NZLP Review of Election 2014; the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Written By: - Date published: 5:34 pm, June 3rd, 2015 - 124 comments
Categories: campaigning, david cunliffe, election 2014, Ethics, labour, Politics - Tags: ,

A copy of what appears to be a draft of the NZ Labour Party’s review of election 2014 has been publicised by the visual entertainment arm of Mediaworks. The review was compiled by a small committee convened by the vastly experienced Bryan Gould. It’s a summary of hundreds of comments and ideas sent in by party members and contains some pretty straight forward analysis of what Labour did right, what went wrong and what can be done to improve performance in the next election and governance and efficiency within the party.

Good on the LP for involving the membership in this process and well done to the team Bryan Gould led. The copy that has emerged does not appear to be the final version and there may be additions and alterations yet to come. However, there isn’t much in the review that will surprise anyone.

Not all recommendations will be acted on, of course, and their may be changes before it’s finalised. I understand the NZ Council will be having an initial discussion on the recommendations this weekend and we’ll know more after they have given it the once over.

I guess the take home message is that the party is in good shape and despite the grumbling of a few less relevant MP’s the caucus is as united as it has been since the Clark years. And that’s clearly due to the management and leadership of Andrew Little.

In summary, and in my words, the review suggests the following:

The late change of leadership to David Cunliffe meant Labour missed the starting pistol and never really caught up. The lack of unity around DC’s leadership in caucus also hurt. However, the quality of the individual candidates was high.

Money was tight. More work needs to be done to build up a war chest. The review notes that the affiliates don’t pay for the campaign, despite the lies from the right about union influence.

The discipline around messaging was poor. Policies weren’t explained well or were, frankly, difficult to explain. The question of whether Labour would need to do a deal with Kim Dotcom’s pop up party to get into Government was not adequately addressed.

Volunteer efforts were very good and more resources need to go into social media.

The Maori seats were a highlight and some mana has been re-established.

Voter enrolment (the missing million) remains an issue, not just for the party, but for NZ’s democracy. The issue of how to get higher turnouts will not go away.

Policy needs to be sharper and more coherent and in tune with NZ as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Policy must be based on values and vision.

List candidates selection has been problematic and the moderating committee needs an overhaul.

The review also looks at governance and recommends moving to an executive leadership, with the regions devolving into the hubs that have been introduced over the last few months. There will be more separation between LEC’s and branches. Affiliates will be encouraged to be more active in the LEC’s.

There’s a lot more in there, and most of it is honest, straightforward and sensible. One thing that does not get mentioned, however, is the issue of internal discipline. TV3 were leaked this document. No point gnashing our teeth over who leaked it because they’ll keep ducking and diving anyway, but whoever you are, you’re scum.

And Paddy Gower, if you don’t respect Tiriti o Waitangi, that’s fine. Just keep it to yourself, you bigoted tool.

Congrats to all the party members who contributed to this review. There’s still time to own our future.

 

 

124 comments on “NZLP Review of Election 2014; the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. les 1
    3 June 2015 at 5:53 pm

    ‘The issue of how to get higher turnouts will not go away.’…compulsory voting as in Oz any merit?

    • David Bachman 1.1
      3 June 2015 at 7:50 pm

      I think a better plan is to make the offer so attractive it prompts action. People don’t vote because the status quo is not so bad. The other guys? Nothing much there for me.

      We want people to go out with us because they like us, not because they’re forced to. Punishing/Fining non-voters will do little to win support. If not punishing them, why bother with the ‘You guys are Nanny State’ magnet.

      • AmaKiwi 1.1.1
        4 June 2015 at 10:06 am

        NZ voting is meaningless. The NZ parliamentary majority party does what it damn well pleases.

        Swiss teenagers look forward to being old enough to vote because Switzerland has binding referendums. On June 14 the Swiss PEOPLE will decide:

        1. funding for public TV,
        2. inheritance taxes,
        3. student grants,
        4. embryo screening.

        We waste our time voting for lying dictators.

        We must strip the NZ parliament of its dictatorial powers. Power to the voters.

        Here are the issues the Swiss voters will decide in 10 days time:

        http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/final-opinion-poll_no-clear-picture-ahead-of-vote-on-tv-funds/41468980

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1
          4 June 2015 at 11:57 am

          Vote for Colin Craig then.

          • AmaKiwi 1.1.1.1.1
            4 June 2015 at 3:14 pm

            Binding referendums will NEVER come from within parliament because they take power AWAY from parliament.

            In the 1990’s, Winston Peters had binding citizen initiated referendums as a NZF policy, too.

            I think neither man is committed to binding referendums. They are committed to getting themselves into parliament. Full stop. End of story.

        • Melb 1.1.1.2
          4 June 2015 at 3:17 pm

          Our method of voting is a way to try avoid tyranny of the majority.

          Direct democracy in Switzerland led to the fact that Swiss women didn’t get the vote until 1971.

          Is that the sort of “power to the voters” that you are keen on?

          • AmaKiwi 1.1.1.2.1
            4 June 2015 at 11:01 pm

            Pure b.s.

            What Swiss minority is tyrannized? None. Switzerland is regarded worldwide as one of the most tolerant countries. Their civil liberties and rights to privacy are second to none.

