National’s meh leadership contest

Written By: - Date published: 4:27 pm, February 22nd, 2018 - 76 comments
Categories: journalism, Media, national, newspapers, same old national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , ,

We have entered week two of National’s leadership contest.

I was heavily involved in the last two Labour leadership campaigns.  They were really interesting events, prospective leaders touring the country talking about what drives them to be involved in politics and seeking the support of the membership at large.  Members were really energised by what was happening and the feeling of democracy was palpable.

National’s current campaign is entirely different.  It is driven from the top and the choice of who will be leader will only be exercised by the few.

No one is allowed to say anything interesting.  Secrecy abounds.  On the surface everything is calm although beneath the surface naked political ambition and the desire for utu mean that blue on blue attacks are likely.

The insistence on public discipline is making the whole event rather meh.

From Claire Trevett at the Herald:

There is a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail in which a French soldier looks at King Arthur and his knights and hollers “I fart in your general direction” before hurling livestock at them.

That scene is apparently the code of conduct for the National Party leadership contest.

Direct strikes are frowned upon so the candidates have taken to lobbing loaded statements in the general direction of their foes and hoping onlookers are smart enough to figure out who will be enveloped in the fug.

Although you get the impression that things are not what National claims.  Remember back when news of a coup on Bill English first surfaced and senior National members publicly insisted there was no leadership spill under way and Bill would remain leader for as long as he wanted?

And that news of the coup broke on the day he was to give a state of the nation speech but had its effect totally obliterated by the news of the leadership challenge?

Mark Mitchell gave the game away with his leadership campaign announcement when on February 19 he said he had been approached to stand some weeks ago.  News of English’s being rolled appeared on January 31.  People were lining up candidates at the same time that National was publicly saying English could stay as long as he wanted.

And no deals have been offered.  Not one.  No siree.  No inducements whatsoever are being offered and all MPs will vote based on what is best for the party and the country and not based on personal advancement.  Again from Claire Trevett in the Herald:

National Party leadership contenders all claim they are resisting appealing to the MPs’ baser instincts by refusing to offer roles or senior positions as part of their leadership bids.

The vote by National’s 56 MPs will be held next Tuesday to choose between Mark Mitchell, Steven Joyce, Amy Adams, Judith Collins and Simon Bridges as the new National leader.

It is understood some MPs have made it clear which roles they are interested in but all candidates said they have steered clear of promising positions to MPs to secure support.

And the saga about the Judith Collins support website gets weirder and weirder.

Someone fed to Stuff a screen shot suggesting that Taxpayer Union’s Jordan Williams gmail account was the recovery account for Raquel Ray’s email account.

A URL with Collins’s office as a contact address, a false facebook account and someone leaking information to Stuff suggesting that Williams was involved in the account and the website.

This is evidence either of extreme stupidity or a pretty evil false flag attack on Williams.  No doubt time will tell.

With a week to go anything is possible in this campaign.  But I suspect the current public calm is not going to last for long.

76 comments on “National’s meh leadership contest ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ed 1
    22 February 2018 at 4:43 pm

    The media is failing to ask Mitchell hard questions.
    Bradbury slam dunks it.

    “Mainstream media don’t ask Mark Mitchell about dead civilians, they do ask him about saving puppies

    FFS – will one of you journalists do your actual job and directly ask…
    ‘Did you or any of your mercenary mates kill any civilians while on tour in Iraq’
    …not ‘did you kill anyone’, that isn’t the question! GET HIM ON RECORD!“

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/02/22/mainstream-media-dont-ask-mark-mitchell-about-dead-civilians-they-do-ask-him-about-saving-puppies/

    • tc 1.1
      23 February 2018 at 8:00 am

      Mitchell shows how onside the media are with this sham leadership ‘vote’.

      Whoever breaks ranks will be punished Mickey so it’s an interesting test of the internal discipline post shonky and bingles.

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2
    22 February 2018 at 4:49 pm

    “Pretty evil”.

