Mallard wtf?

Written By: - Date published: 7:52 am, February 4th, 2013 - 88 comments
Categories: uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Is an absurd public endorsement by someone as politically damaged as Trevor Mallard actually an endorsement or is Trevor trying to undermine his leader? That’s a question I’m asking myself after reading Audrey Young’s piece on the caucus vote today. A piece in which a giddy sounding Trevor Mallard describes Shearer as like Norman Kirk. I kid you not:

But Mr Mallard, in his thank-you speech, likened Mr Shearer’s speech to the first he heard from Mr Kirk on the steps of the Wellington City Library in 1972, the year of his landslide win.

To be fair to Shearer he’s stuttering a bit less these days but “Norman Kirk”? What’s Trevor’s next claim? Phil Goff reminds him of Ghandi? Annette King is New Zealand’s answer to Mother Teresa? Between this and his absurd play for speaker it seems Trevor’s (hopefully imminent) retirement plan is stand-up comedy. He certainly gave me a laugh this morning…

88 comments on “Mallard wtf? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Socialist Paddy 1
    4 February 2013 at 7:55 am

    Edddie, how dare you be so disloyal to the brains trust of the party. Don’t you know that Mallard has a cunning plan that will lead the party to salvation any minute now and the 2014 election is in the bag … or is that 2017 … or is that 2020 …

  2. vto 2
    4 February 2013 at 7:57 am

    Is there anyone in the New Zealand political sphere with the potential to be a Kirk? Or a Savage, or a Ghandi, or a Churchill or a Lincoln?

    Doesn’t seem like it. Certainly not in the ‘senior’ ranks of any current political party.

    Why is that? Lack of quality and skills? Or lack of balls? I suspect balls

    edit: funny how so few great leaders come from the conservatives ……..

    • Afewknowthetruth 2.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:03 am

      Lack of intelligence, lack of knowledge, lack of integrity. lack of socialist values……and people still vote for the lying fuckwit.

      Which just goes to show there is no hope.

  3. Te Reo Putake 3
    4 February 2013 at 8:00 am

    Eddie, you probably need top expand on your difficulty with Mallard’s statement. Comparing a new leader to an previous one is pretty normal stuff. It’s you that reaches for hyperbole, not Mallard, so wtf?

    • Kevin Welsh 3.1
      4 February 2013 at 8:32 am

      Seems strange that Mallard would compare a centre right politician like Shearer to a solid left politician like Kirk.

      Bit like comparing Savage to Muldoon.

      • Tom Gould 3.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 9:35 am

        It was Kirk who embraced the super plan conceived and developed by Roger Douglas, which Muldoon subsequently dropped.

  4. karol 4
    4 February 2013 at 8:01 am

    Interesting that neither the Herald nor Stuff are now expecting a 100% support for Shearer.

    Also, I see the caucus meet and vote is happening in Henderson, Auckland. Damn! That’s my home borough!. If it’s anywhere near the centre of Henderson I could walk on down and hang out, in the entrance, with a placard saying “let the whole party vote for leader.”

    Shearer is no Kirk – not even close. And that is not just with respect to Shearer’s limitations as speaker, but in terms of what they stand for – or in Shearer’s case, that we don’t know what he stands for.

    • Wayne 4.1
      4 February 2013 at 8:30 am

      But you vote Green

      • karol 4.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 8:38 am

        Yes, but voting Green is just my decision given the state of the other parties at the moment. Also the state of the Labour caucus is crucial to the kind of government the Greens may or may not be part of .

        Furthermore, I would be more likely to party vote Labour in the future if the caucus became more democratic; decisively, explicitly and clearly ditched neoliberalism; and returned to its true Labour movement roots.

        • Tim 4.1.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 1:18 pm

          “Furthermore, I would be more likely to party vote Labour in the future if the caucus became more democratic; decisively, explicitly and clearly ditched neoliberalism; and returned to its true Labour movement roots.”

          And THAT pretty much sums up the way a lot of friends and extended family I know think -even those that have never voted anything other than Labour.

          It was bad enough that Labour decided to have a lay down and a cup of tea in their third term, instead of siezing the opportunity to back out some of the previous Nats little gems. This is probably when the current ABC/old guard/hacks learned their crappy attitude.

        • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.2
          4 February 2013 at 7:26 pm

          “Furthermore, I would be more likely to party vote Labour in the future if the caucus became more democratic; decisively, explicitly and clearly ditched neoliberalism; and returned to its true Labour movement roots.”

          And, if they don’t meet your demands, Karol, you’ll vote to enable a National government?

          • IrishBill 4.1.1.2.1
            4 February 2013 at 7:35 pm

            Don’t be a dick, TRP.

            • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.2.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 8:20 pm

              What’s the prob, Irish? You know the equation; either Labour wins the electorate seats or National or National’s proxy’s do. Mana honorably excepted, of course. There was one sufferer of an Infantile Disorder here recently who wanted a third term of National because it might, maybe, just possibly, against all the odds, convert the Labour Party into a democratic socialist vanguard or some-such nonsense.

              Electorate voting Labour is a practical reality under MMP, but it’s also an interesting dilemma for lefties who don’t much like Labour.

              Vote Dead Rat, You Know it Makes Sense!

              • mickysavage …
                4 February 2013 at 8:29 pm

                Um TRP Karol explicitly said “party vote” and you then talk about electorate voting.

                She has made it clear that she is thinking the Green – Mana end of the spectrum for her party but has voted Cunliffe for the electorate vote.

                She has made her thinking exquisitely clear and deserves respect.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  4 February 2013 at 8:46 pm

                  “Yes, but voting Green is just my decision given the state of the other parties at the moment. Also the state of the Labour caucus is crucial to the kind of government the Greens may or may not be part of .

                  Furthermore, I would be more likely to party vote Labour in the future if the caucus became more democratic; decisively, explicitly and clearly ditched neoliberalism; and returned to its true Labour movement roots.”

                  – karol

                  The first para indicates karol is voting green and the second goes on to say she is ‘more likely’ to party vote Labour if …

                  Now, I’m no big city lawyer, but it appears the default position is two ticks green, but karol could be persuaded to give one tick to Labour in certain circumstances.

                  Having said that, no offence meant karol, as I said above, the dead rat option is going to make the difference this election. It’s worth talking about.

                  • felixviper …
                    4 February 2013 at 9:36 pm

                    It’s nice of you to fauxpologise for offense, but it doesn’t seem particularly sincere having just repeated the misrepresentation.

                    Please point to the bit of karol’s comment that indicates or even implies “two ticks green”.

                  • karol …
                    5 February 2013 at 6:41 am

                    TRP, my electorate vote goes to (surprise?!), the candidate rather than the party. And it’s now likely that I will be back living in New Lynn by next election. Therefore, I’ll probably vote exactly the way I have done for the last 2 or 3 elections. Green Party & Cunliffe,

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      5 February 2013 at 7:43 am

                      Cheers, karol, I’m sure DC will be genuinely grateful for the support and its great that you will have an MP that comes close to your own values. However, I hope others in tight electorates get the point I’m making and don’t worry so much about the quality (or otherwise) of their Labour candidate, but focus on preventing their local Tory from winning the seat.

                    • mickysavage …
                      5 February 2013 at 7:50 am

                      Agreed TRP but …

                      I told two of my sisters who live in the Epsom electorate to vote for Paul Goldsmith. I said that if they said two hail marys and did a sign of the cross they would be ok!

                      Both subsequently admitted to me that they got into the polling booth, obtained the papers, put the pen in their hands and … could not do it!

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      5 February 2013 at 8:15 am

                      Good point, MS. I have one of my kids in Epsom too and she too struggled with that vote. I did suggest to her that the Epsom Tories would do as they were told and back Banks so it might be a waste of time voting for Goldsmith, but, if nothing else, she now understands MMP better than most.

    • JK 4.2
      4 February 2013 at 8:31 am

      Karol- they’re probably meeting at that big hotel/convention place in Lincoln Rd – somewhere near the stadium, I’ve forgotten what its called. That’s where Labour usually goes when in Waitakere.

  5. IrishBill 5
    4 February 2013 at 8:03 am

    I’m pretty sure that Trev’s comment constitutes blasphemy in Labour circles.