            You prefer tyranny of the minority? Because that’s what we have, an elected dictatorship.

            How about, “the majority decides”? Or is that a foreign concept?

            • AmaKiwi 1.1.1.2.1.1
              4 June 2015 at 11:24 pm

              P.S. Switzerland is a federal system of government in which the local bodies (Cantons in German, Communes in French) are extremely powerful.

              Women were voting in Canton elections in the early 1950’s.

              Cantons make set their own tax rates and citizenship requirements, as well as schools, roads, hospitals, etc.

              In 1951, the Swiss Women’s Circle Against Women’s Voting Rights said: “We do not believe that our country requires politicized women.”

              That was my grandmother’s view: “Leave politics to the men. If we have a strong opinion, we’ll tell them . . . (and they’ll listen, or else).”

              • Melb …
                5 June 2015 at 7:15 pm

                And when did Swiss women finally get the vote at federal level?

                Do you think the law against homosexuality would have been repealed in 1986 if it was put to referendum?

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  5 June 2015 at 7:21 pm

                  I think the Mother of All Budgets would have been overturned, and I think the shitty destruction of NZ industry by Labour would have never made it through.

                  And Homosexual Law Reform might have been delayed a couple of years – or advanced a couple of years – who knows.

                  NZ would have become anti-nuclear in the 1970s.

                  Taking some power away from the politicians and giving some of it directly into the hands of the people is a bloody good idea.

                  BTW let’s halve the MMP threshold to 2.5%.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  5 June 2015 at 7:23 pm

                  And when did Swiss women finally get the vote at federal level?

                  I don’t know why you are even using this as an argument. In a system of binding popular direct referendums, women would have got the vote from the bloody start – if they wanted it.

                  And if women had decided to stay out of politics there would have been no Ruth Richardson and no Maggie Thatcher – not an unfair tradeoff when you think about it.

                  • te reo putake …
                    5 June 2015 at 8:11 pm

                    Eh? Are they the only two women to ever have done politics?

                  • Ergo Robertina …
                    5 June 2015 at 8:37 pm

                    ”And if women had decided to stay out of politics there would have been no Ruth Richardson and no Maggie Thatcher – not an unfair tradeoff when you think about it.”

                    Weird comment, CV.
                    I guess if men had decided to stay out of politics we’d have been spared a whole lot of grief too.

    • Colonial Viper 1.2
      3 June 2015 at 7:50 pm

      Only if there is a no confidence option on the ballot

    • millsy 1.3
      4 June 2015 at 12:17 am

      Decent parties, policies and candidates?

  2. Skinny 2
    3 June 2015 at 5:54 pm

    Very disappointed some idiot leaked it to Gower. What on earth was in it for Labour by doing so. Most annoyed Garner ( who showed his true Tory colours) & his boy Gower got an opportunity to counter the Nat’s slip in public support.

    • weka 2.1
      3 June 2015 at 6:21 pm

      Hard to see how anyone who cares about Labour could leak to Gower of all people, very weird.

      Nice URL for the Bigoted Tool link, http://www.donotlink.com/fecy

    • leftie 2.2
      4 June 2015 at 4:14 am

      @Skinny

      That’s probably why the traitor leaked Labour’s review to 3 and Gower, to deflect attention away from not just the Nats drop in public support, but noticeably from John key’s drop in support, and the fact that people are not accepting his bullshit over physically harassing and bullying a waitress at her place of employ.

      • Jim 2.2.1
        4 June 2015 at 10:01 pm

        It is laughable people are commenting on JK’s minor drop in support and are not mentioning Little’s drop to single figures. That may have something to do with the leak. The white anting may have begun.

        • lprent 2.2.1.1
          4 June 2015 at 10:57 pm

          If your weren’t such a idiot, you might have attempted to show where you thought there was a link between the leaking of a review on the last election, and the leadership elected after the election.

          But evidently you are just way too stupid to even try to invent one… Just another stupid troll.

          Adding you to the permanently banned as being self-evidently incapable of holding up your end on this site.

  3. the pigman 3
    3 June 2015 at 5:57 pm

    Only just been e-mailed it, but I think it is PATHETIC that it was leaked to the media before it was released to party members, let alone officially released to the media by Little.

    Not encouraged by the only tidbit mentioned in Stuff indicating that senior caucus members needed more influence.

    Little says he’s sure it wasn’t a member of caucus that leaked it to the media, but I wonder how he could possibly believe that given their record.

  4. Anne 4
    3 June 2015 at 6:03 pm

    No point gnashing our teeth over who leaked it because they’ll keep ducking and diving anyway, but whoever you are, you’re scum.

    I’m not sure whether I agree. Let the speculation begin. One by one the innocent parties will angrily deny their involvement (and its usually easy to spot sincerity) and we will be left with the identity of the culprit? Then he/she can be dealt an ignominious end to their association with the Labour Party.

    • Skinny 4.1
      3 June 2015 at 6:07 pm

      I would start with those MP’s showing bad form immediately after the election i.e Nash and Shearer. My money is on the former.