    Is that a bit like “pretty legal”?

  3. Enough is Enough 3
    22 February 2018 at 4:52 pm

    “I was heavily involved in the last two Labour leadership campaigns. They were really interesting events, prospective leaders touring the country talking about what drives them to be involved in politics and seeking the support of the membership at large. Members were really energised by what was happening and the feeling of democracy was palpable”

    That is all very nice but that process resulted in two pretty average leaders, and Labour support at record lows.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      22 February 2018 at 4:56 pm

      The leaders were fine. The party was not. The lesson is that unity is absolutely vital. Although I agree that they did not have the cut through that Jacinda has achieved.

      • Hornet 3.1.1
        22 February 2018 at 6:00 pm

        Jacinda was elected by Caucus. The processs you describe as “really interesting events” were yawn fests.

        “The leaders were fine. ”
        No, they weren’t. Other wise they would have got more cut through. Jacinda inherited the same party, and put Labour back into Government.

        • Kat 3.1.1.1
          22 February 2018 at 7:10 pm

          Can’t help but agree with you Hornet. Labour may need to review the way it elects its leaders. I prefer the parliamentary team have sway rather than the wider membership. The current process may appear more “democratic” which I suspect is what Micky was alluding to.

          • BM 3.1.1.1.1
            22 February 2018 at 7:11 pm

            It’s cobblers, Nationals approach is far better.

            • mickysavage 3.1.1.1.1.1
              22 February 2018 at 8:48 pm

              Democracy is terribly overrated

            • paul andersen 3.1.1.1.1.2
              23 February 2018 at 2:44 pm

              nationals approach is far better….. yeah,behind closed doors, figuring out who will bring in the most dollars to the party coffers, phuck the public, they are just their to be lied to and ripped off….bridges will have oil money, collins chinese money, mitchell military money, joyce media money, adams ?? as for who will do the best job as caretaker before they are replaced after 2020 election loss,??? why dont they just be honest and elect jian the spy? direct tap from chinese gov into ours. natioal approach far better, for who???

          • alwyn 3.1.1.1.2
            22 February 2018 at 7:25 pm

            ‘may appear more “democratic”’
            The critical, and misleading, word was “appear”.
            In the last election he was talking about there was voting by the Caucus members, and the general party members, and then the union affiliates came in and imposed their dreadful candidate in the shape of Andrew Little.
            Robertson would probably have made a very effective candidate in the election. He was certainly a better prospect than any of the other possibilities.
            Unfortunately he is now in the job to which he is least suited. Why on earth did he get given the Minister of Finance role for which he is completely unqualified?
            No the National approach is vastly superior.

            • red-blooded 3.1.1.1.2.1
              22 February 2018 at 10:28 pm

              TBH, I also wonder if the caucus selection method doesn’t have advantages. Having said that, it’s completely ridiculous to claim that the union affiliates imposed Andrew Little as a leader onto an unwilling caucus and membership. How much power do you think the unions have in this process? They get a 20% vote (caucus = 40%, wider membership = 40%). And Little was by no means an “awful” choice – he achieved a hell of a lot, simplifying and clarifying the policy positions that Labour took into the election, unifying the caucus and helping the wider party to feel united and purposeful.

              And if we’re going to talk about unqualified Ministers of Finance, the name Stephen Joyce is pretty hard to ignore…

              • You_Fool …
                23 February 2018 at 7:54 am

                I feel like the finance portfolio is currently the weakest part of National, if the best they can put up is Steven ’11bill hole / what 20bill’ Joyce then they have a big big problem, and this is National we are talking about, the so called finance masters.

                Robertson looks like a world-leading expert compared to Joyce….

              • alwyn …
                23 February 2018 at 11:14 am

                In the first round Little was fourth out of four on the Caucus vote.
                He had 15.63% of their votes compared to Robertson’s 43.75%.

