, power prices year-on-year increasing, less home owners more people renting, speculation in land and lack of focus on exports instead relying on gross housing inflation to cover the economy for a temporary period that was always going to prove unsustainable meaning we didn’t have a well balanced economy and foreign ownership of assets and land).

   And so far nothing that’s been mentioned gives me any hope Labour will have a coherent policy platform going into 2011.
   • pollywog 6.1

     7 July 2010 at 10:15 am

     Carmel Surpuloni (I’m sure that is entirely spelled wrong)

     then why didn’t you make an effort to spell it correctly ?

     the whole deliberately mispelling and mispronouncing of Pasifikan names as a not so subtle racist dig is wearing a bit thin don’t you think ?
     • gingercrush 6.1.1

       7 July 2010 at 1:43 pm

       Because I’m lazy and couldn’t be bothered looking up her last name.
       • pollywog 6.1.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 7:17 pm

         oh but you can correctly spell everyone elses name in your post when a quick scroll to the initial post, in the time it took for you to add ‘you’re sure you spelt Sepuloni incorrectly’, would have given you the correct spelling.

         lazy ?…probably, disrespectful to Pasifikans ?… absolutely !!!

         which brings me to question why you would think Carmel is exactly the wrong type of person to advance ?…cos shes Pasifikan or is it because she and Curren are women ?

         …and what of Tolley, Bennett, Wong and Te Heu Heu ?

         It’s fairly obvious they’re wayyy out of their depth. Should they have not been advanced or does it speak to the lack of talent within Nationals ranks…maybe that was token feminism too yeah ?
         • gingercrush 6.1.1.1.1

           8 July 2010 at 12:11 am

           Did you deliberately misspell Curran’s name because you’re racist towards whites? Um doubtful but its the same thing. Though in your case, the fact you put so much emphasis on correct spelling, one would think you’d be careful not to misspell Clare Curran’s name.

           I don’t believe Sepuloni Curran are the right people to advance because of their lack of talent. The fact both are women and one is a pacific islander has nothing to do with it.

           As for being so ignorant as to not even reading the article properly where I would be able to see Carmel Sepuloni’s name. Well surely that just shows me to be an ignorant wanker.

           But please don’t imply in future that just because I’m an ignorant wanker with a clear inability to read properly or comprehend anything that somehow I was making a subtle racist dig. I wasn’t and wouldn’t.
         • the pinkpostman 6.1.1.1.2

           10 July 2010 at 2:59 pm

           You are quite correct Pollywog. Watching Te Heu Heu on TV Marae last Sunday I wondered what the hell she was talking about.
           She was completly out of her depth. The other three you mention are a complete loss . Green Tea names a few LP candidates of whom he has a bad opinion I have only briefly meet most of the candidates he mentions so I do not have a firm opinion ,however I do know Sue Moroney and I can assure GT or any one else that Sue Moroney will make an excellent cabinet minister ,Just wait !!
       • Daveosaurus 6.1.1.2

         7 July 2010 at 7:59 pm

         “Because I’m lazy and couldn’t be bothered looking up her last name.”

         It’s not even a matter of looking it up – it’s at the top of this very page!
         • lprent 6.1.1.2.1

           7 July 2010 at 8:26 pm

           But but that involves reading and comprehension ……….
           Hopefully that makes for being nice about gc the other day…..
7. Emp 7

   6 July 2010 at 3:50 pm

   What about labour’s star young people from 2008, jordan carter, conor roberts and kate sutton? Have they been given the heave because there isn’t enough room for them with labour planning to lose so many seats next time? or does little leap frog them all?
   • lprent 7.1

     6 July 2010 at 6:09 pm

     I see you’re still a bit of an idiot about MMP (as well as the topics we discussed earlier about your personality defects)…

     If they haven’t put there names forward for a safe(ish) electorate seat (as rare as hens eggs) then they’re most likely to stand for the list. Quite likely for some unsafe seats as well.