      • Anne 4.1.1
        3 June 2015 at 6:17 pm

        Hi Skinny. I dropped my last sentence about “a few irrelevant moaning MPs” because I felt it was unfair to highlight them as the culprits. On second thoughts I think it was more likely to be some low level little attention seeking johnny- come-lately who thinks he/she is important. We’ve had a few of them comment here in recent years. Remember that nasty little brat who worked in some Labour Office who used to comment here? He was a Shearer fan and he hated Cunliffe. Can’t remember his pseudonym. It’ll be someone like him.

        • the pigman 4.1.1.1
          3 June 2015 at 6:22 pm

          I’m not sure a witchhunt will do us any good.

          But maybe you’re thinking of “The Fan Club”? He was some Young Labour shit that eventually got hit with the banhammer as I recall.

          • Anne 4.1.1.1.1
            3 June 2015 at 6:49 pm

            Ahhh thanks the pigman. Yes, that was the pseudonym.

            You’re probably right. A witchhunt is not a good idea but someone I once knew, who was up to serious and illegal political activity, had one hell of a fright when an investigation was started. She succeeded in not being caught, but the thought she might be… sent her further round the bend than she already was. A satisfying result.

          • lprent 4.1.1.1.2
            3 June 2015 at 8:38 pm

            I’m always convinced with the sincerity of our trolls from either side….

      • te reo putake 4.1.2
        3 June 2015 at 6:54 pm

        Good call, Anne. I don’t know how widely circulated the leaked version was so it may be that no MP had access to it. One of the noticeable changes under Andrew Little’s leadership has been caucus unity and discipline. Prior to his election, leaking was commonplace. Since he took over, it seems to have stopped completely.

      • felix 4.1.3
        3 June 2015 at 7:13 pm

        That was the first name that came to my mind too, Skinny.

        • Skinny 4.1.3.1
          4 June 2015 at 7:40 am

          The other reasons I say this Felix is Nash was ranting quite angrily to a group ( myself included) about the 2014 campaign and the loss. He was absolutely dog on Cunliffe and his leadership, he was venting he should clear off out of the party. He also waffled on about a confused policy platform. His last rave was a me myself and I meme where he boasted about raising 140k for his own 3 year election campaign. He is a angry wee man who doesn’t know how to button it, he harbours a grudge about as large as his own ego. While Shearer is just as bad I doubt he is this evil given he has been kept occupied with his current roles, where as Nash is kept at bay.

          • felix 4.1.3.1.1
            4 June 2015 at 7:56 am

            Nasty piece of work alright.

          • te reo putake 4.1.3.1.2
            4 June 2015 at 8:31 am

            Cheers for the anecdote, Skinny, it’s illustrative of why Nash doesn’t have a future as a leader in the party. However, to repeat what I wrote elsewhere, there is no evidence that any MP even had a copy of the draft, let alone leaked it.

            If it is a deliberate leak, then I hope the party has the technical ability to track down the person responsible and get rid if them. If it was an accident (eg. copying in someone to an email by mistake) then I suppose that has to be dealt with on that basis.

            We simply don’t know how it got out there and we only have Gower’s word that it was a leak. He may be lying for all we know.

            • felix 4.1.3.1.2.1
              4 June 2015 at 9:02 am

              “He may be lying for all we know.”

              Occam’s razor might suggest that. It’s not as if it would be the first time.

            • Skinny 4.1.3.1.2.2
              4 June 2015 at 10:40 am

              would assume it was embargoed until Little fronted the media first. The caucus had already been given the message about undermining damage, however probably not reinforced this time. Really speaking this document was just an extension of the preliminary analysis, with a bit more detail. I know how Garner and Gower operate having done the odd number with them on the current regime, Garner pulls the strings Gower is his lapdog. Ego puffing bragging rights, having scooped the release ahead of the media pack, with a cack at Labour for good measure.

            • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.3.1.2.3
              4 June 2015 at 1:59 pm

              The GCSB has copies of the full review report from the earliest drafts.

              • Skinny …
                4 June 2015 at 4:19 pm

                Yes yes very good point… out of ‘national security interest’ of course. A few strokes of the keys and delivered into Paddy’s inbox with a (Labour MP) @parliament.org.nz addy…. Silly young Gower would be none the wiser.

      • leftie 4.1.4
        4 June 2015 at 4:04 am

        Agreed. I laid a formal complaint against Shearer after his most disloyal and outrageous performance post election. I know I wasn’t the only one to do so, but I haven’t heard a thing about it since.

    • Clemgeopin 4.2
      3 June 2015 at 10:46 pm

      +1
      I agree. It was a despicable thing to leak the report. Served no good purpose. The ONLY reason to leak would be to do major harm to the Labour party. A friend of Labour would NOT do that. Only a traitor or an idiot would do so. He or she needs to be unceremoniously kicked out of the party.

      I was also very annoyed at the other scum, Paddy Gower, putting his filthy boot into Labour. What a RW shit he seems to be, to be so unfair and vile as a journalist. What kind of bosses employ a crap reporter like him to be their main politics guy? Unbelievable!

      Buggers like these and our present government of Key will take our politics, our values, our future and our country to the dirty gutter. We the people should not allow these scum to succeed in their wicked and putrid agenda.

      • maui 4.2.1
        3 June 2015 at 10:59 pm

        “our present government of Key will take our politics, our values, our future and our country to the dirty gutter.”

        I’d say that’s already happened, now we have to get those things back out of the gutter.

      • leftie 4.2.2
        4 June 2015 at 4:06 am

        @Clemgeopin
        +1

  5. Kiwiri 5
    3 June 2015 at 6:06 pm

    There is this too as it was glaringly obvious from comparing notes with others around the country during the election campaign:

    “It was apparent in the last election that some electorate candidates did not campaign for the Party vote.”

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      3 June 2015 at 7:53 pm

      Yep some useless MPs were only interested in saving their own skins. Also, raising the party vote would’ve meant Cunliffe got to stay on.

    • felix 5.2
      4 June 2015 at 7:52 am

      Yes that’s a problem.

      Really, in mmp where the party vote is the thing that decides whether you’ll be in govt, not campaigning for it is tantamount to high treason.

      In a dictatorial organisation like National or ACT, those mps would simply not be selected next time.

      What mechanisms are available to the Labour Party leadership in this scenario?

      • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.1
        4 June 2015 at 2:04 pm

        Almost none if the MP has an electorate seat.

        Labour does not have the money or ability to offer alternative career positions to encourage failing MPs into leaving. (Senior wealth management role at Westpac? Head of the Funeral Directors Association? CEO of some hotel group? etc)

        And de-selecting an MP is often messy, the media has a field day, and Labour in Wellington has no stomach for it pre-2017 as they think it might scare the horses in an election year.

        So the status quo persists and entrenches.

  6. weka 6
    3 June 2015 at 6:24 pm

    “I guess the take home message is that the party is in good shape and despite the grumbling of a few less relevant MP’s the caucus is as united as it has been since the Clark years.”

    There’s probably an additional task for Labour there, which is to demonstrate this publicly over time. It’s hard from the outside to imagine how that is working given who is still there, but all kudos to Little and the current team if that’s what they’ve done.

  7. Rob 7
    3 June 2015 at 7:08 pm

    8 months in the making, really. This has to be a real example of getting a consultant in , who takes your watch off your wrist and reads you back the time.

    Probably the most frightening things about it , which hasn’t been disclosed is how much did it cost?

    • te reo putake 7.1
      3 June 2015 at 7:28 pm

      Um, did you read the post? No consultants and the costs were bugger all.

    • SHG 7.2
      4 June 2015 at 1:23 am

      No, a real consultant tells you that what you need is a round of consultations.

      For bonus points, count how many times this review proclaims that what Labour needs is more rounds of reviews.

  8. Sacha 8
    3 June 2015 at 7:31 pm

    Labour publicly punishing whoever leaked this could deter similar behaviour. No consequences, bound to be repeated. We’ve seen how it ends up.

    The party’s pathetic lack of unity and discipline cost the whole left the last two elections – and ordinary New Zealanders continue to suffer because of individual egos.

    Get over yourselves. Do your job or get out of the way.

    • rhinocrates 8.1
      4 June 2015 at 6:13 pm

      I agree absolutely.

      Those bastards have let us suffer for their vanity.

      Get over yourselves. Do your job or get out of the way.

      They have a sense of entitlement so huge it would take a team of Sherpas to get over.

      “Day fourteen. We lost two of our number who fell into the Comprehension Gap and half of our supplies were swept away in a torrent of self-congratulation as we made our way to the Lake of Narcissism, which we discovered to be filled with lukewarm latte… setting up base camp, we will attempt to scale the cliffs of indifference, God willing…”

  9. Unsurprised 9
    3 June 2015 at 7:45 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: bored. 1 month ban for stupid trolling. We need a better class of idiots. ]

  10. Saarbo 10
    3 June 2015 at 7:47 pm

    I refuse to believe that someone within Labour would have leaked this report to Gower. What Gower is implying is that someone within Labour is leaking for the larger good of the party over the long term, which is utter bull shit. When Gower does one of these anti-Labour rants/Gower bombs (e.g 2012 Conference) it pretty much kills any momentum within the Party , he also takes the entire gallery along with him, so incredibly damaging. Anyone with half an once of political nous will know this and will realise that leaking to Gower will not only f&%$ the party but will leave everyone within Labour in a weaker position, including themselves.

    This leak is either a hacker or Labour has someone within its ranks who has been planted and leaks in the best interests of Labour’s opposition party’s, it seems implausible but at some stage someone has to start asking this question.

    • Anne 10.1
      3 June 2015 at 8:11 pm

      It most certainly isn’t implausible Saarbo. I know of two people (they worked together) who were “planted” in Labour in the past. Unfortunately I didn’t discover it until after they had gone.

      • Saarbo 10.1.1
        3 June 2015 at 8:31 pm

        Normally a Journo will have respect for their informant because they will want to milk them for as long as possible, but if you listen to Gower he has nothing but disgust/disdain for the leaker, its as if he doesn’t care whether the leaker will provide him with more information or not. That’s why I reckon it could be a hacker/plant rather than a disgruntled Labour insider. But from a journalistic integrity point of view, clearly Gower has an inherent problem with The Labour Party…these attacks have been constant and concerted. These constant vicious attacks are incredibly hard for Labour to deal with and tend to stick with the public much longer than any positive media that Labour can put out there. Nats are lucky to have him.

