Little on Northland

Written By: - Date published: 10:23 am, March 8th, 2015 - 270 comments
Categories: by-election - Tags: , ,

Andrew Little on TVNZ’s Q&A:

Andrew Little gives big hint to left voters on Peters support

Labour leader Andrew Little has given a strong hint to left-leaning voters that they can be “realistic” and back Winston Peters in the Northland by-election.

Mr Little told TVNZ’s Q&A that Labour will not pull its candidate Willow-Jean Prime from the by-election contest, despite a Colmar Brunton polls showing Mr Peters would win easily if she was not in the running.

However, he called for left voters to be “realistic” with their candidate choice.

“They’ve got a vote they should use it. If they want to vote to send a message to the Government then they should use it. …

270 comments on “Little on Northland ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ankerawshark 1
    8 March 2015 at 10:32 am

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/andrew-little-gives-big-hint-left-voters-peters-support-6249844

    Its worth reading this which I talk off Stuff news.

    This is superb from Little. Absolutely superb.

    • Matthew Hooton 1.1
      8 March 2015 at 10:33 am

      The apprentice has learned from how the master handles things in my electorate.

      • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1
        8 March 2015 at 10:52 am

        A bit slow on the uptake though, but possibly getting there.

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          8 March 2015 at 11:01 am

          Who is he talking about?

          edit, never mind, I’m guessing he lives in Epsom. Not surprising he can’t tell the difference between honesty/integrity and what Key does.

      • Skinny 1.1.2
        8 March 2015 at 11:04 am

        Hooton we may need your PR/snake oil services to roll the National patsy candidate. How many peanuts an hour do you charge?
        I think we work around Osbourne is pro super council which looks unpopular in that poll. Oh and lying about Sabin.

        • Clemgeopin 1.1.2.1
          8 March 2015 at 11:58 am

          “How many peanuts an hour do you charge?”

          That was one of the funniest lines I have read!

          • Skinny 1.1.2.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 12:53 pm

            Hooton knows I was taking the piss, bottom feeders like Hooton charge in Monkeys (Cockney slang for $500 pounds) I left it open for the witty comeback. No such luck.

            Speaking of his Epsom electorate MP, I just been down the mariner for brunch and who do I see swagger along the carpark trying to be noticed, David Seymour ACT leader. Looking somewhat dejected over not showing up in today s poll. Bit of a dilemma he can hardly announce ACT is pulling Robin Grief. May go give his ego a boost and ask him lol.

          • greywarshark 1.1.2.1.2
            8 March 2015 at 12:55 pm

            Mind you, he would want chocolate peanuts! Or may be a superior confection with fudge and chocolate.

      • rawshark-yeshe 1.1.3
        8 March 2015 at 11:06 am

        you have an electorate Matthew ? and to whom were you apprenticed ? do tell us more, please.

      • ankerawshark 1.1.4
        8 March 2015 at 3:10 pm

        In response to Matthew Hooton: Personally I have never agreed with what happens in Epsom. I think its sleazy and low, BUT Little has actually played this SO MUCH BETTER than Key. He has backed his own candidate and said we do want her in parliament, while giving Northland voters permission to vote for Winston to send the Government a message.
        That is (Little) no apprentice. Key never did it that skillfully. It makes Key look like an amateur.

        • Matthew Hooton 1.1.4.1
          8 March 2015 at 5:29 pm

          Close but not quite. The next trick is to get WJP to actually advocate Labour people vote for WRP. Key achieved that with Paul Goldsmith and David Seymour. Still a few weeks to go …

          • tricledrown 1.1.4.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 6:33 pm

            Mad Hater.The news Media has already done that.

          • Tracey 1.1.4.1.2
            8 March 2015 at 6:41 pm

            Key didnt make people vote for Goldsmith, that was the logical counter to his distorting the democratic outscome by giving a party no one wants greater representation than its support indicated… so the left voters in Epsom countered.

          • ankerawshark 1.1.4.1.3
            8 March 2015 at 7:03 pm

            No, Matthew H, I think your wrong. The National candidate advocating for the Act candidate is poor indeed. It makes them all look ridiculous and suspect and most people with an ounce of integrity would think twice about being told who to vote for.

            Why I said Little ain’t no apprentice, he’s running a master class, is because he is backing his candidate as someone they want to get into parliament because she is great. But he is allowing Northland voters to draw their own conclusions if they want to send the government a message.

            But Matthew this may be because as proved by research Left wing voters have higher IQ’s and are able to engage in abstract thought, unlike some of the good people in Epsom, who simply follow orders.

            • ropata:rorschach 1.1.4.1.3.1
              8 March 2015 at 9:57 pm

              Because of the Sabin debacle in Northland, National’s sleazy little deals in Ohairu and Epsom have come back to bite them on the arse. If they had played it straight they would have had a clear majority in Parliament, but the greedy buggers like to treat Peter Dunne’s overhang as a bonus seat.

              The nasty nats are desperate to win this seat so that they don’t have to buy off the minor parties with even more outrageous baubles.

              Source: A professor of politics on Radio NZ today. Can’t find a link though

            • The Lone Haranguer 1.1.4.1.3.2
              9 March 2015 at 9:06 am

              Higher IQs? You’re dreaming!

              Heck one million of them cant even get out of their houses to vote, when they know that the Nats wont be introducing policies that will assist them.

              The large (one million folks apparently) can hardly be called “higher IQ” if their response is to not vote

              • ankerawshark …
                9 March 2015 at 9:38 am

                Lone Haranguer……………..its a piece of research that has been done with a large sample size showing that left wing voters have higher iq’s. It has often been quoted on this website, but unfortunately, I don’t have the link. I am sure someone else will post it if you want to see it.

                I think the million who don’t vote are the people who are so down trodden having to travel miles to eek out a pitiful existence and are too exhausted to get to a polling booth. I have no evidence for this however, this is just my opinion.

      • DoublePlusGood 1.1.5
        9 March 2015 at 8:08 am

        What, are you an acolyte of a sith lord or something? Who talks like that!

    • weka 1.2
      8 March 2015 at 10:50 am

      +1 anker. Well done Little and Labour.

      • The Chairman 1.2.1
        8 March 2015 at 12:33 pm

        Conceding to Peters now while initially and inexpediently failing to secure the benefits of a direct deal?

        I guess one could argue better late than never, but one can’t overlook the incompetency and lack of foresight Labour once again exhibited.

        • Colonial Rawshark 1.2.1.1
          8 March 2015 at 12:37 pm

          It’s really, really annoying.

          • saveNZ 1.2.1.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 6:48 pm

            Yep, I come back to National’s main objective to win an election is to ruin Labour’s chances by un stabling them. Maybe the Nats are somehow feeding Labour propaganda? Who runs a Labour campaign in 2014 that is National policies but has more taxes (capital gains & super). Could Labour really expect to win under those circumstances while attacking all their potential partners and their own Labour Leader both current and past?

            Anyway moving on, my bet is that National is still trying to feed propaganda strategy to Labour and I bet they are good at it. P

            Maybe that is why Labour still don’t realise they should be talking to NZ First and Greens at the very least to do some deals now. Otherwise National will get to NZ First first and there is even talk of the Greens with National which I feel is more of a fantasy. But really the Greens need to be getting something and snubbing them at every opportunity, is not for a good relationship.

            Look at the Maori party, one of the most unlikely partners with National, but think how great that is for National, not only getting a partner but also undermining the Maori party at the same time. Labour needs to learn to be more flexible and responsive in deals and the Greens and NZ First should be approached for tea, without the tapes and media:) And Labour should go in, with good faith and not sell them down the river at the next opportunity.

        • weka 1.2.1.2
          8 March 2015 at 12:42 pm

          “Conceding to Peters now while initially and inexpediently failing to secure the benefits of a direct deal?”

          As I’ve been saying, both Labour and the GP have backed themselves into a corner on concessions. How they get out of that requires strategy. I’m more interested in seeing discussion of that than saying Labour are just stupid.

          Is there any evidence that NZF or Peters would do a deal? What kind of deal do you envisage?

          • Colonial Rawshark 1.2.1.2.1
            8 March 2015 at 12:46 pm

            Peters has got media momentum and polling momentum now. As an expert political operator he knows that and he knows that he read the lay of the land in Northland correctly, while Labour in particular did not.

            He also knows that if National still win, but he is a close second and Labour a lame third, then that is a big result already for NZ First.

            So he’s not going to cut a deal with a weaker campaign unless it is largely on his terms.

            • weka 1.2.1.2.1.1
              8 March 2015 at 12:53 pm

              Thanks. I meant TC’s inference that Labour could have done a deal with NZF/Peters originally. Is there any evidence that Peters would have done that back then?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                8 March 2015 at 1:01 pm

                That is one of those things which is highly dependent on the quality of personal relationships between Labour and NZF and the strategy of how it might have been approached.

                At this stage it really falls into the category of ‘what might have beens’.

                • weka …
                  8 March 2015 at 1:32 pm

                  sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    8 March 2015 at 1:59 pm

                    “Wishful thinking” is irrelevant – the question is – was the option of opening a strategic discussion with NZF or the Greens ever seriously considered by Labour. I think the answer is no.

              • mac1 …
                8 March 2015 at 1:10 pm

                There is evidence today that the MSM and Patrick Gower in particular want to be able to say that Labour is doing the same dirty electorate deals as National did in Epsom. I felt that the interviewer on Q&A this morning wanted the chance to do the same, but Little very carefully outlined what his role is as Labour leader and what role the voters of Northland’s have, thereby negating that attack line.

                Peters goaded the Nats in the House earlier and told them that NZ First did have a good candidate etc. He did leave his candidacy announcement until late. I suspect that he knew that leaving it that late would inconvenience Labour and would also cloud the issue for his potential support, but still chose the timing he did.

                Maybe the old dog wants to be able to say he did it on his own, without any deals.

              • The Chairman …
                8 March 2015 at 1:51 pm

                @ Weka

                My inference was to Labour’s failure to attempt to seek a deal. In their arrogance they thought they could do it alone when it was clear to most they couldn’t.

                Key displayed a similar arrogance with his ‘zero chance’ comment.

                • weka …
                  8 March 2015 at 1:57 pm

                  what specifically is this deal you are referring to?

                  and how do you know they didn’t seek one?

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 March 2015 at 2:22 pm

                    The deal we are discussing (assisting Peters to win).

                    Labour announcing a candidate and claiming they plan to campaign hard, in which they said there was no deals.

                    • weka …
                      8 March 2015 at 3:38 pm

                      So not a deal, but Labour stepping aside?

                      What makes you think Labour didn’t approach NZF before their candidate announcment?

                • Kenya …
                  8 March 2015 at 3:46 pm

                  Again: What evidence do you have that Labour didn’t try to talk to Peters?

            • Kenya 1.2.1.2.1.2
              8 March 2015 at 1:36 pm

              I’ve asked before but I’ll ask again. What makes you so sure Winston was willing to do a deal with Labour? If he’s targeting the National vote, which he needs to in order to win, wouldn’t it have been to his advantage for Labour to put in a candidate initially at least so that he didn’t look like the default left bloc candidate?

              • The Chairman …
                8 March 2015 at 2:17 pm

                @ Kenya

                Whether Peters would have done a deal will never be known now.

                But approaching him should have been given far more weight. Not doing so was a failure, thus a missed opportunity to work closer together.

                Nevertheless, you have a point of merit. A number of Winston’s supporters in this race will come from the right. Therefore, there is a risk Labour support (openly or subversively) will put a number of those supporters off.

                However, seeing as in a great number of areas Peters is more left than Labour, coupled with locals being far more concerned with local issues in this by-election, chances are Labour’s support will have little negative impact.

                • Kenya …
                  8 March 2015 at 3:46 pm

                  Again I ask: how do you know Labour didn’t approach him? Or are you just assuming because you’ve taken a Bomber-style reflexive anti-Labour approach?

            • jackp 1.2.1.2.1.3
              8 March 2015 at 5:21 pm

              He’s not going to do a deal. His whole reputation stands on that. Andrew Little should never have run a candidate there. Hopefully when the suppression orders are lifted a week before the election, that will hurt Osborn. This is really going to be a cliffhanger. Go Winston!!

              • Sacha …
                8 March 2015 at 5:47 pm

                Why would the suppression orders be lifted?

                • DoublePlusGood …
                  9 March 2015 at 8:32 am

                  Because they were not for the protection of the victim, only the accused. A date has been set for their removal.

                  • Sacha …
                    9 March 2015 at 9:29 am

                    How do we know this?

                    • framu …
                      9 March 2015 at 12:17 pm

                      there was a news article that mentioned a prominent NZer facing multiple indecent assault on children who was going to lose name suppression on the 15th

                      a bit of dot joining going on – but thats what people are talking about

                    • Sacha …
                      9 March 2015 at 2:36 pm

                      Surely indecent assault on children would be exactly the situation where suppression is for the sake of the victims? And as we’ve discussed in previous threads, there may be more than one case involved.

              • Kenya …
                8 March 2015 at 10:37 pm

                And given Winston didn’t tell anyone and wouldn’t tell anyone he was running until after Labour had launched its campaign, how does that work? What would you have said if Labour didn’t run a candidate and then Peters didn’t either and just handed it to National without a fight?

          • The Chairman 1.2.1.2.2
            8 March 2015 at 1:04 pm

            @ Weka

            As with Labour, weren’t you one of those initially opposed to Labour doing a direct deal?

            To date, it seems to be more a case of Labour not willing to make astute concession and work with others.

            After initially being shunned by Labour, Peters had little political recourse other to shun Labour when questioned on doing a deal.

            Labour could have done a behind closed doors deal and simply not put forward a candidate.

            As for their stupidity, it requires to be highlighted so they can see and acknowledge their flaws, thus learn from their mistakes.

            • weka 1.2.1.2.2.1
              8 March 2015 at 1:28 pm

              I’ve always been in favour of concessions, and for as long as I’ve been commenting on ts, I’ve argued for them and often been met with arguments against. That’s changed a bit in the last year or do.

              When people talk about a deal, I assume they meant NZF and L talk to each other and the concession involves a trade. That’s different to say the GP choosing to not stand someone. I think in this by-election Labour were in a difficult position because of their previous stance on concessions, their long history of standing in all electorates, and because of the medium term issues of NZF gaining power.

              Most people here seem to think that lessening NACT power now overrides any concerns about what might happen in 2017 with L, GP, NZF.

              I think Peters has done a lot of damage to both MMP and the left in NZ. I don’t trust him. I said originally if I were in Northland I would vote Labour, but later said I might have to vote Peters (damn). I’m a pragmatic voter.

              I’m still unclear exactly what people think Labour should have done. Not stood a candidate? Fine, then explain how they could have managed that, both the short term fallout, and the medium term issues mentioned above.

              I”m also unclear what people mean by a deal. Obvious Gower is shill for the right and is misusing the term. But in genuine terms, what would the deal have been exactly?

              I don’t support deals done behind closed doors. That’s what Key did with Epsom. It stinks. Yes, there can be confidential discussions, but the ‘deal’ needs to be upfront.

              “To date, it seems to be more a case of Labour not willing to make astute concession and work with others.”

              If this were about L and the GP, I would be furious, because the GP have been willing to work with all parties for a very long time. Can’t say the same about NZF. As far as I can see, the best case scenario here is that Labour could have just not stood Prime. That’s not a deal and they get nothing in return. I’ve not seen a credible comment yet on how NZF could have or would have offered Labour something in kind.

              • Sacha …
                8 March 2015 at 1:37 pm

                Winston First has already given Labour something by throwing local support behind Kelvin Davis during the general election to help get rid of Harawira. This could simply be some payback.

                • weka …
                  8 March 2015 at 1:46 pm

                  To me that sounds like Peters doing something to serve his own interests. I wouldn’t call that a concession.

                  (and Labour should be ashamed of themselves over TTT anyway).

                  • Sacha …
                    8 March 2015 at 1:49 pm

                    Looking at confusion on the other thread as well, I’m thinking ‘concession’ is not really a useful word.

                    Yes, given that collusion in TTT it’s hard to see how acting all butter-wouldn’t-melt this time has much currency.

                    • weka …
                      8 March 2015 at 1:52 pm

                      neither is ‘deal’. I think what most people are suggesting is Labour doing what the GP did, just giving something up gratis. Which is what Little has done today.

                    • Sacha …
                      8 March 2015 at 1:55 pm

                      Maybe ‘trade-off’?

                    • mickysavage …
                      8 March 2015 at 8:14 pm

                      I am pretty sure the Davis arrangement was not a “party” deal.

                      IMHO a Labour/Green/NZF Government would be an insipidly weak compromised government not up to what the country really needs.

                    • Sacha …
                      8 March 2015 at 8:21 pm

                      How would you form a government that is up to it?

                    • greywarshark …
                      8 March 2015 at 8:41 pm

                      mickysavage
                      How would you rate that inspidly weak compromised coalition government with the present etc etc coal. govt.?

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      8 March 2015 at 8:48 pm

                      Without NZF the only alternative is to buddy up to both the Maori Party and Peter Dunne. The reason being that LAB + GR cannot add up to 50% by themselves.

                      And Labour knocked out Hone in Te Tau Tokerau and with him Laila is gone, so no help there.

                      LAB + GR will be very lucky to hit 45% combined in 2017. Say 32% Labour and 13% Greens. Those are very optimistic numbers. Where are the extra 6-8 MPs needed to form a government going to come from?

              • The Chairman …
                8 March 2015 at 3:07 pm

                @ Weka

                A deal (where Labour attained something for not standing) would have provided more certainty going forward. Fostering, thus helping to grow a longer and closer relationship.

                Labour have to come to learn they aren’t going to win alone.

                Labour could have handle any fallout in a number of ways. They could have simply told voters they come to learn how to utilize MMP.

                And with having a closer working relationship with NZF, them gaining another seat or two shouldn’t be anything to fear.

                I don’t generally support closed door deals, but in this instance, it may have made a deal far more possible, thus the suggestion.

                • Pascals bookie …
                  8 March 2015 at 9:03 pm

                  You can’t do a deal with Winston. ffs

                  Look at his history, he has never, never, d=said what he will do before an election. You can cozy up all you like, and the day after the election he will look to see what deal he can get that will be the best for him/ his voters.

                  That’s what a vote for Winston is, and his voters get that, or they ought to. People who vote for him strategically to try and get one or another govt, are deluding themselves. He will go either way, depending on how the election falls out and the deal he can cut.

                  • weka …
                    8 March 2015 at 9:08 pm

                    This.

                    Funny how no-one has actually said what a deal with NZF could entail.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      8 March 2015 at 9:10 pm

                      A flat no to the TPPA for starters.

                    • marty mars …
                      8 March 2015 at 9:14 pm

                      labour are still yes though aren’t they? so no deal

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      8 March 2015 at 9:21 pm

                      Yeah they have a bit of a dodge position re: TPPA. They say that they will not sign the deal sight unseen. Which is fair enough.

                      But there’s every chance that Key will sign the deal himself in the next 2 years. So, then what…Labour have never addressed that (likely) eventuality.

                  • Skinny …
                    8 March 2015 at 9:49 pm

                    Well banking some future credit with Peters would be a good start for Labour, just in case they they don’t get 40 % or whatever lofty goal is set.

                    • weka …
                      8 March 2015 at 10:06 pm

                      banking some credit with unreliable Peters, hahahaha, nice one.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      9 March 2015 at 12:06 am

                      weka – Labour can’t make it without NZ First. That’s all there is to it, after Mana was crushed. Labour made this bed, they better get comfy in it. However you tally it up, Labour plus Greens is not going to get to rise from 36% in 2014 to 50% in 2017.

                      Even with Maori Party on 2 or 3 MPs (very optimistic) plus Peter Dunne, LAB + GR can’t make it without NZF.

                      By the way, Peters has already figured all this out.

                  • Skinny …
                    8 March 2015 at 11:17 pm

                    Holding Nact back on the RMA is not a laughing matter. A small victory straightens the weary backs of the troops. A weakened enemy causes defector’s.

            • Kenya 1.2.1.2.2.2
              8 March 2015 at 1:39 pm

              I’ve heard a thing or two from people high up in NZ First and I’m stunned at the ignorance on this thread.

              As I’ve already asked, what makes you all so sure Labour didn’t approach Peters?

              What makes you so sure that Peters didn’t want Labour to run so that he could position himself in the middle of the race and appeal to National Party voters?

              There’s this know-it-all reflexive ‘aren’t Labour just a bunch of fuck ups?’ attitude around here that only makes sense if you make a series of ignorant assumptions about Labour. Would be nice for some of you to challenge those assumptions from time to time. Because as someone who knows a thing or two about how Winston’s been playing this, you look like a pack of idiots.

              • weka …
                8 March 2015 at 1:45 pm

                +1.

                A lot of people have been opposed to concessions on principle, including here amongst commenters. I can’t recall much in the way of indepth debate about this in the past handful of years (happy to be linked to something though). I think we are just not very savvy yet on how these things could even be done.

                • The Chairman …
                  8 March 2015 at 2:38 pm

                  It all depends on what one is making concessions on.

                  Doing a deal with Peters had a lot of support and rationale for doing so.

                  Conceding on the spying bill, not so much.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                8 March 2015 at 2:10 pm

                There’s this know-it-all reflexive ‘aren’t Labour just a bunch of fuck ups?’ attitude around here that only makes sense if you make a series of ignorant assumptions about Labour.

                Oh come now. You may fancy yourself as being in the inner circle and how smart things have been handled from within, but outside of the Thorndon Bubble, it certainly don’t look that way.

                Now there’s an easy way to prove the naysayers very wrong (or very ignorant) of course, as you say they are. And that’s to show us actual results in a few weeks time for the massive amount of money that Labour party members have been asked to contribute to the Northland by-election campaign.

              • The Chairman …
                8 March 2015 at 2:35 pm

                @ Kenya

                If there was a behind closed doors deal as you seem to be implying, why would Labour now change their position and give the game away?

                • Kenya …
                  8 March 2015 at 3:49 pm

                  I’m not implying there was a behind closed doors deal.

                  What I’m suggesting is:

                  a) You are making an assumption that Labour didn’t try to work with Peters. You don’t know that, you’re just assuming it and then casting aspersions on Labour. But you have no reason to believe it.

                  b) Peters didn’t want a deal with Labour and has made a point of not doing anything that might make it look like he’s working with them. His strategy is to position himself in the middle of the race and target National’s voters. He doesn’t want to look like Labour’s puppet.

                  • Tracey …
                    8 March 2015 at 4:59 pm

                    actually that is exactly what it reads like you are suggesting.

                    • weka …
                      8 March 2015 at 10:08 pm

                      Not really. Kenya is suggesting that an approach may have been made and turned down.

                      Besides, I would expect an initial approaches to be confidential.

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 March 2015 at 5:00 pm

                    I’m going off what has been publicly stated (Peters said there had been no deal with the Labour Party, making no mention of being approached) and the actions taken (Labour standing a candidate, announcing they plan to campaign hard, stating there were no deals).

                    There has been no evidence produced to imply otherwise, thus the assumption.

                    If you have any evidence that show otherwise, feel free to share it with the rest of the class?

                    Failure to do so may lead readers to believe you are making an assumption without good reason, or worse, perhaps trying to sweep up Labours mess.

                    • Kenya …
                      8 March 2015 at 10:39 pm

                      Of course he wouldn’t mention being approached. It’d be confidential, wouldn’t it? And none of us will ever know. Doesn’t stop you from making wild assumptions and pontificating at anyone who’ll listen though.

                    • The Chairman …
                      9 March 2015 at 7:35 am

                      @ Kenya

                      Not necessarily. You are merely assuming so with no evidence at all.

                    • Tracey …
                      9 March 2015 at 11:43 am

                      so you are cool with people breaching the confidentiality cos otherwise how would you know this, unless people valued that confidentiality so little?

                    • The Chairman …
                      9 March 2015 at 1:39 pm

                      @ Tracey

                      On the contrary. I was merely emphasizing the fact that not all political approaches are done in a confidential manner.

                      Kenya is merely assuming so.

                      Additionally, Annette King (on TV this morning) stated there has been no dialogue between the two Parties.

              • Tracey …
                8 March 2015 at 4:49 pm

                Does Willow know?

          • Olwyn 1.2.1.2.3
            8 March 2015 at 1:14 pm

            I think we firstly have to acknowledge that Labour has a different relationship with its potential coalition partners than National does. Despite ACT having trotted out Libertarian Jamie Whyte for a bit, they are for the most part now a branch of National. Dunne tends usually to be compliant, and the Maori Party has limited influence. The right have thus re-installed FFP conditions for themselves in an under-the-counter fashion. Labour’s relationship with its two main coalition partners is not nearly so straightforward. All three parties have distinct histories and core constituencies.

            Labour has two things to gain by an NZF win in Northland – a less stable National government, and a chance to see how Winston operates between now and 2017 under those conditions. Hence I think Little has made the right call in encouraging voters to be realistic in casting their votes without wholly putting himself and Labour behind Winston.

            • weka 1.2.1.2.3.1
              8 March 2015 at 2:00 pm

              I agree. I can’t see how they could have done it differently. Peters plays by power rules, not cooperation. If Labour had stood aside at the start, I think it would have weakened them.

              • jackp …
                8 March 2015 at 5:40 pm

                Don’t agree, Labour looks confused and weak by now changing their minds about running their candidate. Winston at least checked which way the wind was blowing before he entered the race but Little did non of that and now looks wishy washy. There is no good look for Little, only the least damaging. Also, Winston isn’t making any deals. That’ll give National the lead if they get wind of that but Key is such a liar, I wouldn’t put it past him to fabricate deals between Labour and Winston either through Hooten or David Farrar and of course, Slater.

                • weka …
                  8 March 2015 at 6:57 pm

                  “There is no good look for Little, only the least damaging.”

                  That’s been true right from the start. It’s always been a no-win situation for Labour no matter what they did. Little did well today though.

              • The Chairman …
                9 March 2015 at 8:05 am

                That’s the point of debate. Was it the right call? Most would agree.

                However, the question is shouldn’t Labour have come to this conclusion before standing a candidate and announcing they plan to campaign hard?

                It now looks a lot like a last minute flip-flop without the wider benefits of a mutual arrangement.

          • Tracey 1.2.1.2.4
            8 March 2015 at 4:47 pm

            Greens didnt stand anyone… that says something I am sure

            • Sacha 1.2.1.2.4.1
              8 March 2015 at 5:44 pm

              Didn’t someone say here in recent days that Greens national office wanted to stand a candidate and the local branch talked them down? Interesting if so.

        • Kenya 1.2.1.3
          8 March 2015 at 1:30 pm

          Why do you assume Labour hasn’t tried to talk to Peters? Do you think Peters would have worked behind the scenes with Labour on strategy? Really? If so, you obviously haven’t been paying attention to Peters’ modus operandi over the last several decades. Labour’s done the best they could with the information they have. The rest of it is just the usual reflexive, Bomberesque anti-Labour whinging.

          • Skinny 1.2.1.3.1
            8 March 2015 at 1:58 pm

            OK before you continue to rip some of us face palmed LP supporters to bits. Why did Peters question me yesterday wtf Labour were up to in this by-election, kind of brow beating me as if I have anything to do with their NL campaign, which i don’t. Once I corrected him that I work with all opposition partys, did he relax.

            • weka 1.2.1.3.1.1
              8 March 2015 at 2:01 pm

              That’s a completely non-sensical response. It doesn’t address Kenya’s concerns, and it just name drops without telling us anything useful about Peters’ concerns. Plus, why would you trust Peters’ strategy anyway?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                8 March 2015 at 2:13 pm

                Skinny’s implication is quite obvious: that Peters hasn’t been approached by Labour to discuss any kind of co-ordination, and he thinks that the upshot of that lack of communication is a mess.

                • weka …
                  8 March 2015 at 2:19 pm

                  Yeah, but Skinny’s the one who was adamant from inside sources that Peters wouldn’t stand on the very day that Peters announced he was standing. So I take generalised comments like the one above with a grain of salt.

                • te reo putake …
                  8 March 2015 at 2:25 pm

                  SFW? As I got bored telling mana voters last year, if you want or need a deal, get off your arse and organise it. Peters came into this race late. He had weeks to have a chat with Little if he wanted something sorted, but (apparently) did nothing. How stupid would Labour have looked if they didn’t stand anyone on the off chance Winston was going to have a run and then he didn’t bother?

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    8 March 2015 at 2:33 pm

                    Labour’s position from the start was an easy one regardless of Peters: Labour will be pointing out the many failures in National’s judgement and policy that have hurt the people of Northland. We back our candidate 100% but we are also going to be realistic in the limited size and duration of the Labour campaign within what is a safe National seat.

                    • te reo putake …
                      8 March 2015 at 2:41 pm

                      Yep. That’s pretty much what Little said at the campaign launch and on regular occasions since.

                    • Kenya …
                      8 March 2015 at 3:52 pm

                      What TRP said. Little has been very clear to play down expectations from the start. This is just more of the Bomberesque reflexive anti-Labour rhetoric that is so damaging to the Left and our chances in 2017. People on the left need to have a little faith and not always jump to the worst possible conclusions so they can beat Labour over the head. Sometimes shit’s just messy in politics and it’s not always Labour’s fault.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      8 March 2015 at 5:18 pm

                      Faith has to be earnt by consistency and results, not given.

                  • marty mars …
                    8 March 2015 at 2:40 pm

                    the funny thing is that labour need a deal not winnie

                    • Kenya …
                      8 March 2015 at 10:42 pm

                      You say that CR, but then you make a wild claim attacking Labour despite all the documented evidence. It’s not even like you need faith here, you just need google, and yet you refuse to use it before reflexively slagging off Labour. The Bomber disease is strong here I see.

              • Skinny …
                8 March 2015 at 2:22 pm

                Cut it out with your smart arse ‘name dropping crap’ Peters is the main opposition contender is he not. Some people enjoy being included in the action from the front line. Sure more would back me up on that than against. Sharing is caring sister.

                Little/Labour messed up so finally tidy their act up by Little front footing( softening) on Q & A.

                • te reo putake …
                  8 March 2015 at 2:37 pm

                  Skinny, you already have a reputation here for big noting. And weka is dead right that you claimed definitively that Winston wouldn’t run, because you’d been told from the inside, only to be proved wrong a few hours later.

                  Good to see you acknowledge that you have nothing to do with the campaign. It’s only a day or two back your phone was “running hot” with calls from disgruntled members and you were going to volunteer to chair the LEC meeting. How times have changed 😉

                  • marty mars …
                    8 March 2015 at 2:44 pm

                    lol skinny knows everyone of note even key rang to ask how many gimmes he should give obama when he played golf with him later that day

                  • Skinny …
                    8 March 2015 at 3:08 pm

                    So I report what I was told a week earlier that Peters was out, since that 7 days Peters continued to get canvassed strongly to stand. I said it was a real shame as i thought he had a show without the Greens standing and I think Northland rural party Focus may stand too so he was in with a show. So hardly the messengers fault TRP.

                    Did I say Northland? there are 2 other LEC’s as part of LP Region. So you can change that smiling face to a blushing face thanks 🙂

                    Btw As far a campaigning goes I do recall a senior Labour MP telling that crew I am a very experienced campaigner. So you can make that 2
                    blushing faces thanks cobbah 🙂

                    • jenny kirk …
                      8 March 2015 at 3:30 pm

                      Oh Skinny – didn’t you resign from the Whangarei LEC ? and do you really think the Te Tai Tokerau LEC are interested in you ? Those are the only other two LECs in the northern region – or were you referring to Rodney ?

                    • te reo putake …
                      8 March 2015 at 3:34 pm

                      Yes, it is the messenger’s fault if the messenger delivers the message late, but still insists its up to date and 100% accurate.

                      Re: the LEC. You tried to make out it was the relevant LEC and now you say it wasn’t really that one and that somehow changes everything. It doesn’t, it just proves the point that you’re not as close to the action as you’ve been making out. Leave that sort of word weaselling to the PM, he’s a pro.

                      You may well be an experienced campaigner, skinny, but we’ve only got your word for it. Same for your anecdotes that Winston thinks you’re influential in Labour and a “senior Labour MP” recognises your skills. It’s just your word. And, as I mentioned earlier, you already have a rep for big noting, which hasn’t been improved by your explanation.

                      But you are in the region, so I’m sure you can give us some interesting views on what’s going on even if it’s from a distance. Just stick to what you know and see; you don’t need the embellishments. In fact, you’re better off without them.

                    • weka …
                      8 March 2015 at 3:45 pm

                      “But you are in the region, so I’m sure you can give us some interesting views on what’s going on even if it’s from a distance. Just stick to what you know and see; you don’t need the embellishments. In fact, you’re better off without them”

                      +1.

                    • Skinny …
                      8 March 2015 at 4:46 pm

                      TRP how about you brush up Jenny Kirk on the outting rule. While she openly chooses her own dial I do not and for very good reason.

                      Now I am having too correct her, since she has a twisted version of events. Possibly cause she resigned from the LEC prior to myself ‘standing down as Vice Chair whilst cross opposition party’s campaigning during last years election, minutes taken. I still hold my affiliate reps position to the LEC. Jenny knows this because she wrote a letter of complaint to the General Secretary of Labour & ccd Little. A rather silly anti democratic demand that was squashed by our GS. Fact.

                      I never done anything of the sort TRP we (Union) have members I rep living in the Northland electorate, Whangarei is surrounded by it, members of our LEC have been putting up hoards, we also fund Labour activities as part of the hub.

                      Your 100% up to date fact blurb about NZF is nonsense. What you want me to ring his PA/ MP just to be sure before I post on here, oh for goodness sake man.

                    • Anne …
                      8 March 2015 at 6:26 pm

                      But you are in the region, so I’m sure you can give us some interesting views on what’s going on even if it’s from a distance. Just stick to what you know and see; you don’t need the embellishments. In fact, you’re better off without them.

                      Very good advice Skinny.Tone it down eh…

                    • weka …
                      8 March 2015 at 9:11 pm

                      If jenny has outed something that wasn’t in the public domain, you should email admin and/or alert the moderators.

                • Tracey …
                  8 March 2015 at 5:02 pm

                  you were also adamant the farmer would get the nod from national, from inside sources again.

                  • Skinny …
                    8 March 2015 at 5:24 pm

                    Oh come on it went to a fourth vote, he was the logical pick, however controlling local government is important to National especially when their new combined council Mayor will be Chris Carter. Osbourne is a patsy for Carter/National. Every man and his dog thought the farmer was in, including Nat party members. It took some work but the backroom boys got their man over the line. It could cost them. Hooton
                    was fooled too don’t forget.

          • Tracey 1.2.1.3.2
            8 March 2015 at 5:01 pm

            In some ways you are still just saying “trust labour”, notwithstanding that trust being breached over and over and over.

            • jenny kirk 1.2.1.3.2.1
              8 March 2015 at 5:14 pm

              All I will say is that Skinny gives an extraordinary twist to his version of things – and I note on a certain Facebook page today that he is going in to bat for Winston. That’s his right.

              But what is not his right is to give the impression that he could go in and chair whichever LEC meeting he is referring to – whether it is Whangarei, TTT, or Northland – and if his union has so many reps around, why aren’t they all an active part of the working parts of the Labour Party in the north ?

              One other thing : active Labour members in the north do not usually spell out in any detail onto a public site what actual strategising and campaigning is being done behind the scenes. Only big-noters do that sort of thing !

              • Skinny …
                8 March 2015 at 5:55 pm

                Kirk I suggest you read TS policy on outing commentors, your getting close to naming me.

                I heard Labour was a basket case (when I was in another region) up here long before I moved here 2 years ago, 2 names were mentioned and yours was one. Now I have explained my standing down, so let’s talk about your exit shall we, could not get on with candidate or campaign crew, now why was I not surprised to hear this.

                With respect, I am of a new generation that see the ‘only way forward is with a coalition’ I didn’t put the leader/co/duty of L/G/NZF on stage together for nothing. This sleeply blue ribbon town didn’t know what hit them. Suddenly columnists and people questioned what the fuck has National done for us.

                But no people like you within Labkur couldn’t go with a coalition in waiting strategy. Your still stuck in the old FPP era. We will drag you out of this mindset starting with this By-Election.

                • jenny kirk …
                  8 March 2015 at 6:03 pm

                  Put a sock in it, Skinny. You’ve become boring.

                  • Skinny …
                    8 March 2015 at 6:40 pm

                    OK Jenny you put a end to stalking me on FB and here and choose to ignore each other, not a problem. As a sign of good faith I have told others who have read this little spat not to crack you further. And there are a few lining up. In Unity as we say 🙂

                • te reo putake …
                  8 March 2015 at 6:27 pm

                  Skinny, you have effectively outed yourself by giving a fair bit of detail of your activities and affiliations. And not just today, you’ve made comments much earlier that make identification pretty easy if anybody could be bothered googling. The key to staying pseudo-anonymous is not giving too much personal detail away, which I know is really hard when we are tempted to give our comments the seal of authenticity. However, others have managed to do it despite years of blogging and just as many years of trolls trying to connect the dots (Hi, Pete!).

                  Having said that, outing is not acceptable, so its not a path commenters (or authors) should go down. Though I note that Jenny Kirk has not done so, even though it’s pretty obvious you both know each other, so she is in a position to do exactly that.

                  Can I suggest you both give it a rest for the time being and just debate the issues not each other? The big picture is that we all want National to lose this by-election. Let’s try and work together to make that happen, ae?

                  • Skinny …
                    8 March 2015 at 6:54 pm

                    Oh give the devils advocate a rest TRP. Kirk has been stalking me not just here but Facebook too. Play it with a straight bat instead of using it.

                  • weka …
                    8 March 2015 at 9:14 pm

                    “Having said that, outing is not acceptable, so its not a path commenters (or authors) should go down. Though I note that Jenny Kirk has not done so, even though it’s pretty obvious you both know each other, so she is in a position to do exactly that.”

                    It’s not just about naming though. The amount of detail she’s posted seems like an outing to me. The only way it’s not is if Skinny has already outed themselves.

                    • te reo putake …
                      8 March 2015 at 9:44 pm

                      Jenny has not put out any detail that I can see, weka. She has replied to detail he himself has provided and corrected a bogus claim (the stuff about chairing the LEC). Skinny has gone on to provide a fair bit more detail in his further replies. He has also given big clues in earlier comments that only require a quick google to show his RL name (I’m not going to point to what they are).

                      So, if he’s out, then he has effectively outed himself. As I said above, the only way to effectively stay pseudo-anonymous is to give as few clues as possible. Skinny, on the other hand, just doesn’t seem to be able to stop bigging himself up to the point where it’s no secret any more.

                      That’s my read of it anyway. Other opinions are probably available!

                    • weka …
                      8 March 2015 at 10:06 pm

                      Fair enough. I just feel uncomfortable at the mixed message, not so much for Skinny as others.

                    • Skinny …
                      8 March 2015 at 10:36 pm

                      Thanks Weka I come clean when she asked me, a member was being defamed so I corrected that as ya do.

                      TRP what bogus claim? the meeting hasn’t taken place, it was a joke about group face palms, however I was elected vice chair and stood down during the election, umm what happens if the chair is not in attendance, or the meeting needs to be strongly chaired. It can be moved, doubt the LEC would mind at all, I am and have been chairman of our Northland Union & previously Waikato OK cobbah.

                • Tracey …
                  8 March 2015 at 6:34 pm

                  “Possibly cause she resigned from the LEC prior to myself ‘standing down as Vice Chair whilst cross opposition party’s campaigning during last years election, minutes taken. I still hold my affiliate reps position to the LEC. Jenny knows this because she wrote a letter of complaint to the General Secretary of Labour & ccd Little. A rather silly anti democratic demand that was squashed by our GS. Fact.”

                  posted by skinny

                  • jenny kirk …
                    8 March 2015 at 6:45 pm

                    Like I said : Skinny has become boring.

                    • les …
                      8 March 2015 at 9:23 pm

                      Skinny sounds like a staunch Labour man…who needs the Natz to attack and undermine you…he gets it all right here.

  2. Penny Bright 2
    8 March 2015 at 10:54 am

    That’s the one Andrew Little!

    The BIG hint for Labour Party supporters to vote strategically for Winston Peters, and for the ‘left’ to ‘do an Epsom’ – without the bogus ‘Leader’s cup of tea’….

    Watch the poll results as more voters ‘get’ strategic voting in Northland.

    Watch the increasing panic in the National camp – at the highest levels – as the stench of impending political doom becomes more overpowering on a daily basis…

    Desperate people do desperate things – what next in the ‘dirty politics’ agenda?

    What do you think Mathew?

    Do you think that it is credible that Mark Osborne, as Mike Sabin’s former Electorate Treasurer, DIDN’T know of the allegations about Mike Sabin before he was selected as the 2014 National candidate for Auckland?

    Penny Bright

  3. Skinny 3
    8 March 2015 at 10:55 am

    Seeing the result of the latest C&B poll on Q & A this morning and Little’s recommendation. I just wonder if the local Labour activists can actually put aside their personal toxic view of NZF-Peters and work collectively to weaken the National Government. Or will they simply aid National by deliberately doing the opposite? So what’s it to be?

    If you need prompting look at what the local Greens have done by rejecting standing a candidate after the party initially intended to stand a candidate. Talking to some of them at yesterdays anti TPPA rally it was great that the local collaborative approach we took up here last year with a election forum appears to be strengthening. Showing the big 3 of Labour/Green/NZF leadership who were all on stage together showing they were a opposition coalition that could form a Government alternative to the National coalition incumbents.

    Seeing Peters has pretty much zero people on the ground outside of his parliamentary staff who have to take annaul leave, we need to have cross party talks to crunch how best we can resource a ‘coalition victory’ given the Nat’s have a very strong team up here.

    • weka 3.1
      8 March 2015 at 11:00 am

      Labour and the GP (and possibly NZF) still have a significant problem beyond this by-election. They’ve backed themselves into a corner over concessions. How are they going to get out of that?

      • Sacha 3.1.1
        8 March 2015 at 11:13 am

        By continuing to negotiate amongst themselves, like grown ups.

        • weka 3.1.1.1
          8 March 2015 at 11:34 am

          do you mean covertly?

          • Sacha 3.1.1.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 11:57 am

            quietly, yes, with carefully coordinated public displays of working together like the joint manufacturing inquiry.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1
              8 March 2015 at 12:04 pm

              I’m not talking about coalitions, I’m talking about concessions, and they most definitely shouldn’t be done backroom if the public front is that they won’t do concessions. Labour and the Greens have backed themselves into a corner on this. That needs to change. Little has done a good job today, but I will be interested to see what their line is after this election.

              • Sacha …
                8 March 2015 at 1:08 pm

                Ah, by ‘concession’ do you mean electorate deals? I guess we could say this represents a change of Labour’s position on those, if mild. The previous stance has not helped them the many times it has been played.

                Voters do not expect politicians to be saintly, just honest about the nature of the role they play. Why would I trust them to wisely exercise power on my behalf if they can’t adultly negotiate strategic relationships in a byelection?

      • Lanthanide 3.1.2
        8 March 2015 at 9:18 pm

        “They’ve backed themselves into a corner over concessions. How are they going to get out of that?”

        By implementing the electoral commission’s suggestions of lowering the party vote threshold to 4% and getting rid of electorate coat-tailing.

        • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.2.1
          8 March 2015 at 9:23 pm

          The threshold should be halved to 2.5% IMO…allowing parties to have a caucus of 3 MPs (better than ACT and UF now).

          • Lanthanide 3.1.2.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 9:40 pm

            I still favour a 3.5% threshold and coat-tailing of up to 1 extra MP for each electorate seat won, if the party vote warrants it.

        • weka 3.1.2.2
          8 March 2015 at 10:09 pm

          “By implementing the electoral commission’s suggestions of lowering the party vote threshold to 4% and getting rid of electorate coat-tailing.”

          That doesn’t solve the concessions issue.

    • Chooky 3.2
      8 March 2015 at 11:13 am

      +100 Skinny

    • Anne 3.3
      8 March 2015 at 11:33 am

      Seeing Peters has pretty much zero people on the ground outside of his parliamentary staff who have to take annaul leave, we need to have cross party talks to crunch how best we can resource a ‘coalition victory’ given the Nat’s have a very strong team up here.

      Well, there’s one way of doing it but whether they will is another matter.

      How about using Labour’s human resources in the electorate to concentrate on a negative campaign against the government and not spend time trying to gather (wasted) votes for their candidate. It might sound a bit bizarre but if Willow Jean Prime uses her undoubted talents for such a purpose them she will not come out of it appearing a loser. Instead she will be assured of a very high list placing that will see her in parliament – possibly even earlier than late 2017 if the government falls.

      • greywarshark 3.3.1
        8 March 2015 at 12:52 pm

        Anne
        A practical and positive idea. Worthy and intelligent for acting on, LP in Northland!

  4. Sacha 4
    8 March 2015 at 11:18 am

    Patrick Gower has predictably thrown a paddy already. Let’s see Labour manage the comms on this with enough discipline this time.

  5. KJT 5
    8 March 2015 at 11:26 am

    Which one is going to give us a highway that doesn’t stop at the Omaha holiday homes?

    And a Marsden point rail link?

    • Skinny 5.1
      8 March 2015 at 12:13 pm

      Well we know that one will tow the party line and their big donators the trucking lobby group. The National patsy Osbourne had to correct himself back to party lines when he got put on the spot over a bullet train between Auckland & Whangarei, yesterday on The Nation. Clearly showed he will join new boy Reti as another subservient National puppet MP for Northland. If he gets elected of course.

    • greywarshark 5.2
      8 March 2015 at 12:24 pm

      Omaha – is that the place they raise a flag of dubious validity indicating that (one of the Eagles – or Hawks) has landed?

    • Tracey 5.3
      8 March 2015 at 5:06 pm

      neither Labour nor national based on previous 30+ years of their governing…

      Northland is another area where Nats dont get votes from the poor so why bother with anti poverty strategies which mean higher wage burdens on their voters?

  6. whateva next? 6
    8 March 2015 at 12:06 pm

    Little was cool calm and collected during CONSTANT attempts to trip him up, get a rise, capture the magic soundbite…”Yes, Labour is backing Winston”.
    Nice work again Mr Little, shoddy and tacky style TVNZ .

  7. marty mars 7
    8 March 2015 at 1:00 pm

    I just don’t get this

    labour stood a candidate and when winnie went in they chose to not withdraw the candidate

    Now that winnie is showing good form – labour are covertly saying vote for winnie while still pretending to back their candidate

    It is all about giving the gnats a bloody nose – but winnie is not a lefty and a bloody nose does not stop the rest of the body doing what it is going to do

    what about the giving labour policies a platform

    what about getting little out there meeting the people and on the news

    what about supporting your values and your candidates

    what about being open and honest instead of sneaky and poll driven

    what about giving 110% to the fight and being proud of that effort

    So for me this is the makings of a major ballsup, an epic idiot move – and labour have only themselves to blame

    • Stephanie Rodgers 7.1
      8 March 2015 at 1:06 pm

      marty, I’ve said before that you only need to look at Prime’s campaign Facebook page to see that Labour is getting out there talking about their policies and meeting the people.

      Of course they’re not going to get on the news in a campaign featuring Winston Peters and his big blue bus. The National candidate is hardly getting media either, except to cover the fact his campaign is having to bring in the big guns of John Key in order to combat the Winston effect.

      • marty mars 7.1.1
        8 March 2015 at 1:10 pm

        if you were up there would you be listening to little or not?

        • Stephanie Rodgers 7.1.1.1
          8 March 2015 at 1:52 pm

          Actually I’m quite capable of making my own strategic voting decisions. Some people will want to take a steer from the leader of the party they support. That’s up to them.

      • marty mars 7.1.2
        8 March 2015 at 1:31 pm

        for instance who should Willow vote for?

        seems like the moondoor IS open – I wouldn’t be going in for any hugs that’s for sure 🙂

        • weka 7.1.2.1
          8 March 2015 at 1:38 pm

          I’m glad I’m not a voter there 😉

          I thought what Little said today was good, and it doesn’t preclude Labour showcasing Prime or policy. Risky though if they really want National to lose.

          I’m still in two minds about it, but that’s just because it’s Peters. But if this were L and the GP, I’d be wanting one of them to step aside.

          What’s a moondoor?

        • Stephanie Rodgers 7.1.2.2
          8 March 2015 at 1:53 pm

          I’m sure Willow-Jean Prime is also perfectly capable of making her own voting decisions.

          And I get you’re ~joking~ about the Game of Thrones reference after our previous conversation, but I actually find it really distasteful to compare Little’s statements – made while speaking incredibly highly of Prime, and saying she needs to be in Parliament, and in an ideal world she’d be MP for Northland – to a method of medieval execution.

          • marty mars 7.1.2.2.1
            8 March 2015 at 2:08 pm

            the point remains no matter how highly little speaks of her – he has also said, ““They’ve got a vote they should use it. If they want to vote to send a message to the Government then they should use it.” Personally that is distasteful to me but I’m not part of the labour family so I probably just don’t get it.

            • weka 7.1.2.2.1.1
              8 March 2015 at 2:12 pm

              who would you vote for marty?

              • marty mars …
                8 March 2015 at 2:29 pm

                I like Reuben Porter

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gDkHSIE0ZY

                I would not vote for winnie to give the gnats a bloody nose. I am simple in that I think you vote from conviction and belief and take the results on the chin – the vote for winnie but support willow is complete bullshit to me – that is the gnat way, their kaupapa, their shame – but as i say i’m simple.

                So I wouldn’t have done a deal to get Hone in – he lost, use it to become stronger – and I wouldn’t have ganged up on him either like davis and labour – that shows no mana imo.

                • weka …
                  8 March 2015 at 3:46 pm

                  cheers.

                • Tracey …
                  8 March 2015 at 5:18 pm

                  I respect that marty

                  I am an Epsom voter and am confronted by this every 3 years… I think Epsom voters end up with 4 MPs who stand in the electorate ballot…

                  it’s a shame that by elections don’t recalibrate party vote by the outcome though…

                  IF Sabin did what is rumoured, they are a pretty conservative lot morally speaking up North in Blue-ville… they may consider Key and the Party thought they deserved such representation…

                  • Macro …
                    8 March 2015 at 8:12 pm

                    IF Sabin did what is rumoured, they are a pretty conservative lot morally speaking up North in Blue-ville

                    That is exactly what is happening and why Peter’s is getting such support.
                    Furthermore – he is a hometown hero. The Peter’s are well regarded – just look at how well young Winston did! The rumour machine is well oiled and the news is getting out there, and I’ll bet the people don’t like what they are hearing. It’s socially conservative for a large majority. Winston is a safe bet as far as they are concerned. National have fouled their nest very heavily and it stinks. Time to clean it up.

            • te reo putake 7.1.2.2.1.2
              8 March 2015 at 2:15 pm

              Why is that distasteful? Little hasn’t told people how to vote, just that they really should take the opportunity to vote if they want to send the Government a message. However, he’s strongly endorsed Prime several times in the same interview and said he’d like to see Northland with a Labour MP. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

              • marty mars …
                8 March 2015 at 2:22 pm

                Well i think my first comment up thread covered that but to reiterate

                pick a candidate
                then say, “If they want to vote to send a message to the Government then they should use it.” which is a direct although subtle reference to vote for someone other than the candidate

                sure he hasn’t told people how to vote – why not? btw imo it has nothing to do with electoral purity and giving voters a choice

    • Murray Rawshark 7.2
      8 March 2015 at 5:02 pm

      I’d suggest Labour should campaign on their policies of raising the retirement age and supporting FJK’s spy bills. Labour are a ballsup already and these are their main differences from Winston First.

  8. RedBaronCV 8
    8 March 2015 at 1:03 pm

    If Winston does realyy well, and that’s looking likely, how much longer term trouble does that give the Nacts? Does it empower the softer, more centrist, less multinational focused wing of the party? After all Winston is about where the Nacts used to be 30 years ago before the party moved right.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      8 March 2015 at 1:10 pm

      They can kiss goodbye to vandalising the RMA for a start.

      • rawshark-yeshe 8.1.1
        8 March 2015 at 1:18 pm

        And likely no majority voting the funds for troop deployment overseas…seems it can’t be done by Cabinet alone ….

        and have to fight against a majority opposing TPPA secrecy ….

        and who knows what else ?

        How will Key save face I wonder ?

      • weka 8.1.2
        8 March 2015 at 1:41 pm

        “They can kiss goodbye to vandalising the RMA for a start.”

        What would be really interesting is if Peters ends up being the kingmaker legislation by legislation (assuming the Mp/Dunne have some spine). We could have a couple of years of NZ getting used to the idea of all govt decisions needing a range of input/support from all parties. I know lots of people don’t like this idea (unstable govt blah blah), and I certainly don’t trust Peters to do this in a good way, but it might break the FPP hangover for good.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1
          8 March 2015 at 1:47 pm

          I agree. There’s lots riding on it.

          Peters won’t want to be tarred with the child poverty brush. What’s his policy on Charter schools? 😈

          • rawshark-yeshe 8.1.2.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 1:55 pm

            Not sure OAB, but he has asked numerous questions in the House re ownership of land and assets in case of any school’s complete failure .. without any intelligent answer from Ms Hekia, I might add.

            As I recall, he asked a provocative question a short while back re the one failing school up north ? He wasn’t happy.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1.1.1
              8 March 2015 at 2:15 pm

              I checked 😈

              New Zealand First will:

              Repeal the 2013 amendments to the Education Act 1989 that allowed the creation of Charter Schools…
              Ensure that the education sector has the opportunity to elect its own representatives to sit around the new Teachers Council.
              Review Section 156 Designated Character Schools in the Education Act 1989.
              Review Integration Act…

          • Macro 8.1.2.1.2
            8 March 2015 at 8:18 pm

            Ah! you looked it up – yes they would end the slush fund for the dame schools.
            They have a very good spokesperson on education incidentally Tracey Martin.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1.2.1
              9 March 2015 at 10:07 am

              It’s always a bit of a lottery what Winston’s going to do. It’s still encouraging though.

        • rawshark-yeshe 8.1.2.2
          8 March 2015 at 1:51 pm

          Yes Weka, something to hope for … but I trust Winston on this. Try as hard as I can, I can’t think of a long-term destructive law he was willingly party to ?

          • weka 8.1.2.2.1
            8 March 2015 at 1:55 pm

            I’m not worried about the legislation votes. I’m concerned about his propensity to do backroom deals that are anti-democratic and to manipulate the media and the public, and him gearing up to exclude the GP from the next govt.

            He’s a consummate power player. This doesn’t serve the left in anything other than possibly the short term.

            • weka 8.1.2.2.1.1
              8 March 2015 at 2:04 pm

              hint, if you need to delete your comment and it’s been sitting there long enough for someone to have replied already, just delete the contents instead (you’ll need to put at least one character in the comment). That way the replies don’t end up orphaned at the bottom of the thread like the one above.

              • rawshark-yeshe …
                8 March 2015 at 2:22 pm

                apologies, weka .. i wrote a second reply that seemed to make the first one redundant .. thx for the tip 🙂

            • alwyn 8.1.2.2.1.2
              8 March 2015 at 2:48 pm

              You mean like him keeping a dead Government alive between 2005 and 2008?

              I find this whole discussion absolutely fascinating though. Never have so many done such back-flips over wanting electorate deals as the people who, on this blog, screamed and ranted about Epsom but now say that Little would be so principled in doing that which they opposed.
              Great fun to watch as they learn the realities of MMP.

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                8 March 2015 at 2:58 pm

                The Epsom deal has gifted a safe seat to a party which gets under 17,000 party votes (and the Ohariu deal has gifted a safe seat to a one-man band who can barely crack 5,000). NZ First is well over the 5% threshold. Even if there were some “deal” being made in Northland, it would be very different to National abusing the coat-tail rule to keep itself in power.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 March 2015 at 2:58 pm

                @Alwyn: Well, of course you’d focus on those few, rather than those who disagree with them, or the fact that the Labour party has stuck to its policy.

                Are you sure they’re backflipping? I bet they’ve argued in vain for Labour to change its policy on previous occasions too.

                We need better wingnuts

              • rawshark-yeshe …
                8 March 2015 at 3:02 pm

                There is a huge difference, imho, though likely hard to see through jaundiced eyes.

                If Winston fails in Northland, NZ First remains in parliament with 14 members; a fair representation of a large number of Kiwi voters.

                The fraud of Epsom is keeping alive a party who have so little support they cannot elect anyone, anywhere, at any time, They survive only at Key’s convenience, a private w.c. if you will, or commonly known as a shithole in more brusque language.

                Have fun working out the diff.

                (And I see Stephanie has more eloquently above said exactly the same thing …. )

                • James Thrace …
                  8 March 2015 at 4:05 pm

                  NZ First have 11 members currently. If Winston wins, they will get 12 members as the next one on the NZ First party list will come into Parliament, once Winston resigns his list seat.

              • Tom Jackson …
                8 March 2015 at 3:35 pm

                I think most people here were more interested in getting left voters to vote for the National candidate in Epsom.

              • weka …
                8 March 2015 at 3:48 pm

                alwyn, “You mean like him keeping a dead Government alive between 2005 and 2008?

                I find this whole discussion absolutely fascinating though. Never have so many done such back-flips over wanting electorate deals as the people who, on this blog, screamed and ranted about Epsom but now say that Little would be so principled in doing that which they opposed.
                Great fun to watch as they learn the realities of MMP.”

                Big differences between Epsom and Northland situations, I wonder if you can pick wha they are?

                • b waghorn …
                  8 March 2015 at 4:29 pm

                  For me its a no brainer to do deals its how its done that is the tricky one and how to stop said deals keeping the zombie parties like act and uf alive.
                  Having cups of tea just makes politician s look foolish to my eye I would prefer open and honest .
                  FYI I still think key will by Winston off if he gets in ,if there’s one thing a trader would understand is every man has his price, and Little starting to waiver is showing weakness .

                  • jackp …
                    8 March 2015 at 6:01 pm

                    I think Key tried that before with Winston. Key wanted Winston in some ambassador position to get him out of the country. As you know, Winston declined. He’s not like John Banks. Instead Winston put his hat in the ring for the 2011 election with the MSM taking full aim at him. That takes guts and determination. He certainly won me over. This bi election is the same scenario. He won’t cave in to Key for any amount of money. Most people that say that are anti NZ first voters anyway.

                    • b waghorn …
                      8 March 2015 at 7:41 pm

                      Hope you’re right re Winnie.
                      I voted nzf in 2008 as a protest over key lying like f%&$ about Winston.

                • alwyn …
                  8 March 2015 at 5:49 pm

                  In reply to Weka @ 3.48pm
                  I can come up with some of course.
                  Winston doesn’t really want to be an electorate MP does he? It is far to much effort for the old fellow. He could have run for Northland last year after all but he claimed he had far to much to do and didn’t run anywhere did he? He’s just trying for a bit of utu against Key who said that he couldn’t trust Winston in 2008.

                  Epsom is more like the way that the Labour Party kept a corpse of a party like Jim Anderton alive by not really trying against him in the last couple of elections. A one man party wasn’t he?

                  The main difference though is the one the MSM idiots like. You know the quote don’t you?
                  “It’s different when the left do it”.

                  Other people have claimed that it keeps alive the ACT party which “keeping alive a party who have so little support they cannot elect anyone, anywhere, at any time”
                  Well that is very close to the number of votes old Jim’s “party” got in 2005 and 2008 isn’t it, and the Labour Party were only to happy to keep him on life support..
                  As for the canard that ” cannot elect anyone, anywhere, at any time”.
                  Richard Prebble won Wellington Central for ACT didn’t he? Wasn’t that “anytime”?
                  It is also a silly statement because they also elected Hide and Banks before the current member.