     You really do seem to have come from some strange timewarp out of the 1980’s.
     • Emp 7.1.1

       7 July 2010 at 9:06 am

       you’re the idiot PRENT. Safe seats electorates aren’t rare as hen’s seats. The problem you know is the labour party is too f*cked to manage old fogeys and has beens like carter, hawkins, ross robertson and king and dalziel. There’s five safe seats right there you can give to your rising stars, why doesn’t labour give them to them? oh that’s right because hawkins has said twyford isn’t getting his seat and he will stay on to kill twyford’s chances. Jacinta is hanging out to take goof’s seat in roskill by election when he resigns after getting his clock cleaned at the general election next year. Keep abusing commenters if you like prent but you know your lovely labour party is screwed.
       • lprent 7.1.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 9:48 am

         Sitting MPs and their electorates (by voting) pretty much decide when they will stand down. The party doesn’t have much to say about it. Sure you can stand for selection in those seats but the local members will almost invariably vote back the incumbent. I think Dunedin South (?) had the only successful challenge that I’ve seen for a long time.

         It appears that you know very little about actual politics. In fact you seem to spend most of the time listening to those little voices inside your head saying how the world should work… Either that or you’re projecting the National party back-stabbing techniques onto another party
         • Emp 7.1.1.1.1

           7 July 2010 at 10:48 am

           PRENT if labour had more people like curran who had the courage to challenge tired old has beens (ebven though curran got a wink and a nod from little) then it wouldn’t be the joke it is now with no renewal and no chance for stars. Some of national’s best ministers challenged safe seats, like Collins and Key. All of labour’s safe seats are held by tired has beens. Which is the better solution. Take your pick but here’s a clue if you’re feeling idiotic again, labour’s on 30% and national’s on 50%.
           • lprent 7.1.1.1.1.1

             7 July 2010 at 1:33 pm

             If you want to change the constitution of the NZLP, then I’d suggest becoming a member and expecting a long slow process.

             BTW: I think that your sense of history is fouling up again. Little was elected NZLP pres after the election. I suspect you were thinking of Williams.
             • The Voice of Reason …

               7 July 2010 at 9:28 pm

               Yup, Little was backing EPMU President Don Pryde’s candidacy against both Curran and Benson Pope. Gosh, facts are fun, eh? So much better than making stuff up to bolster thin arguments.
8. Santi 8

   6 July 2010 at 4:02 pm

   Same old faces. Labour has already written off 2011.
9. Inventory2 9

   6 July 2010 at 4:09 pm

   How can Labour promise that it will be “reversing the privitisation of ACC” after the 2011 election when ACC hasn’t been privatised?
   • lprent 9.1

     6 July 2010 at 6:11 pm

     There are still 16 (?) months. So what you’re saying is that you don’t expect National to keep its avowed intention of putting parts of ACC off to competition?

     Yeah they aren’t exactly very good at keeping their promises are they?
10. ianmac 10

    6 July 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Plan A: If the Labour Party offers new plans for a very changed landscape we hear, “why didn’t they do it when in office?”

    Plan B: If the Labour Party do not offer new plans for a very changed landscape, we get “why can the Labour Party not come up with new ideas?”

    Let me see. Umm Plan A or Plan B?
    Plan A seems the most forward thinking and innovative. Stick with it! The righties can keep with their tedious moans.
    • TightyRighty 10.1

      6 July 2010 at 5:13 pm

      moans? don’t you mean cheers for the winning side? the only moans i hear are from disgruntled lefties, moaning that no one gives a shit what they think.
11. mickysavage 11

    6 July 2010 at 5:16 pm

    I see all the wingnuts are out in force.

    Jake I see it is more important for you that Chris Carter bought flowers and repaid the debt of $250 odd than it is that National is laying waste to so much of the good that the last Labour Government did.