  6. KhandallaViper 6
    4 February 2013 at 8:06 am

    From a blog stream yesterday

    “The performance of our Party Election Strategist, Lord Trevor of Wainouimata in Hutt South is equally worrying: Party vote in 2005 48%, 2008 43% and in 201- 36%.”

    Yep you won’t win when taking advice from Trevor.

  7. bad12 7
    4 February 2013 at 8:07 am

    I think that Trev is being out-right insulting to the memory of Norm Kirk who i consider to be the last great Socialist Prime Minister of New Zealand,

    I don’t see Labour being able to make any political capital from attaching Shearer’s name to Kirk, any of us that remember Big Norm see not an iota of similarity…

  8. ak 8
    4 February 2013 at 8:21 am

    Wave your magic wand and bring back Savage, Kirk, Gandhi, JC himself: then sit back and watch them either totally ignored or subtly undermined and derided by selection of soundbite and quote.

    Dig about and listen to Savage – and try to call him a great orator.

    The media is the message. Privately owned and right-dominated for ever, obscenely blatant in recent years, from Fox right down to our own provincial give-aways.

    By-pass it via the new tech and good old-fashioned work on the streets and in the halls, or fall victim to the divide-and-conquer curse of all oppressed groups. Turn your anger inward, and welcome back feudalism.

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    4 February 2013 at 8:23 am

    …whom Shearer loyalist Trevor Mallard is likening to the late Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk.

    Ha, no way. Shearer hasn’t got anything close to the gravitas that Kirk had.

    • Anne 9.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:25 am

      @DTB
      Hear hear! I can think of a few former Labour politicians still alive today – all who attained greater seniority in their respective parliamentary caucuses than Mallard – who would be flabbergasted. I can also think of a former Labour politician currently ensconced in New York whose eyebrows will be significantly raised.

      How about Mallard take a few lessons from those venerable Labour pollies. They know far more than he will ever know.

  10. Te Reo Putake 10
    4 February 2013 at 8:24 am

    “But Mr Mallard, in his thank-you speech, likened Mr Shearer’s speech to the first he heard from Mr Kirk on the steps of the Wellington City Library in 1972, the year of his landslide win.”

    So not comparing Shearer and Kirk at all, but comparing two speeches on housing policy. Post Fail.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.1
      4 February 2013 at 8:29 am

      “They are both real Kiwis but both are a bit diffident.”

      Other politicians of the day such as Sir Robert Muldoon and Bob Tizard were much more in your face, “whereas Kirk and Shearer would be more like the people down at the footy club”.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.2
      4 February 2013 at 8:30 am

      No, I’d say that the fail was your in that you failed to read the linked spiel.

    • JK 10.3
      4 February 2013 at 8:35 am

      Nope TRP – Mallard is also referring to Shearer’s personality as well. Didn’t you read his final comments? This is an extraordinarily inept statement from Mallard.

      “Mr Mallard said there were other similarities too. “They are both real Kiwis but both are a bit diffident.”

      Other politicians of the day such as Sir Robert Muldoon and Bob Tizard were much more in your face, “whereas Kirk and Shearer would be more like the people down at the footy club”.

      • karol 10.3.1
        4 February 2013 at 8:46 am

        “whereas Kirk and Shearer would be more like the people down at the footy club”.

        Great. I haven’t been near those places since my youth in the company of my Muldoonist father. I guess they did have a down-to-earth ordinariness about them. However, the solidly patriarchal nature of such places put me off them for the rest of my life. Surely left wing politics have moved on from such contexts now?

        … or, on second thoughts, maybe not. Perhaps that is why Team Shearer always seems a bit male-dominated/masculinist to me. The core of that Team is harking back to a time when men were dominant and women made the tea.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.3.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 9:46 am

          +1

          Both Key and Shearer have been trying to come across the mans man.

        • JK 10.3.1.2
          4 February 2013 at 8:46 pm

          Karol – at 8.46am – I totally agree. At one time, Labour attracted women’s votes which helped with its majority wins. I don’t see that happening in the future under this lot of male chauvinist ….. as leaders !

      • the sprout 10.3.2
        4 February 2013 at 8:48 am

        Superbly one eyed TRP.
        To liken Shearer to Kirk is truly absurd and somewhat insulting to the Kirk legacy, but then that’s Trevor.
        He reminds me of a cancer singing the praises of its host.

  11. hush minx 11
    4 February 2013 at 8:34 am

    What’s that saying about judging the quality of leader by those who surround him (or her)? I for one hope there’s a decent number of mps who vote to show we deserve better.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      4 February 2013 at 9:50 am

      The corollary would be You can tell the quality of a person by their enemies

      but the one that Shearer should be concerned with is With friends like these, who needs enemies.

  12. VivaciousViper 12
    4 February 2013 at 8:59 am

    So we have Mike Williams on TV3 saying Shearer is the man and he is improving he is
    also getting training for his mumbling,bumbling etc,now Mallard, if any leader is worth
    a grain of salt, they should stand tall in their own right,not have questionable mouthpeices
    that try to persuade those inside caucus, via the media.

    • blue leopard 12.1
      4 February 2013 at 9:06 am

      …yeah, and what a pity they don’t spend more time “working the media” for hits against National rather than peer pressure messages to themselves.

  13. David H 13
    4 February 2013 at 9:04 am

    Well here’s hoping that the caucus puts the leadership vote where it belongs and thats NOT only in their hands. But I fear another bullshit vote.

  14. mike 14
    4 February 2013 at 9:46 am

    Bloody hell, there’s no one like us for bagging our own. All you hollier-than-thou’s should breeze off an vote for NACT, come on you know you want to! Why else would you try to hollow out our side from within

    • VivaciousViper 14.1
      4 February 2013 at 10:07 am

      Mike, you really truly don’t understand the meaning of ‘democracy,’ yes we still have
      democracy in NZ and we can think and say what the hell we like.
      We demand better leadership for the Labour Party, we demand a democraticly elected
      leader,not a caucas installed one,until the members and affiliates are given that chance
      the rhetoric will continue.
      I and my extended family worship the memory of Kirk and Lange, The current leader
      doesn’t come anywhere near the greatness of those two leaders.

      • Smith 14.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 11:19 am

        Kirk – wow NZ could only hope that even mildly comparable talent ever graces our seat of legislative power again. A candidate Kiwis could overlook the negligible difference between our two major political parties for, somebody who could “sell” Middle NZ a future they can believe in. Johnny does well (because his critics are feckless themselves) but Goff 2.0 is rudderless and going nowhere fast.

        As for the Lange legacy – you’re not forgetting who knowingly lead us down the garden path only for Bolger et al to deliver the coup de grace in 1990 are you? A real statesman, the likes of which we’ve yet to see again, but nonetheless somebody who took a gamble on this country’s future and fucked up big time.

    • David H 14.2
      4 February 2013 at 2:05 pm

      Mike. If you don’t like it, then just make like Sex and Travel.

  15. Skinny 15
    4 February 2013 at 10:09 am

    That’s it Mallard line your leader up for ridicule, comparing him to Kirk is an insult to people’s intelligence. Robertson has more in similarity with Kirk, apart from being gay. I guess the insult could have been worst, comparing him to Bill Rowling the last true left leader.

  16. Afewknowthetruth 16
    4 February 2013 at 11:06 am

    Doesn’t this all confirm that politicians are amongst the lowest forms of life on this planet, on a par with drug dealers, money-lenders and pimps?

  17. fenderviper 17
    4 February 2013 at 11:41 am

    Love is blind as they say.

    Wake up Trev, it’s not all about your future, dropkick.

  18. Ed 18
    4 February 2013 at 12:00 pm

    I’d like to congratulate you Eddie on recognising the infallible, impartial and unerring political acumen of Audrey Young. Like many readers of the Standard, we hang on her every word; she is a shining light on the world of politics for us all. But I must say that your ability to select the key part of her message from other quotes that may have blurred your message is commendable, as is your ability to choose just the right graphic to accompany your article – much better than that of the Herald. Your homage to Audrey will however I am sure increase those who look for her columns.