                  • Tracey …
                    8 March 2015 at 5:54 pm

                    so your comment might have been better to have said Anderton propped up the LP, not NZF?

                    • alwyn …
                      8 March 2015 at 6:24 pm

                      I don’t actually see where I said that Jim Anderton propped up New Zealand First Tracey (5.54pm).

                      On the other hand I have really conflated two issues.

                      One is the fact that National keeping ACT alive is just like Labour keeping Jim on life support.

                      The second is that people wanting a party (Labour) to kneecap its own candidate in order to help another party win is quite funny when it comes from people who screamed corruption when National did much the same in Epsom. It is thinking that encouraging your voters to vote for another parties candidate is somehow “good” when you do it and “evil” when the other side do that is funny.

                      Regarding jackp’s comment at 6.01pm
                      ” Key wanted Winston in some ambassador position to get him out of the country”.
                      That is a new one to me and I certainly can’t say, as you do “As you know, Winston declined”. Can you provide a link to this story?
                      You also seem to be saying that John Banks did accept an ambassadorial position. Where did you have in mind?

                    • Tracey []
                      8 March 2015 at 6:30 pm

                      Mt eden prison? 😉

                    • alwyn []
                      8 March 2015 at 7:09 pm

                      Tracey @6.30pm
                      That is awful.
                      Very funny though.
                      I still can’t work out how to do the smiley faces though although it deserves it.
                      Perhaps I should say it is aweful.

                    • Sacha …
                      8 March 2015 at 7:43 pm

                      People learn, Alwyn, though very slowly in the case of Labour’s management. No shame in realising your former position was not working for you.

              • Tracey …
                8 March 2015 at 5:50 pm

                glad to be of service… it’s all so black and white in the world of no ethics…

            • Colonial Rawshark 8.1.2.2.1.3
              8 March 2015 at 5:16 pm

              I’m concerned about his propensity to do backroom deals that are anti-democratic and to manipulate the media and the public, and him gearing up to exclude the GP from the next govt.

              Of course, Labour appears to do a fine job excluding the Greens by itself.

              And unless LAB + GR can get 49% or more of the vote in 2017 (they got around 36% last time), then NZ First is going to be central to a Labour government. Anyone can do the math.

              • weka …
                8 March 2015 at 7:01 pm

                Yes, but the less power that NZF has the more likely we will get a left wing govt, and the less likely the GP will be sidelined again. I agree about Labour, but I suspect that their vote will be sufficiently low enough in 2017 that they will understand they actually need the GP now. Let’s watch Peters play his usual bullshit games when that happens. I’m looking forward to the day there is a NZF without Peters and seeing what happens when the 3 constituencies try and work together i.e. how much of this is actually about NZF, and how much is Peters?

              • weka …
                8 March 2015 at 7:16 pm

                btw CV, sometimes you appear to think that my persistent criticism of Peters means that I think NZF voters shouldn’t have power or representation. Quite the opposite. I would love to see what would happen on the left if NZF were able to work freely with the left wing parties. The GP kaupapa is working with, and cooperation. It’s Peters that believes that parties further left of Labour shouldn’t be allowed a say in things, and actively works to prevent them from having power. The sooner he is gone from NZ politics the better. Criticising Peters is no different than criticising Shearer. Doesn’t mean I think Labour should be disenfranchised.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  8 March 2015 at 7:36 pm

                  Well, I think that there’s a good chance that Peters has another full term left in him. He has lasted the distance and pulled some amazing politics off. In terms of economics NZF could be argued to be to the left of Labour on many issues. They are relatively socially conservative of course which I know you are not keen on. But a large portion of NZ is. Yes, Peters can have a bee in his bonnet about the Greens but at least some of that is just for show.

                  • Sacha …
                    8 March 2015 at 7:45 pm

                    “there’s a good chance that Peters has another full term left in him”.

                    Really? He has seemed as confused some days in Question Time as Roger Douglas did in his last term. Time to enjoy the hammock.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      8 March 2015 at 7:49 pm

                      That would probably be best for him…

                      Having said that he’s only coming up to 70 now…if it was the USA he’d be gearing up for a run at President.

                    • Sacha …
                      8 March 2015 at 7:52 pm

                      Considering his lifestyle it’s amazing he has lasted this long. MPs work hard, even the lazy ones.

                    • repateet …
                      8 March 2015 at 9:39 pm

                      Peters confused in Question Time because of old age. What’s David Carter’s excuse?

                  • weka …
                    8 March 2015 at 8:10 pm

                    Well, I think that there’s a good chance that Peters has another full term left in him. He has lasted the distance and pulled some amazing politics off. In terms of economics NZF could be argued to be to the left of Labour on many issues. They are relatively socially conservative of course which I know you are not keen on. But a large portion of NZ is. Yes, Peters can have a bee in his bonnet about the Greens but at least some of that is just for show.

                    Still missing the point CV. I don’t have a problem with NZF policies being represented in parliament. My problem is having such a powerful politician wield his power in anti-democratic ways. I look forward to seeing a post-Peters NZF and whether they adopt a more cooperative approach.

                    “Yes, Peters can have a bee in his bonnet about the Greens but at least some of that is just for show”

                    And the rest is deadly serious. Exhibit A: TTT.

                    • gsays …
                      9 March 2015 at 8:34 am

                      hi weka, the notion of a peters free nzf (winston first), to me, sounds like a party that will slowly (two terms) atrophy and the members/voters will more than likely go back to the right.

                    • weka …
                      9 March 2015 at 8:46 am

                      That would solve some problems too. I don’t know that much about NZF other than Peters, except for people like Tracey Martin who seems like good value. But they’ve been a party for a long time, they must have robust internal structures and processes that would survive Peters.

                      I’m also mindful of how often people say the GP won’t survive each time it gets a new leader, starting with Rod Donald’s death. It’s still here.

                    • greywarshark …
                      9 March 2015 at 4:46 pm

                      gsays
                      They might leave NZF and go to the right if Labour keeps harping on about putting up the retirement age hoping that some will be harping above and save the country money. They think it’s a super idea.

            • Tracey 8.1.2.2.1.4
              8 March 2015 at 5:49 pm

              In a different way to DotCom but with similarities too

      • RedBaronCV 8.1.3
        8 March 2015 at 2:15 pm

        I was more wondering if it would cause an internal Nact fracture line as well

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.3.1
          8 March 2015 at 2:23 pm

          I’m allergic to that level of optimism 🙂

          • rawshark-yeshe 8.1.3.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 2:30 pm

            here, AOB — have an anti-histamine and let your optimism rage !! I am really enjoying the first signs of hope in a very long time 🙂

  9. kiwigunner 9
    8 March 2015 at 2:30 pm

    Isn’t Willow on the Maori Roll and therefore can’t vote for herself?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 9.1
      8 March 2015 at 2:39 pm

      What is the point of this comment? With a quick Google I can find no public reference to which roll WJP is on, and without evidence your comment looks like a snide race-baiting derail.

      • Tom Jackson 9.1.1
        8 March 2015 at 3:33 pm

        The point of the comment appeared to be to raise the question of whether Prime was on the Maori roll and therefore could not vote for herself. At least that’s what a competent English speaker would take from it.

        That would be mildly amusing if true, but nothing more than that.

        • kiwigunner 9.1.1.1
          8 March 2015 at 4:33 pm

          I am pro maori, pro labour, pro Willow Jean but voting Winston because it is the only sensible thing to do – this time.

          Stephanie you are just simply too uptight. Calm down a bit, big breath.

          [Stephanie: I note you’ve decided to go for a cheap, sexist shot instead of actually backing up your statements. I invite you to do the latter, instead of the former, if you want to keep commenting here.]

          • kiwigunner 9.1.1.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 9:03 pm

            Not sexist at all – the comment would equally apply to anyone who is as snapish as you are right now – including in this latest comment. The thing about Blogs and debate is to accept that you are not always right about everything and that comments may differ from your own without freaking out. I’m not worried about commenting here. I’ll leave to you.

    • veutoviper 9.2
      8 March 2015 at 4:37 pm

      Hi Kiwigunner – an interesting question but I don’t know the answer.

      But I did want to say that I have been interested in your comments over the last few days in that I note that you have said that you live in Kerikeri and are therefore much more on the spot in Northland than many others of us here. I also noted that you work in a low decile school, so would know the circumstances of many other voters in the electorate.

      I had a quick check back on your comments and commenting pattern. You don’t appear to comment often and your past comments appear quite genuine ones. I for one can find no evidence that you are a troll or similar.

      So please do not be put off from commenting by the negative response of one or two others here. Best to just ignore them and don’t reply or engage with them. That’s what I do.

      PS, have now seen your response, which is what I would be doing if I had a vote in Northland.

      • marty mars 9.2.1
        8 March 2015 at 5:54 pm

        Kia ora Kiwigunner

        I though you may have been responding to my question of who willow should vote for – I suppose if she wants to actually get into parliament she should follow her leaders suggestion and like you vote for winnie – it’s all a bit of a farce imo.

        Edit – I note TV3 are promo-ing the “dirty deal” . I spose labourites will act surprised now about the framing…

      • kiwigunner 9.2.2
        8 March 2015 at 9:28 pm

        The circumstances of people reflect what has happened to NZ over the last thirty years I guess. Some people have done very well and Kerikeri and to alesser extent Pahia are in the main middle class places by NZ standards. There are some amazing homes in many small places – for example overlooking the stunning Whangaroa Harbour or in the many beautiful bays. But past that things are quite dire. Kaikohe and Kaitaia have been abandoned by successive governments. They suffer from terrible unemployment and little or no industry. Work everywhere is scarce and largely seasonal and low wage. There is deprivation that is hard to fathom – housing is often below any acceptable standard and I moften thank the stars that it is warmer here thanin other pasrt of the country. I ahve seen many cases of large extended families living in garages for example. Rhumatic Fever is a problem caused in the main by this type of living. In my school scabies are a common feature, sores and infections too. I’m not one to blame parents – they honestly do their best but benefits and the like have become harder and harder to get and many folk don’t have the money to get to WINZ offices adn when they do they often get the run around.