    Green Tea the recent expenses scandal shows the MSM is severely unbalanced.
    • lprent 11.1

      6 July 2010 at 6:03 pm

      Yep, but so far they’re staying out of troll territory so I don’t care as a moderator…

      However I may feel like wading into commentary later after I get the bus home and have a bit of a feed. But I have an idea of a post to write tonight as well.
    • Jake 11.2

      6 July 2010 at 11:53 pm

      You will note mickeysavage that I didn’t say I would vote for National, I said I WOULDN’T vote for Labour. I will still give my vote to a left wing party, most likely the Greens as other parties are not likely to make it into Parliament, but I can’t support Labour in it’s current format. I mean they haven’t even acknowledged that they had a convicted criminal as an MP for heaven’s sake (Taito) and they have current MP’s that have had less than clean records when it comes to spending (as have National). They need to purge the deadwood.
12. butnahyeahnah 12

    6 July 2010 at 5:24 pm

    It does seem a bit same-old same-old baby boomers trying to force their voice into the mouths of the next generation. Time enough of trying to lead us youngsters and time 2 start 2 listen…

    I have far more in common with Shane Jones (getting busted having a wank), than I do with Chris Carter (shouting his boyfriend day-spas) and regardless of how homophobe you try to construct what I just said, the vast majority of people I work at the factory with, agree. It’s not about anything simpler than CC took HEAPS more advantage, and has suffered far less by comparison.

    Phil has to go to win my vote. I was giving him a chance, (hey any ones going to look shit next to Helen) and then I saw his knee jerk reaction to his daughters little problem in Sydney.
    I would like you all to take a deep breath and imagine how Phil sounded to everyone under 35. Everyone under 35 is well aware that E’s are safer than horse riding.
    I like Trevor and Annette, that Ruth seems a bit scary in the debating camber too.
    Labour isn’t so much missing her oratory skills, just Helen’s ability to convey that she knew were you were coming from and where you would like to go.
13. Adrian 13

    6 July 2010 at 6:03 pm

    Speaking of money, did National ever pay that GST bill from last election?
    • Anne 13.1

      6 July 2010 at 7:52 pm

      Don’t think so. And it’s sunk without trace with not so much as a murmur from the MSM.
14. tc 14

    6 July 2010 at 7:12 pm

    It may be a bit too full of the folk people love to hate who have had their day but when you look at what they’re up against it’s still a far more balanced capable and intelligent team with a proven track record at good government compared to what we currently have.

    With a focused set of short messages they may just be able to overcome their biggest obstacle to being re-elected…..our long since sold out 4th estate who have sat back and not bothered to badger this government over any single thing.
15. Herodotus 15

    6 July 2010 at 10:55 pm

    So we are looking at personnalities, should not substance of policy be of more importance, otherwise we are voting out a govt (2014?). retaining the top tax rate is a headline with no substance http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10648752
    Mining in Sch 4 JK has already commented on a retrenching of the idea (We can believe this as he has changed a few times the premise of the original idea)
    I hope the great policy will be more than just these items mentioned, other wise we will have to wait for the “New Wave” of labour before they get the idea of what is required for NZ.
    Concertrating on the many not the few when will this occur, TMallard has stated many times on RA of protecting the landlord tax subsidies.
    We will see a change in liquor laws thus displaying listening to the people, Lab cannot argue on this re 2004. ETS is less servere towards my pocket than Labs, so Lab cannot argue this without being seen to distance itself from what it portrays to believe in, Nat on the surface is cleaning up parliament (perception is greater than reality).
    For Lab to gain traction there is a need to display some depth in policy and reconnection with the people. And until those in Lab realise and empathise with the people on how tough the times are how can they have solutions, as under the last term things got tough on families to survive and there was nothing given, remember mortgage rates 10.4%, inflation 4%. All that happened was min wage increased helped some, but there was nothing for the many. So how will Lab keep this statement “Concentrating on many not the few”, when this was not evident under their last term?
    • Green Tea 15.1

      7 July 2010 at 8:46 am

      “So how will Lab keep this statement “Concentrating on many not the few’, when this was not evident under their last term?”

      Dont you know Herodotus, Labour HQ says its going to happen so it is, OK?
16. deemac 16

    6 July 2010 at 11:47 pm

    you have to hand it to the Nats – they helped themselves to much more money than Labour MPs but somehow the expenses scandal is purely a LP problem!

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 6 July 2010 at 1:48 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS