Oh dear.

36 comments on “Oh dear. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vidiot 1

   4 May 2009 at 4:36 pm

   Yep, Ravi suffers the same fate as Phil Twyford, Meg Bates and that other guy Russelll umm err wtf
   • r0b 1.1

     4 May 2009 at 4:51 pm

     Ravi suffers the same fate

     Really? I missed the part where Labour announced Shearer as the party’s official candidate before the selection process had even taken part.

     The media of course knew that Melissa Lee was a foregone conclusion, eg here:

     Greens co-leader Russel Norman is standing for his party. Labour selects its candidate tomorrow. Melissa Lee is expected to stand for National.

     here:

     List MP, and this country’s first Korean MP Melissa Lee, is expected to get the nod.

     here:

     Nominations for Labour close on April 22, and about eight people have said they are interested. National is expected to stand Melissa Lee.

     and so on. But National effectively announcing it as a done deal before the charade has even taken place really is extraordinary.
     • Jared 1.1.1

       4 May 2009 at 5:01 pm

       Two can play this game rob

       Here
       “Labour, which will select its candidate tomorrow, has shunned using a list MP. Its front-runner is top-ranking United Nations official David Shearer, who has returned from Baghdad to contest the nomination.”

       And Here

       “David Shearer, a former adviser to Mr Goff, is considered the one to beat for the Labour nomination.”

       Yeah, here too

       “A top-ranking United Nations official in Iraq is returning home to New Zealand to try and win the Labour nomination for the Mt Albert by-election.

       The Herald has learned David Shearer, currently the deputy special representative of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in Iraq, heads a list of up to a dozen possible candidates.”
     • r0b 1.1.2

       4 May 2009 at 5:07 pm

       You might see no difference in “expected to stand” vs “the one to beat” (I certainly do). But even you must see that National effectively announcing the winner in advance is in a whole new league…
       • Jared 1.1.2.1

         4 May 2009 at 5:12 pm

         Naively thinking the party meeting tonight would have much if any difference is like thinking the Labour candidate meeting was unbiased. You can harp on till the cows come home about how “democratic” and “fair” the Labour voting system is, but in reality both National and Labour had already decided who they wanted to stand well before their respective meetings.
         • r0b 1.1.2.1.1

           4 May 2009 at 5:27 pm

           Naively thinking the party meeting tonight would have much if any difference

           OK, you’re comfortable with the Nat process being a charade, good for you.

           is like thinking the Labour candidate meeting was unbiased

           It was a genuine vote for a genuine candidate pool. I’ve been somewhat involved in Labour candidate selection processes in the past – they are genuine exercises in democracy.

           In Labour the central influence is quite explicit, 3 votes out of 7. In National it now seems that the central party just writes the outcome in advance.
   • groobenheimer 1.2

     4 May 2009 at 5:17 pm

     Sounds just like the Labour ‘selection’.
2. gingercrush 2

   4 May 2009 at 4:37 pm

   Same could be said for David Shearer. And even the Greens who we assume are always more democratic than the other parties. These parties can make their selections as democratic as they wish. At the end of the day, party hierachy will take control and ultimately select the candidates they want.
3. mickysavage 3

   4 May 2009 at 4:39 pm

   Good to see the party of freedom, democracy and transparency living up to its high standards.
   • groobenheimer 3.1

     4 May 2009 at 5:20 pm

     You are deluded about Labour and National being any different in this respect.
4. Andy 4

   4 May 2009 at 4:41 pm

   Ironically when Lee is named, Labour’s David Shearer will be the only non-MP standing for a party of note and the only one who has a house in the electorate.