    • Sacha 10.2
      4 June 2015 at 7:14 am

      “Anyone with half an once of political nous”

      Think you’ve answered your own point there. Party has not been short of dunces.

  11. Colonial Viper 11
    3 June 2015 at 7:56 pm

    If you are involved in a Labour Party branch, be prepared to defend your branch from being made irrelevant in Labour Party decision making and candidate selection.

    • Ron 11.1
      3 June 2015 at 8:50 pm

      we have had this discussion before CV It will not make branches irrelevant at all but it will encourage then to get involved in their LEC’s. More people on LEC’s can only be good.

      • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.1
        3 June 2015 at 10:01 pm

        Then why are they wanting to removing branches’ ability to vote on LECs. it’s a bullshit step which puts LECs further under the control of bad local MPs.

        • Ron 11.1.1.1
          3 June 2015 at 10:10 pm

          The branches won’t need to vote on LEC but if the members of branch attend the LEC they will still get they chance to vote.
          Branches seen to be mainly used as a vehicle to get delegate votes. The rest of the time many of them are defunct.

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.1.1.1
            3 June 2015 at 10:16 pm

            Yeah well ABP Branch (Dunedin South) is very active and this change targets us exactly. Branches are far more democratic structures which are fundamentally grassroots in nature and can operate constitutionally with significant freedom. LECs are answerable to the branches in the current set up and why the hell should that be now inverted so that branches are toothless and the LEC becomes the most important structure in an electorate; almost all the LECs I know are closely held by caucus loyalists. It’s a bullshit undemocratic move which will put the party into a deeper spiral.

            • Ron 11.1.1.1.1.1
              3 June 2015 at 10:28 pm

              Presumably you are referring to LEC that are in an labour electorate. But what of the rest. Don’t forget if LEC’s become the main unit then you can round up branch members and at agm out vote the committee. Democracy in action

    • OMBE 11.2
      3 June 2015 at 8:53 pm

      Union instructions are in the mail.

  12. David Bachman 12
    3 June 2015 at 7:56 pm

    Who cares who leaked it, isn’t that gossip mongering?

    A winning team starts formulating action plans to address the shortfalls that have been highlighted.

    • felix 12.1
      3 June 2015 at 8:12 pm

      Yep, and this leaking is not an isolated incident. It’s a pattern of behaviour that I’d describe as a “shortfall” which has now been highlighted.

      And yes it should be addressed with action. Swift and severe action.

      • David Bachman 12.1.1
        3 June 2015 at 8:23 pm

        I hear you Felix, it’s frustrating, like an irritating noise.

        But isn’t it just noise? What part does this or most leaks play in coming between Lab/Green and a 2017 win?

        It’s good news, we can get into addressing where we suck faster.

        [lprent: Oh piss off. I have put up with this act for long enough (reads back trace). 12 month ban. Don’t play games of I will as well. ]

        • Clemgeopin 12.1.1.1
          4 June 2015 at 8:48 am

          ” I have put up with this act for long enough”

          Interesting observation. I hadn’t picked up on it! Good call. The same sort of treatment should be meted out to Gower’s leaker, if that scum’s claim is true.

  13. Autonomouse 13
    3 June 2015 at 8:31 pm

    It’s all very well garnering the words of the party faithful, but did the review also engaged those that did not vote Labour?

    • Colonial Rawshark 13.1
      3 June 2015 at 9:56 pm

      Yeah should have asked David Farrar to convene a focus group for Labour

      • Ron 13.1.1
        3 June 2015 at 10:07 pm

        Are you aware that we are looking at setting up our own focus groups?

        • Colonial Rawshark 13.1.1.1
          4 June 2015 at 2:12 pm

          No I wasn’t but I would be surprised if Labour hasn’t been using focus groups through UMR for years?

      • Autonomouse 13.1.2
        3 June 2015 at 10:18 pm

        Labour should drive the process by all means, but just asking the question of the loyal followers isnt really going to achieve the ultimate goal is it.

        It’s no different to an ailing retail business investing in market research. In order to grow their customer base they’ve got to figure out why potential customers are staying away in droves, and you’ll never find the answer to that question by spending your days seeking the opinions of those that already have your loyalty card tucked in their wallets. Involve them by all means, and be careful not to ostracize them, but attracting new customers is the key to (political) prosperity.

        • Colonial Rawshark 13.1.2.1
          4 June 2015 at 2:14 pm

          More like finding out why 1/3 of your existing customers have deserted you

  14. Old Mickey 14
    3 June 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Sad day for Labour….arses served on plate by Paddy Gower !
    What an appalling job by the review panel,Andy did a great job hiding his distain, while Cunliffe could not have looked happier. Pathetic excuse for a political Party. Best to start planning for 2020, 2017 already lost.

    • Anne 14.1
      3 June 2015 at 8:52 pm

      Stop making things up Old Mickey.
      And its “disdain” not distain. Little’s name is “Andrew” not Andy and he was exhibiting no disdain. His answers were measured and reasonable. Nor did David Cunliffe look “happy” and he also answered with measure and reason.

      As for Gower. He was lying. The door nonsense was a decision made by Parliamentary Services and not requested by Labour. Gower knew it. Judith Collins was also lying but that’s not unusual for Madam.

      • Philp 14.1.1
        4 June 2015 at 10:01 pm

        Get off your high horse Anne. Every time someone on here mentions the prime minister by name it’s Key this, Key that. Then I guess it’s ok when the left do it. Starts at the top you know.

        • Anne 14.1.1.1
          5 June 2015 at 9:05 am

          And what has this post got to do with Key? No-one – including me – has mentioned him.

          To quote sysop, Iprent: Piss off!!
          Go back to Slater’s mob where pricks are welcome.

  15. Ron 15
    3 June 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Now that the document seems to be widely spread it is probably a good time to disucss some of the items mentioned.
    I am annoyed that they did not come up with a better way of handling preparation of the List. Both the current method and the suggested replacement seem lacking.
    The idea of caucus having anymore say except as a member of the party seems wrong. I am a fan of the Green system of all members getting a say in the ordering of list.
    I do not want the vetting committee having control of who the 60 list members will be nor the moderating committee decided on the order. Every member on list should be ordered by popular vote. I have no problem with minor moves on list to cater for gender or ethnic reason. It could be that we ask members to take that into consideration when ordering the list. Have faith in our membership would be a good direction for Labour to think about.

    Any thoughts please I am thinking of writing in to urge that the review committee re-consider the list and come up with a more fair system

    • Colonial Rawshark 15.1
      3 June 2015 at 9:55 pm

      The List system needs to be fully rethought and democratised

      • Ron 15.1.1
        3 June 2015 at 10:04 pm

        I agree any suggestions as to how?
        I like the ideas of the party being able to get useless MP’s out of parliament
        The idea of reserving the to 20 or so places for current MP’s is stupid. If the party does not rate them high on list they deserve to go.

        • Colonial Rawshark 15.1.1.1
          3 June 2015 at 10:32 pm

          Just random ideas off the top of my head:

          – You cannot stand for the list and a seat at the same time.
          – You cannot stand on the list more than 3 times in a row.
          – Members vote on which current MPs are included and excluded on the top 10 list.
          – Every electorate MP shall face a contested selection as a matter of routine.

          • Ron 15.1.1.1.1
            3 June 2015 at 10:45 pm

            I am guessing that the reason they want electorate candidates to also stand for list is to try and get MPs in safe seats to work for the party vote. Up here we have some current MPs that seemingly did not do a thing to push party vote. They were safe so to hell with anyone else.
            Something the review did not come to grips with was how to enforce discipline on electorate MPs We urgently need some way of making MPs act collegially and not running off pushing their own barrows.

      • Atiawa 15.1.2
        3 June 2015 at 10:14 pm

        says the expert on democracy………get a facebook page, invite friends.

        • Colonial Rawshark 15.1.2.1
          3 June 2015 at 10:20 pm

          I like you Atiawa, but I am not an establishment loyalist and I am not a caucus loyalist; get used to it.

          • Atiawa 15.1.2.1.1
            4 June 2015 at 10:10 am

            That’s nice and I certainly don’t dislike you.

            I am becoming use to it. Doesn’t mean I necessarily agree, but hey we shouldn’t leave politics to the politicians.

            • Colonial Rawshark 15.1.2.1.1.1
              4 June 2015 at 2:24 pm

              I learnt from Chris Hedges that the reason Roosevelt pushed through the New Deal in the USA was not because he was some kind of saint, or because the Democratic Party was any good, but because strong mass movements in American society – including Trade Unions, the Socialist and Communist Parties, many civil society groups, socialist publications, etc – unequivocally demanded those changes from the political establishment and were on the verge of conducting a revolt against capitalism. He pushed the New Deal through in order to save the elite and to save capitalism.

              • Kiwiri …
                4 June 2015 at 3:16 pm

                And even that, the New Deal was regarded as failing to realise its main objective of ending the Depression; that had to wait till the USA entered into WWII.

  16. Ad 16
    3 June 2015 at 9:26 pm

    The amount of blood and cash many of us spent on that last election to make something unlikely out of an inevitable train wreck is saddening.

    Saddening not because it’s fresh analysis, but because they are now public entrails that our enemies can warm their hands over for some time. To relish and revel in Labour’s defeat.

    The 2016 local government elections will be a signpost of revival, or further decline.

    TRPs optimism is lovely, but our results were worse than Australia Labor or British Labour. While Little can walk and chew gum, that’s something to be grateful for, rather than hopeful.

  17. Disraeli Gladstone 17
    3 June 2015 at 10:42 pm

    “I guess the take home message is that the party is in good shape”

    Good to see you’re practicing the philosophy of General Melchett there, TRP.

    “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.”

    I’m still hoping, somehow, Labour will actually go about putting itself into good shape for the 21st century and providing an air of competency to voters (policies that were dropped (like CGT) were actually supported by the public, so I think Danyl McLauchlan’s competency based argument has merit). This review doesn’t really fill me with confidence, though.

  18. millsy 18
    4 June 2015 at 12:25 am

    Labour probably lost because its manifesto was the biggest challenge to the status quo in 30 years, something that the media, corporates and the right wing establishment were losing sleep about, so they kicked into action with one of the biggest smear campaign this country had ever seen.

    Probably just as well anyway. A Labour led government would have been forced to back down or water down its promises in the face of a huge backlash by the business community — perhaps a military coup…??

    Cunliffe fluffing his first question time didnt help either.

    • SHG 18.1
      4 June 2015 at 1:31 am

      they kicked into action with one of the biggest smear campaign this country had ever seen

      It wasn’t the “right wing establishment” who decided to take a skiing holiday in the middle of the campaign, or go out to lunch with a sex offender, or describe his multimilliondollar Herne Bay home as a “doer-upper”, or use a secret trust for campaign finance while attacking the use of secret trusts for campaign finance, or plagiarise the announcements of another MP for use as his own, or make a policy speech that contradicted the briefing that accompanied the speech, and on and on and on and on and on

      • felix 18.1.1
        4 June 2015 at 7:46 am

        None of those things are particularly awful apart from the awful way you’ve framed them.

        For example “having lunch with someone you didn’t know was a sex offender”. doesn’t sound nearly as bad, does it?

        In fact it sounds like “having lunch”.

        And did “lunchgate” even happen during the campaign, or was it something the panty-sniffers dug up from months earlier? (I honestly don’t know, I never took much notice of the “story” as it so obviously had nothing in it.)

        The same applies to every item you mention. You’ve swallowed these terribly exaggerated fantasy stories about fairly mundane “events”.

        You actually illustrate millsy’s point quite beautifully.

    • Puckish Rogue 18.2
      4 June 2015 at 3:47 pm

      perhaps a military coup…??

      Are you serious?!?!

      • millsy 18.2.1
        5 June 2015 at 12:22 am

        In the 1930’s the US business community, unhappy with the New Deal, planned a coup to overthrow FDR using army veterans, replacing him with a ‘Secretary for General Affairs” who would be president in all but name. The plan fell apart when the man approached to lead the coup blew the whistle and ring leaders scurried for cover.

        In the late 1960’s, there was a supposed plot to overthrow Harold Wilson’s Labour government by big business. War hero General Montgomery was approached to lead the coup and head up a military government but declined the offer.

        Some experts think that the Whitlam dismissal may have escalated to the point of military involvement, given that Labor still had a majority in the lower house…

        I remember as a teenager watching something on TV where there was discussion in the NZ Army about the possible overthrow of Norman Kirk.

        To name but a few…

        Imagine, the power companies pulling the plug in protest at NZ Power causing rolling blackouts (the ex-MRP CEO more or less threatened it), businesses holding a capital strike, NZ dollar tumbles, coalition in crisis, unemployment being forced up, and the man in green up in Government House, picks up the phone to Trentham and asks for several companies to take a trip down, and take over Parliament….

  19. the pigman 19
    4 June 2015 at 3:05 am

    Quick flashback to the post-election leadership race:

    http://www.donotlink.com/fej8 (Robertson stand-up outside caucus interviewed by disgraced and discredited private broadcaster)

    Robertson rubbishes Cunliffe’s claim that some electorate MPs didn’t campaign hard enough for the Party vote.

    Wellington Central party vote loser Robertson feigns chop-quivering outrage and claims that Cunliffe is insulting the Labour Party volunteers who were out in the rain delivering leaflets.

    Fast forward to now: review finds some electorate MPs didn’t campaign hard enough for the Party vote.

    • Colonial Rawshark 19.1
      4 June 2015 at 9:52 am

      yeah good point; Robertson can be trusted about as far as you can throw him. His factional greasing inside caucus is pretty fucking obvious. Having said that he was only a hairs breadth from the leadership and will be again one day.

      • millsy 19.1.1
        5 June 2015 at 11:40 pm

        Robertson is the man what the business community trusts to ensure that the status quo is largely maintained when they (and the media) tire of Key and decide that Labour is ready for another turn.

  20. Charles 20
    4 June 2015 at 7:19 am

    “…has been publicised by the visual entertainment arm of Mediaworks.”

    haha, but seriously, I had no idea it was leaked when I read about it here, first, last night. Later, while passing a TV screen, on mute, there was a TV news article with big red banner lettering of points I’d just read, a very pale and drawn Andrew Little accosted by media, and I thought, this is odd.
    Whether they’re trolls or not, comments in this thread have asked…”How to reach the non-Labour voters?” etc. I’m a non-Labour voter, and I thought the review was a positive thing. If I hadn’t read the speeches of certain Labour MPs here, and if the Greens policy didn’t exist, it might be the beginning of “not entirely unlikely I’ll vote Labour 2017”. Surely that cheers the hardcore up, a little?
    People like Colonial Rawshark are obviously on the inside of Labour in some way, and the more detailed parts of the review from about half way meant something profound to him/her/them, little-to-nothing/indecipherable to me, and will likely mean even less to people who choose who to vote for by staring at the portrait photos of potential PMs. My impression is that this “scurrilous leak by insider scum”, if it was supposed to hurt Labour, has actually made a positive impact overall.