    • mike 18.1
      4 February 2013 at 1:08 pm

      Right on Ed. To me it is tragic to see this barrage of opinionated ignoramuses peddling their traitorous rubbish here – Norman Kirk would be horrified. I’m certain Kirk and many other good labour leaders would see these people for what they are – fair weather friends who don’t understand commitment or reality. They’re worse that Audrey Young could ever be, at least she doesn’t claim to be one of us.

      • emergency mike 18.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 5:10 pm

        I was using that handle btw, but I guess I’ll switch to this one.

        “They’re worse that Audrey Young could ever be, at least she doesn’t claim to be one of us.”

        Eh? So if a Labour voter decides they don’t like the leader, or that the party has departed from it’s traditional values, then you reckon they should just shut up and keep voting Labour? Or else they are traitorous opinionated ignoramuses and fair weather friends who don’t understand commitment or reality?

        I think you don’t understand democracy so well. (Hint: people are welcome to change their vote if they want to.) Or blogs for that matter, (hint: it’s a place where people express opinions.)

        And who is the ‘us’ in “one of us”? Speak for yourself. Better yet, make some sort of coherent argument instead of just coming here and calling an oh so vaguely defined bunch of people names. Or just tr0ll on.

        • mike 18.1.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 6:19 pm

          oh dear – must have struck a nerve

          • emergency mike 18.1.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 6:54 pm

            So no hint of a reasoned response then. Big surprise.

            • mike 18.1.1.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 7:13 pm

              No. Like with like

              • CV - Real Labour …
                4 February 2013 at 7:45 pm

                mike speaking on behalf of Big Norm and all other Labour Leaders. Thanks for your input.

              • emergency mike …
                4 February 2013 at 9:31 pm

                “Like with like”

                Doubt it mike. I gave reasons why I think what you wrote is nonsense. Your response was one line of empty playground argument rhetoric. You were saying something about understanding reality?

                But do carry on crying like a little girl if you wish.

  19. tc 19
    4 February 2013 at 1:37 pm

    Sychopahncy, meglomania and political strategy and election campaign fails, this should go well then.

  20. Scintilla 20
    4 February 2013 at 2:14 pm

    And how long do you think it will take for Key, Brownlee and co. to make mincemeat of Shearer in the house? I’m betting maybe four months tops until he’s a blithering mess. All on national TV. The MSM are licking their lips already.

  21. gobsmacked 21
    4 February 2013 at 2:35 pm

    This is a common line in politics. Weak leaders are compared (or compare themselves) with previous leaders, in an atempt to give them a stature they cannnot achieve on their own.

    Nobody went around saying that Helen Clark was a Savage/Kirk/Mandela/Joan of Arc. They didn’t need to. Clark was an authoritative figure, as Clark. Nothing else needed to be said.

    Dan Quayle was like JFK, except he totally wasn’t, as Lloyd Bensen memorably said.

    Shearer is unlike anybody I can recall in democratic politics. Maybe Dubya comes closest, for linguistic limitations. But Bush had the evil genius of Karl Rove to pull his strings. Shearer has Mallard.

    It’s like Shearer’s claim to be”fired up”. If you’re fired up, you only need to show it, and let others say it. If you have to say it yourself, then … not so much. And if you have to have it written down for you on the autocue, then you really aren’t.

  22. Murray Olsen 22
    4 February 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Shearer isn’t even a Bill Rowling. At best, he’s a mumbling version of Geoffrey Palmer.

    • Rhinocrates 22.1
      4 February 2013 at 7:18 pm

      Actually I have a great deal of respect for Geoffrey Palmer’s intellect and integrity. I think he knew in the end that the Premiership wasn’t for him and his legal and academic career since are where he’s done his best.

  23. unpcnzcougar 23
    4 February 2013 at 7:42 pm

    One of my memories as a youngster is the day Kirk died. My Mum and Dad were both in shock and in tears.
    Many years later even though my voting has changed in some elections I cried for a day when Lange died. He was a man I greatly admired and inspired me to get over my fear of public speaking. He also lived around the corner from us and was a great electorate MP.

    I can’t believe that Mallard said that. I find it incredibly disrespectful to Kirk.

  24. mallard/hater. 24
    5 February 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Mallard has passed his use by date. He truley is a potty a mouth .Mr spit n dribble!!

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