                At the finish the vote was as follows.
                Robertson 56.25% of the Caucus. Little was 43.75%
                Robertson got 55.23% of the party members. Little got 44.77%.
                Both showed a pretty solid preference for Robertson, I would say.
                However Little got 75.66% of the union vote. Robertson got 24.44%

                I would say it was quite clear that Little was imposed by the unions over a clear preference by the Caucus and the General membership for Robertson.

                As far as Little’s performance in office went I would say he took no notice at all of party policy. He simply opposed anything that National proposed. Look at his actions on the Flag change and increasing the Super age. What National proposed was what was Labour Policy! Little then flipped because he didn’t want Labour policy implemented. He just wanted to take the opposite side to National. No wonder he was unpopular with the public.

        • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1.2
          22 February 2018 at 8:37 pm

          Jacinda’s selection was under an emergency too-close-to-the-election clause, and you are evaluating a selection method incorrectly looking just at its results. You have to look at a set of results vs the missed opportunities, and measure lost or gained utility that way. Having caucus vote for leader would very likely come in way behind having members vote, because democratic methods usually beat oligarchical ones in Bayesian regret.

          • BM 3.1.1.2.1
            22 February 2018 at 9:22 pm

            Jacinda’s selection was perfectly timed to coincide with the end of parliament.

            • fender 3.1.1.2.1.1
              22 February 2018 at 9:31 pm

              Well that would be a shame, seeing as she’s such a competent speaker, even in the face of bullying by trolls telling her to “zip it sweetie”

              edit: you seem to be suggesting she was plucked out of obscurity in some sort of clandestine way to deprive members of a vote.

            • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1.2.1.2
              22 February 2018 at 10:48 pm

              I note that you have no comment about the validity of regret measurements to evaluate comparative utility of election systems, or how you really need to measure things at a statistical level. Pretty sure we could do a good model of how any particular mini-group choosing on behalf of a larger out-group is a bad idea, given that we have previously had good mathematical papers on how electoral reform away from FPP is a similar improvement to the adoption of democracy over outright monarchy. (or “random candidate selection” in mathematical terms)

          • Hornet 3.1.1.2.2
            22 February 2018 at 9:54 pm

            “Jacinda’s selection was under an emergency too-close-to-the-election…”
            Indeed, because of the electorally catastrophic leadership of the previously candidate who was the unions choice, not caucus’.

            “You have to look at a set of results vs the missed opportunities…”
            No, I don’t. The previous contests threw up ordinary leaders who were roundly rejected by the NZ public. The caucus election threw up a candidate who took a party, totally unprepared for government, into government.

            The people who work closest with the politicians, their own Caucus, know best who will perform at the highest level. Labour’s current leadership selection process is

            • KJT 3.1.1.2.2.1
              23 February 2018 at 1:47 pm

              Why am I not surprised at that contempt for Democracy.

              Which was unfortunately displayed by the Labour caucus, in refusing to get behind the Leader elected by the party as a whole.

              • Hornet …
                23 February 2018 at 3:25 pm

                Why is it any more democratic for the (unelected) unions to have a voice in selecting the Labour party leader than for that selection to be limited to (elected) Caucus members?

    • Sparky 3.2
      22 February 2018 at 5:04 pm

      I can not say that either Labour or National have left a positive impression from a leadership perspective. What is clear neither are setting voters “on fire”. Lukewarm support for both even after the latest election. With only the MSM cheering them on with play it up stories and horseshit polls that amount to nothing based on cold hard percentage results after the election……

      Maybe something to do with promises not kept and an inability to appreciate with people really want?……meh indeed…..

  4. Stuart Munro 4
    22 February 2018 at 5:28 pm

    I notice Mitchell got a plug in the defense magazine and a late spot as defense minister in 2017 – a protégé of Wayne Mapp by the look of it.

    His outfit rates a mention in the NYT article on contractors – it got $183 million in US contracts.

    “Surprisingly, though, the new report lists Agility as having received $183 million in 23 security contracts from the Defense Department. On Tuesday, a spokesman for the company said that he could not confirm the figures, but that the contracts had probably been won by a wholly owned subsidiary, Threat Management Group, that specializes in security, rather than by Agility.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/world/middleeast/29protect.html

    These operators have made themselves sufficiently unwelcome that the Iraqi parliament is calling for their expulsion.

    https://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/parliamentary-commission-calls-for-expelling-foreign-security-companies/

    • paul andersen 4.1
      23 February 2018 at 2:50 pm

      wonder if he is up for nra dosh like so many conservatives are in the u.s. maybe even private prison money. last time david garret was the bagman through senceless sentencing trust into act .

  5. Puckish Rogue 5
    22 February 2018 at 7:14 pm

    Seems to me that when Labour members and MPs selected the leader you got one after another leader that failed to excite the public but once it was left to MPs only they got Jacinda and into power.

    • Stuart Munro 5.1
      22 February 2018 at 8:22 pm

      That’s our PR – the determined foe of democracy at every turn.

      • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1
        22 February 2018 at 8:56 pm

        Do you think Labour would be in power if they hadn’t chosen Jacinta?

        • fender 5.1.1.1
          22 February 2018 at 9:26 pm

          I think members would have voted strongly for Jacinda if she had actually run in one of the previous leadership contests. Members can only vote for one of the candidates, thus your theory is somewhat junk, however she was Little’s running mate when he won the leadership which saw her become deputy, remember.

          • alwyn 5.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2018 at 12:02 pm

            “however she (Ardern) was Little’s running mate when he won the leadership which saw her become deputy, remember”

            I do remember the history of the time and it has very little in common with your recollections.
            What sort of parallel universe do you inhabit?

            Ardern supported Robertson in the leadership election and indeed Robertson said he would choose her for deputy if he won.
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11344898

            Little, who did win, retained Annette King as deputy-leader. King remained the deputy from the time Little was elected, 18 November 2014, until she quit, or was dumped, and Ardern became deputy on 7 March 2017. Little was, by that time, getting quite desperate.
            Annette was Little’s deputy for two and a half years.

            How can you possibly justify your wild claim about Ardern?

        • mac1 5.1.1.2
          22 February 2018 at 10:54 pm

          It would have been terribly unfair four months after an election to have polled 48% to National’s 43% and not been in power, eh?

          Note that Jacinda (get the spelling right, Pickish) Ardern’s preferred popularity is lower than her party’s. Hence, you can’t argue forcefully that Labour’s current polling is all down to one person’s popularity.

        • Stuart Munro 5.1.1.3
          22 February 2018 at 11:35 pm

          Hard to say. The Gnats were plenty tired (God knows why – all the lazy shits did was lie and steal stuff). Greens & NZ First might’ve picked up a lot of the same voters. & Little is sound – it was only the disgraceful Hagerman vexatious prosecution that put him out of the running really.

          Labour might’ve gone further Corbynwards – confessed that their treacherous neo-liberalism was a textbook error that impoverished most of NZ, promised to start putting things right. Once you go down the ‘if’ rabbithole anything is possible.

        • paul andersen 5.1.1.4
          23 February 2018 at 2:53 pm

          do you think nats would have been elected if key wasnt parachuted into national. english led them to their biggest ever disaster ,then replaced with brash parachuted in from act, ethical ,yeah right!!

  6. Tanz 6
    23 February 2018 at 12:34 am

    I suspect also that Helen is also running the agenda for Ardern. Labour is clearly scared of National’s refresh and change, especially as Labour’s support partners have sunk from view in the polls, including the Greens. FPP next time! Kingmaker dumped, sanity restored to NZ. Once Nat get back to power, I bet they dump/reform/change MMP, and bury Winnie. Labour don’t like it, but National still lead most polls. A government is supposed to govern, this one is all about committees and conversations, no sauce at all.

    • Psycho Milt 6.1
      23 February 2018 at 7:19 am

      I suspect also that Helen is also running the agenda for Ardern.

      I suspect also that Tanz felches dogs. Great things, suspicions – you can suspect whatever you like.

    • savenz 6.2
      23 February 2018 at 11:37 am

      The problem with Helen running the agenda (which I doubt) was that NZ dumped Helen in the end, and it’s taken nearly a decade for the public to get excited about Labour and seemed to be because Jacinda was supposed to promise something new and changed in Labour.

      I don’t think voters will be fooled by a fresh face but an old agenda especially the missing million that didn’t vote for Labour for years.

      They went off Greens pretty quick with their Metro promos and worry about beneficiaries without a strategy that anybody liked to support and the promo to get a bunch of new MP’s into parliament at the expense of the old MP’s.

      Three things Kiwis care about.

      Their house or land.
      The environment.
      Fairness.

      And party that gets all three right will prosper. So far nobody on the left has, so Natz win by default.

      Labour limped home last time due to a number of factors such as the Natz being Nigel no friends.

      Labour can’t afford to break promises with policy like TPPA to help the corporates and new migrants, so will probably fail all three criteria to enough of the Labour voting Kiwis, while the Greens just seem to be on another planet of charges, gender neutral toilets and getting WINZ entitlement’s through. People want more. NZ First will probably be finished if they vote for TPPA against all their promises and conservative voters.

      So sadly I’m pretty depressed. ‘

      Labour, NZ First and Greens could pretty much do nothing and prosper. But no, they have to screw it up!

      • Ms Fargo 6.2.1
        23 February 2018 at 8:15 pm

        Three things Kiwis care about.

        Their house or land.
        The environment.
        Fairness.

        Perfectly said!

  7. Sacha 7
    23 February 2018 at 1:00 am

    Superb effort to turn a post about Nat leadership into a whinge about Labour’s. Top stuff, all.

    • savenz 7.1
      23 February 2018 at 11:39 am

      Unfortunately it’s not just wages that seem to be a race to the bottom.

    • Antoine 7.2
      24 February 2018 at 3:39 am

      > Superb effort to turn a post about Nat leadership into a whinge about Labour’s

      Maybe a good opportunity to admit that Labour may actually have a problem there

      A.

  8. Keepcalmcarryon 8
    23 February 2018 at 7:25 am

    New levels of dumb at kiwiblog discussing the popularity stats if you are brave enough.
    So much denial, so much thick.
    The reason no candidate rates over 20% is because the field is so good it splits the vote you see. 🙂
    I hope they are settled in for a nice long spell in opposition.

    • patricia bremner 8.1
      23 February 2018 at 8:31 am

      None of our usual trolls are promoting a particular choice.
      Perhaps that is ’cause they don’t have one and they are all “awful you know”.

  9. Ed 9
    23 February 2018 at 7:28 am

    Have you heard that the Arctic is melting?
    Doesn’t that put this conversation into perspective?

  10. Incognito 10
    23 February 2018 at 7:38 am

    Indeed, I’m also very impressed by the quality of the candidates. I’d suggest to National to choose 5 Co-Leaders instead of only one and have the best of all 5 possible worlds. Each Co-Leader should have 2 Deputy-Leaders. National will be on the cusp of exceptionally bright leadership with 15 of the best & brightest at the top of largest & brightest political party in NZ and, in fact, the Opposition. A bright Opposition is vital for democracy in NZ.

  11. Ad 11
    23 February 2018 at 9:25 am

    Collins and Mitchell represent an outstanding opportunity to put National under 20%.

    Bring it on – I have the spade and coffin ready for National, and everyone’s invited to tramp the dirt down on that grave.

    I’m looking forward to supporting Labour again to make sure the political right is smashed, Labour has four terms to completely transform New Zealand in every Ministry it has, and the cynical rentier hypercapitalist goonsquad 1% need permission to so much as move 50 cents offshore.

    • Pat 11.1
      23 February 2018 at 9:30 am

      you foresee this administration enacting capital controls? big call…as is four terms.There are multiple threats that could quite easily see this a one term government and unfortunately many (though not all) are beyond their control.

      • Ad 11.1.1
        23 February 2018 at 10:40 am

        Not yet.
        But inside 3 months you can see their record:
        – eradicate Tomorrows Schools
        – full review of entire justice and corrections system
        – first year tertiary study free
        – Waitangi Day done right
        – huge WFF expansion
        – foreign capital purchases highly constrained
        – stabilise real estate bubble
        – transport full realignment
        – budget to come, with big ticket items to be accelerated

        Etc.

        Looking forward to completing just their first year, with more.

        National: 9 years of nothing.

        • Pat 11.1.1.1
          23 February 2018 at 10:49 am

          well if you are correct that would suggest that this administration is the antithesis of what many believe

        • savenz 11.1.1.2
          23 February 2018 at 11:51 am

          @ AD – sorry to be the bearer of bad news but Labour bought in ‘Tomorrow’s schools’ and they bought in tertiary fees too.

          full review of entire justice and corrections system – a review is not a change.

          Waitangi Day done right – by changing Marae’s.

          huge WFF expansion – more taxpayer money to subsidise employers low wages and higher prices of goods. An unsustainable plaster on a festering wound. Bear in mind that Kiwis have the lowest birth rate in decades so the parents getting the WFF are not necessary born and bred Kiwis getting the benefits – more like subsidising the corporates bringing in the cheaper labour and getting the locals to subsidise the kids as well as the wages.

          foreign capital purchases highly constrained – seeing is believing.

          stabilise real estate bubble – Auckland over 1 million average price and more permanent and temporary migrant workers will make it higher as they continue to flood in to build the luxury Hyatt etc etc, any non resident in the world can still purchase land and assets willy nilly.

          transport full realignment – not a policy – looking like more taxes for Aucklander’s in particular paying the price (again) for the corporates cheap labour while they loll back in their central city homes or helicopter in and out.

          • Ad 11.1.1.2.1
            23 February 2018 at 12:04 pm

            Fully aware of government policy 30 years ago. Grow up.

            Justice system review is already noted as strongest since 1960s. Learn to read.

            Waitangi Day was done right by the Labour Prime Minister. Had a plan and executed. Keep dissing her – you just look small and pathetic.

            Working For Families expansion is huge for tens of thousands of New Zealanders. Simple fact.

            You have not a single clue about real estate market, ovviously. But read any report you like on market conditions and you get the same answer. But you can’t because you want to keep whining as an illiterate.

            Transport realignment really is policy. For fuck sake.

            Do yourself a favour and open up http://www.beehive.govt.nz for full suite of policies. All there in black and white, with mini-budget signalling cost allocations.

            Don’t reply until you do. It’s a pathetic waste of time engaging otherwise.

            Alternatively keep mewing like a kitten.

            • savenz 11.1.1.2.1.1
              23 February 2018 at 12:31 pm

              Sadly AD like what happened to Labour for the last decade they listened to supporters like you, because they are drawn to the power, spouting party lines and not listening to and attacking what the majority of people wanted or cared about, but avoid politics.

              Thats why Labour can’t beat the Natz outright. and they sure as shit won’t with the advice they are getting from their so called nearest and dearest about how amazing all this is and just sign that little agreement over there and all will be well, just like Rogernomics, Tomorrow’s schools, Tertiary fees and all the other screw up’s the neoliberal Labour have inflicted.

              Also I know plenty about property and more importantly don’t get bogged down in discourse and group think, which is why I predicted that as soon as Labour stopped going on about capital gains they would be in a greater position to win the election which they seemed convinced all the public loved!

              Also housing crisis seems to have gone quiet because labour would never be able to solve the housing crisis with their policy of 10,000 houses in 10 years because there are 100,000 new people arriving per year and even if they got it down to 15,000 the maths still don’t work! It’s obvious.

              Also predicted that the zoning changes inflicted undemocratically would increase the cost of land, not decrease it as the dim wits economists of the left and right predicted, nudge nudge. Again it’s obvious, land is more valuable the more houses that can be built on it.

              Also predicted massive congestion from the zoning changes and trying to pin the costs on the little guy they just forced out of the city.

              Houses are a practical thing, they can not be pushed into thin air from hot air from a bunch of policy spouting bureaucrats and lobbyists and more fool any politician that believes it, against logic.

              Likewise a spreadsheet is not actually a public transport system that a normal person might use. So no pats on the back from the public on that one like in the council and executive chambers!

              • Ad …
                23 February 2018 at 3:25 pm

                And the biggest insult is to yourself.

                The main thing that you have been complaining about on this site?

                The rail line from Napier.

                How much funding was committed by Prime Minister Ardern, today, in Gisborne, with Mayor Foon, for rail?

                Do yourself a favour and read.

                No one expects serial complainers like you to say thanks.

                Most just expect government and people and industry to get together and work. So this 2018 Labour-led government does.

                • savenz …
                  23 February 2018 at 6:26 pm

                  Learnt to read AD, I’ve been complaining about the TPPA which many people protested against. You may have forgotten the protests.

            • veutoviper 11.1.1.2.1.2
              23 February 2018 at 1:23 pm

              “Alternatively keep mewing like a kitten.”
              Ad, that’s an insult to kittens.

              It really is a waste of time engaging with people who extrude negativity out of every pore. Just look at this one’s contributions so far today on Open Mike alone – as well as two here under 11, also 12, 13 below and above at 6.2 and 3.2.1(with Sparky – neither seem to have seen the latest Poll with Labour at 48% and JA as PM at 41%).

              I have not doubt more negativity will be produced to the announcements today by the PM and Shane Jones on the first round of regional funding for projects in Northland, Hawkes Bay, Whanganui etc – links at 14 and 14,1 below.

              EDIt – and now another one re CP-TPP. I actually spent some time this morning looking at the attendances at the Its Our Future meeting held in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin (with Nelson cancelled due to Gita) over the last two weeks. Not sure of the numbers at Auckland but understand they were down on expectations, and the three remaining seem to have 50 -60 actual attendees max. As Chris Trotter said yesterday, IOF etc seem to have missed the boat. http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2018/02/too-little-too-late-opportunity-to-stop.html

              • KJT …
                23 February 2018 at 1:54 pm

                Many opponents of the TPPA have decided it is a done deal and have decided that opposing it is a waste of time.

                Not because they have changed their minds. But simply because Labour has shown the same contempt for Democracy and the public, as National.

                Parker even said that, the public will get a say when the TPPA is revealed. “But it is unlikely to change anything.
                Neo-liberals do not change their spots.

                • savenz …
                  23 February 2018 at 6:30 pm

                  KJT – exactly sadly people have given up. I’m just giving it a last minute social media protest to try and preserve a left government next election, but I’m sure the arrogant pompous types don’t understand.

                  Go get em! Bring back the Natz, AD and veutoviper, be the cheerleaders for Labour’s old ways and broken promises and tell people to grow up when they point out many ‘changes’ Labour did, (Rogernomics, tertiary fees have not exactly worked out for them as a party to be trusted).

                  • Carolyn_Nth …
                    23 February 2018 at 6:55 pm

                    Yes. Protesting the TPPA now is about building momentum for change for the next election – that starts now.

                    Also, the 3 year build up is important for when the US re-enters TPP, which will mean more obnoxious stuff back on the table.

              • veutoviper …
                23 February 2018 at 2:38 pm

                At para 3, the references should be to 14 and 14.1 in OM.

        • savenz 11.1.1.3
          23 February 2018 at 1:15 pm

          @AD – also why no mention of the incredible decision to sign TPPA in your tally of Labour’s achievements! Surely that is their show stopper, the most wide reaching and what people will remember most about Labour’s achievements.

  12. savenz 12
    23 February 2018 at 11:12 am

    My guess is between Amy Adams as a drip who will just be a front piece and look moderate for the public while the wolves work from behind or Joyce for his salesman lying who could be anti intellectual blokey climate change denying type doing deals like a door to door vacuum cleaner sales person but with NZ assets.

    Bridges might be a wild card, although everything he touches turns to crap (Transport/climate change/oil), but that might excite the Natz.

    I’d say Collins and Mitchell are damaged goods even for the National party appetites.

    • KJT 12.1
      23 February 2018 at 1:57 pm

      Labour has already shown what you can put across the public, with a charismatic mouthpiece, and destructive policies.

      With Lange.

      I hope it is not going to be the case with this Government.

      The tinkering so far, does not give me much hope.

  13. savenz 13
    23 February 2018 at 11:19 am

    Labour and NZ First would have next election in the bag, if they just coasted along.

    That’s why it’s so bizarre. their desperation to sign TPPA. Even the most optimistic promise a negligible return with huge risks.

    Even Trump and Hillary knew it was a dog to the public and stepped back from it.

    • Ad 13.1
      23 February 2018 at 3:31 pm

      Keep weeping.

      This Labour-led government has done more in 3 months than National did in 9 years, motorways and Christchurch excepted.

      At over 45% polling, the Labour-led government is doing just fine without your support.

      You’ve been left behind.

      • savenz 13.1.1
        23 February 2018 at 6:32 pm

        Tell yourself that AD and the other sell outs cheerleading Labour’s demise by supporting TPPA, trying to control freedom of speech and then telling Labour voters they have been left behind. Guess what, not a good idea!!!’

        With out Greens and NZ First, and taking off a conservative 10% of Labour voters who don’t vote again for Labour because of TPPA (in 3 years the effects will be really felt as is the climate change) and 45% isn’t really a good margin to be telling people they are left behind.

        Hillary didn’t care about her voters thinking being a women was all she needed, she got more votes than Trump but lost, but both at least had the sense to avoid TPPA. They have money for pollsters and it told the same story, voters are blaming globalism for their low wages and high costs. Same story with Brexit!

  14. Michelle 14
    23 February 2018 at 3:51 pm

    Why does our media keep asking where he f..n houses are they never asked those gnat eggs this people need to remember Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither will NZ be

  15. Carolyn_Nth 15
    23 February 2018 at 6:57 pm

    Checkpoint is calling it for a Bridges-Adams ticket, or vice versa. The only unknown, they say, is which one will be leader, and which one deputy.

  16. Tanz 16
    24 February 2018 at 11:24 am

    Labour limped to the ‘win’ simply because Winstone defied MMP convention (going with party with the most votes) and gifted it to them, not for the good of NZ, but so he could finally realise his dream of being PM, which National would never have agreed to, not under any circumstances (much integrity, and voters will like that). So, this govt is an MMP govt, without moral authority, as National need to keep reminding them, and so far, have been. National won a fourth term, which is unprecedented. MMP is now seen as the flawed system it is s(allowing one man to choose govt, at seven percent of the vote). This will be the election that broke the camel on MMP, finally, and in time! Yes, the left love it, but it was still a cheat. And had the boot been on the other foot, with Labour winning the most votes but denied govt by Winston, there would have been much howiling, both in the biased MSM, and by the left itself. But hey, it’s different when the left get in my default.
    Most of all, the people lose, and the majority vote got shafted. That’s the most undemocratic part.

    • fender 16.1
      24 February 2018 at 11:43 am

      “National won a fourth term….”

      Wonder why they aren’t in government, has the Governor General broken the law?

      You just get funnier with every new comment Tanz, but I’m starting to worry about you now, is your family doctor handy?

      Is God shirking on his/her responsibility to take control?