    Insiders of anything love witch hunts, and it’s true, any leak can go badly wrong, but if Labour get caught by the media spending all their time metaphorically ransacking suspect’s offices and sticking heads on spikes, the positive image they’re winning almost by default will be lost. So please, Labour, do what you like but keep the inquisitions quiet. The Left, in general, and the unheard voices of NZders who are getting fucked-over by National policy will go down with you.

  21. Clean_power 21
    4 June 2015 at 9:13 am

    Seriously, WHO in the Labour Party leaked the report to Gower? Why the underhand tactics?

    • te reo putake 21.1
      4 June 2015 at 9:37 am

      Why the underhand tactics? Well, that’s just how Gower rolls.

      • Clean_power 21.1.1
        4 June 2015 at 9:50 am

        Gower aside, it can be called underhand because it shows there are factions at play in Labour. The normal process should have been followed to release the report, but someone (hence my question) decided to leak it.

        It is a moot point now the media is talking about the document, but the person who leaked it is yet to be found.

        • te reo putake 21.1.1.1
          4 June 2015 at 10:11 am

          Good points, but until we know its actually a leak and from where in the party, there’s not much point speculating. This is the first time in a long time that Gower has been able to crow about a leak, so I’m tending to think it was the work of an individual not an organised faction. And that may still turn out to be a doofus who hit ‘send all’ by mistake.

          • Colonial Rawshark 21.1.1.1.1
            4 June 2015 at 12:38 pm

            Good points, but until we know its actually a leak

            Is there any real possibility that the release of the report was authorised? I doubt it somehow.

            • te reo putake 21.1.1.1.1.1
              4 June 2015 at 12:41 pm

              No chance. What would be the point?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                4 June 2015 at 12:43 pm

                Oh OK just wondering why you seemed uncertain if it was a leak.

                • te reo putake …
                  4 June 2015 at 12:51 pm

                  I guess we just don’t know. However, when Gower gleefully says it’s a leak, my bullshit detector starts twitching. I’d like to think it might just be a cock up; an email error or leaving a printed copy lying about or similar human frailty.

      • SHG 21.1.2
        4 June 2015 at 12:36 pm

        Yes, it’s Patrick Gower’s fault for receiving a leak of sensitive internal-only material from a disgruntled Labour source.

        see: “victim-blaming”

        [Gower’s not a victim. Take a day off for C grade trolling. TRP]

  22. Brutus Iscariot 22
    4 June 2015 at 9:27 am

    Nice little nod to meritocracy vs identity politics.

    No need to get too outraged over the leak though – there’s nothing in the document that is damaging to the Labour party. It’s all stuff that people have already been talking about – here and elsewhere.

  23. T Chris 23
    4 June 2015 at 9:51 am

    If this is your take on the report there wasn’t much point in having it written

    “I guess the take home message is that the party is in good shape and despite the grumbling of a few less relevant MP’s the caucus is as united as it has been since the Clark years. And that’s clearly due to the management and leadership of Andrew Little.”

    For a start the review had to be leaked from caucus as junior MPs wouldn’t have seen it.

    The leadership of Little is currently being taken over by Winston Peters

    • te reo putake 23.1
      4 June 2015 at 10:05 am

      T Chris, ‘junior’ MP’s are part of caucus.

      I’ve made the point a couple of times that the leaked document was a draft. The next step in the process was for it to go to the NZ council, not caucus. There is no reason to think that any caucus MP had a copy, let alone leaked it.

      My take on the report is entirely my own view. The report wasn’t written for me, but I, like hundreds of other members, took an interest in the review. The report is a summary of the views of hundreds of LP members and as the post title says, there’s good, bad and ugly in it. The plain fact is that since Andrew Little took over, caucus has been working in a united and disciplined way, membership is up and the party is polling above the result on election day. So that’s why I wrote that the party was “in good shape”.

      • T Chris 23.1.1
        4 June 2015 at 10:23 am

        So what was with the “Don’t enrol. Don’t get the benefit leak?”

        Why is Little getting asked about things he hasn’t been told about?

  24. Robert Glennie 24
    4 June 2015 at 12:38 pm

    Although Labour has made some good moves since the election, it has also made some dumb ones such as that silly commentary about means testing superranuitants. It needs to make peace with the Greens and accept that it will need their assistance if it is to govern at the next election. Unlike the Alliance, I cannot see the Greens imploding.

    http://willnewzealandberight.com/2015/05/27/dear-labour-party/

    • Atiawa 24.1
      4 June 2015 at 2:25 pm

      What ” silly commentary about means testing Superannuitants ” was that?

      And how do you make peace if your’e not at war?

  25. SHG 25
    4 June 2015 at 12:39 pm

    The “vastly experienced Bryan Gould”

    In the words of the Dear Leader (peace be upon him) when describing his approach to executive hires at Apple and Pixar:

    “A players pick A players. B players pick C players.”

    No-one involved in the Labour post-election review is an A player. You think Gould has the foggiest idea how to win an election? What on earth makes him qualified to comment on what Labour needs to do differently?

    • felix 25.1
      4 June 2015 at 1:26 pm

      What makes you qualified to comment on his qualification?

      • SHG 25.1.1
        4 June 2015 at 2:37 pm

        Hey, call me crazy, nuts. [Rest deleted, see above. Come back tomorrow if you’ve got anything to say that isn’t mindless, ignorant trolling. TRP]