        The schools do their best but the work is hard because of all of the above – Secondary Schools especially struggle. We spend a lot of time and energy simply caring for the children and feeding them is a normal part of our job – the number needing this help has noticably increased over the last six years.

        As for voting, I don’t know what people will do. Many of those most affected by policy are on the Maori Roll and many are so numb from their daily battles that they won’t vote. The few farmers, the well off, and the retirees will which is why Northland has been Blue for so long – but there is excitement about Winston and embarrasment about Sabin so who knows

        Willow Jean is well liked and respected it is sad that she is now in the position she finds herself – timing is everything they say. Quite frankly if Labour want her parliament leaving her to battle in Northland will always be problematic until the list members in parliament grows. – Beating National in the coming weeks won’t do that now but may be the start to acheiving this. Coming second to National may mean there is bugger all left when the tide finally turns.

        • jenny kirk 9.2.2.1
          8 March 2015 at 10:26 pm

          Sorry Kiwigunner – can you elaborate on your last sentence please. “Coming second to National may mean there is bugger all left when the tide finally turns” –

          Your description of the east/west sides of the Northland electorate, and why it is such a blue seat seems reasonable to me from my own observations, but I can’t quite follow what you’re getting at with your ending comments. Please clarify.

  10. Upnorth 10
    8 March 2015 at 3:12 pm

    cant believe labour is rolling over to NZ First – how can you be a credible oppositio n and say Northland need labour.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      8 March 2015 at 3:27 pm

      You sound concerned. Are you OK?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 10.2
      8 March 2015 at 3:27 pm

      This isn’t flamebait at all. 🙄

    • tricledrown 10.3
      8 March 2015 at 3:51 pm

      Up north.
      FPP is no longer our voting system.
      If the left worked all electorates in MMP manor They would be holding the reigns of power instead of being in opposition.
      Thanks for your cynicaly naive comment.

    • Tracey 10.4
      8 March 2015 at 5:46 pm

      “A little worry is healthy. It keeps us thinking ahead and helps us prepare to work around unexpected misfortune. However, when you worry too much, you make your whole life miserable and burden yourself with a lot of unnecessary stress. Read the steps below to learn how to get your worries under control and rekindle your lust for life.”

      http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Worrying-and-Start-Living

  11. millsy 11
    8 March 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Really. Winston is the only hope for people who want to see National lose. One of the greatest Prime Ministers this country never had IMO. A strong and charismatic figure who always has our back (well, most of the time anyway, but no one is perfect).

    And Willow-Jean Prime. Middle-class lawyer, completely embedded in the non-profit industrial complex (I saw that line on another site, thought it was gold so I pinched it). Nice to look at, but hardly inspiring. The very kind of candidate that Labour should be running a mile from. Had Shane Jones stayed in Labour, he may have been in with a shot, even though he sees pimping this country out to the extractive industries in return for a few token faces cleaning the rig workers toilets as a core NZLP values.

    Time for Northlanders to bloody the nose of *both* parties and put in Winston.

    • Colonial Rawshark 11.1
      8 March 2015 at 5:12 pm

      Really. Winston is the only hope for people who want to see National lose. One of the greatest Prime Ministers this country never had IMO. A strong and charismatic figure who always has our back (well, most of the time anyway, but no one is perfect).

      I agree. In my view NZ First’s major failing is that for a long time it didn’t build a highly capable and consistent top team. Too often the accusation that the party was “Winston First” rung true.

    • Tracey 11.2
      8 March 2015 at 5:48 pm

      as opposed to winston the middle class lawyer completed embedded int he racing industry and himself…

    • jenny kirk 11.3
      8 March 2015 at 5:57 pm

      Willow-Jean grew up in Moerewa, Millsy : possibly the most workingclass town in NZ. Went to Bay of Islands College. Studied law at Waikato (I think) and returned to her home base to work after gaining some legal experience in Wellington. Works, among other things, on Treaty issues for her hapu and iwi. Not exactly your usual middle-class lawyerly background, I would say !

  12. Reddelusion 12
    8 March 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Little own version of doing deals will simply help get the national vote out and up, national will win this in a cake walk, the spectre of what could be labour green and nzf any where near the levers of power, gives you the shudders just thinking about it , not to mention retired in place Peter Dunn Fortunatly a great majority of sensible kiwis think the same way and don’t want their country run by an embarrasing motley crew of losers

    • millsy 12.1
      8 March 2015 at 7:05 pm

      If the Greens/Labour/NZF were in power, the sun will still rise tomorrow. The poor, might have a bit more money, homeless people might be housed, workers would still have tea breaks, and the wealthy might have a pay a bit more in tax, but it wont be Armageddon. Except for people who want to squeeze every cent out of those who cannot afford it.

      Oh, and our rivers wont be dirty, and our air wont be dirty.

    • thatguynz 12.2
      9 March 2015 at 11:31 am

      “an embarrasing motley crew of losers”? As opposed to what is currently wielding the levers of power?

      Your moniker is very apt indeed.

  13. Ecosse_Maidy 13
    8 March 2015 at 7:07 pm

    Voters of the left, be realistic, and dont vote Labour, to give National a mini kicking by letting a Show Pony candidate in whom may end up in league with Nats anyway???
    How about no tacit nods and winks, alliances, pacts, before a by election or more importantly before a genereal election.
    That way the electorate know, when they vote Labour they get Labour. Littles aim should be to show the wider electorate, that come GE time, we wont take the electorate for granted and talk of any form of arrangement and that our aim is to be the largest party in due course and only talk of tactical deals after the electorate has voted.
    As for the poor candidate…You stand for us love,,,,,and I will brief against you….Wrong Message.
    Stand for Labour Comrade,,,,and you may will lose yet we will stand by you and be true to you and Our Party… Right Message

    • Sacha 13.1
      8 March 2015 at 7:32 pm

      “in due course” – and how long is that, again?
      you will notice the meek not inheriting the political earth.

  14. Ecosse_Maidy 14
    8 March 2015 at 7:51 pm

    In due course…one electoral cycle ie three years or two electoral cycle.ie six years.With the best will in the world one electoral cycle probably two.

    And the meek will not inherit the earth,only New Zealand, with no strings attached.

    • Sacha 14.1
      8 March 2015 at 7:57 pm

      Already had a few elections with the approach you’re espousing. Brilliant success. Now why would we wait another one or two?

      • marty mars 14.1.1
        8 March 2015 at 8:06 pm

        it is a dilemma – act like the gnats and do all that they do to get into power and… be like them, fulfill the prophecy that the 2 middle parties are mirrors of each other. Or be true to kaupapa, what you believe in and wait for the cycle to shift to your term.

        Did the gnats change to be more like labour through the helen years?

        It could be moot if they are so similar that it doesn’t make a difference because when they get the reins they act very similar with minimal cosmetic differences. Yep a dilemma all right (pun intended).

        • Sacha 14.1.1.1
          8 March 2015 at 8:15 pm

          It’s the core challenge of politics – honour your key principles but adjust how you use them to bring change and manage an intrinsically compromise-ridden process. Voters do not trust people and groups who seem uncomfortable with power. Requires purposeful strength and steadfast discipline, not kumbaya and flag-waving.

          • marty mars 14.1.1.1.1
            8 March 2015 at 8:22 pm

            “Requires purposeful strength and steadfast discipline”

            I’d probably call it desperation – only so many heartbeats to ‘make the mark’ and get that external recognition so desired.

  15. Ecosse_Maidy 15
    8 March 2015 at 8:00 pm

    So… You’d do anything for power Sacha, including shitting on your own candidates that are running in an election?

    • Sacha 15.1
      8 March 2015 at 8:18 pm

      I prefer honest politicians as I’ve always said. Still looks like the Greens, though at least Labour are now being more transparent about what’s required to win.

  16. Sacha 16
    8 March 2015 at 8:19 pm

    Ecosse_Maidy, you can keep conversations together by using the Reply button.

  17. les 17
    8 March 2015 at 9:31 pm

    Little does not deserve any criticism as this has unfolded ,his approach has been perfect.

  18. ropata:rorschach 18
    8 March 2015 at 10:20 pm

    I couldn’t convince my brother to vote for Winston (I think he’s mainly voting against ‘bludgers’ in kaikohe/moerewa not really for national), and as a small business owner I think he is worried about a potential left government.

    However my folks are keen for a chance to vote for Peters. Dad has written to Winston before and seen the issue(s) promptly raised in Parliament (related to poor maintenance of cook strait ferries, which are in the news again today). The old man used to hang out with Winston’s brother Ian, helping administer the Taniwha (Northland rugby).

    There’s a strong retiree vote up North, and Winston has plenty of connection to the place (he comes from Whangarei). I don’t like Peter’s populism but he’s a wily fox and clearly superior to National’s flabby candidate.

    Has that guy Osborne ever done an honest day’s work, or even know what a spade looks like? He looks like a typical cosseted little rich boy who plays by the rules and sticks to the crosby textor narrative.

  19. Scintilla 19
    9 March 2015 at 8:37 pm

    Can we just remember that kiwi voters elect Nact in Epsom every election whether JK tells them to or not? It’s been happening for a long time. All the handwringing about political purity hides a death wish. It’s a dirty game and all this fretting over whether Labour is forever banished from the moral high ground because AL suggested voters might follow their instincts is just …. drivel. How has it harmed JK to lose the moral high ground over the Epsom cuppa? Has he forever lost it? Of course not.

    The cuppa tea is a gift from Crosby Textor – at once a domestic, cosy image and the anointment of a friendship, with overtones of the Tea Party – a handy, commonplace visual that impacts and hangs around in the public consciousness long after the election. Strong, simple images, strong simple messages. That’s what people remember.

    What hangs around about Labour? All I can envisage is a muddle.

    • ropata:rorschach 19.1
      9 March 2015 at 11:36 pm

      Nope, the ‘cup of tea’ was a major fuckup by team key. FJK was embarrassed to be seen with the scandal-ridden Banks, and even more angry when Bradley Ambrose made the recording, so Police were sicced onto that insolent reporter. Can’t have disobedient media going off script.

      Dirty Politics is a Nat speciality and it is not an example that others should follow.