   Yeah, he’s spent a lot of time overseas in his career but if he’s a parachute candidate, what does that make the others?
   • groobenheimer 4.1

     4 May 2009 at 5:21 pm

     you mean he has a rental property in the electorate, bought when kingsland wasn’t actually part of the mt albert electorate. yep that sure is a strong bond with the place.
     • Lindsey 4.1.1

       4 May 2009 at 7:04 pm

       Some fact might just be useful here. When are you saying David bought his house in Kingsland that it was not part of Mt Albert??
       I bought mine in 1981 and Kingsland was part of the Mt Albert electorate then. It remained so until after the MMP changes when some of it it became Auckland Central in 1996. In 2002 parts of it returned to Mt Albert and some has since gone back to Auckland Central.
5. gobsmacked 5

   4 May 2009 at 4:42 pm

   V-Idiot & fellow spinners

   Musuku was the candidate in 2005 and 2008. Labour’s candidate was called Helen Clark.

   I don’t like missing out when I apply for a job. But it sure ain’t the same feeling as being sacked.

   There’s a clear difference here, and I’m sure you know it.
   • gingercrush 5.1

     4 May 2009 at 4:48 pm

     Why is there a clear difference? You could say Meg Bates was waiting in the wings for the time that Helen Clark vacated her seat. The same could equally be applied to Phil Twyford. The leadership of the Labour party did not want Twyford to stand. That isn’t democratic. Its usual practice for high performing candidates to be pushed into electorates over candidates that have stood in that electorate for years. It isn’t anything new. Both Labour and National have a long history of doing such actions.

     Very few on the right here are defending National’s candidate selection as being democratic. I just don’t know why the Labour supporters continue to try and perpetuate their candidate selection as being democratic.
   • Jared 5.2

     4 May 2009 at 4:50 pm

     Musuku may have been the candidate in the past 2 elections but it hardly gives him any more entitlement than any other candidate at the present. Mt Albert is a unique seat, one that has been held by Helen Clark for the last 28 years, and considering the conditions it is of tactical importance from all parties to win the seat. For Labour it would indicate either the Mt Albert electorate votes Labour yet again as they have always done, that Labour is clawing back at National, and for National it would indicate if it won the seat that it would solidify its role as the legitimate ruling party in Parliament. So for give me for running on, but getting hung up over a candidate who performed poorly in the last 2 elections and in the most decisive by election is replaced by a stronger candidate is hardly front page material. He has as much right to the seat as any of the unsuccessive Labour candidates.
6. gobsmacked 6

   4 May 2009 at 5:00 pm

   He didn’t perform poorly. National now say they can win the seat. He got them there.

   He doesn’t have an automatic right to be the candidate. He does have an absolute right to be told the truth to his face, and not be publicly humiliated by a charade.
7. Yeh right 7

   4 May 2009 at 5:03 pm

   yep Ravi was perfectly welcome to bash his head against a brick wall, provided he was going to lose…

   National regard for the local Indian community huh?
   • Jared 7.1

     4 May 2009 at 5:06 pm

     Since when was this a race discrimination issue?
     • gingercrush 7.1.1

       4 May 2009 at 5:17 pm

       Actually I think Yeh right has a point. Undoubtedly Musuku has been building up the Indian vote that likely favours National. By choosing to put in Lee those Indian voters may well not vote for National in the future. Its also likely, other local support for National has potentially been lost in the process of pushing aside Musuku.
       • groobenheimer 7.1.1.1

         4 May 2009 at 5:24 pm

         Ravi was never liked by the Mt Albert indian community because he’s a baptist and made a point of regularly bagging hindisim and other ‘false religions’. that kind of christobigotry didn’t exactly make him a big favourite of the local indian community.
       • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.2

         4 May 2009 at 5:27 pm

         that may happen, but I suspect it will only be a small factor.

         Tim Ellis has been going on about the ethnicity aspect a lot, so it’s not just yeh that’s brought it up. But then it was Tim that was waxing so lyrical about the National party’s proud democratic selection process. Phutt.
8. toad 8

   4 May 2009 at 5:18 pm

   Wonder if Ravi might want to consider a judicial review.

   There’s a guy called Roger Payne in the Nats he could consult.
9. Yeh right 9

   4 May 2009 at 5:19 pm

   You’re right Jared, my apologies.

   National showing this blatant disregard for a hard working candidate in an electorate they used to not give a stuff about, is going to be a popular move amongst the Indian community in Mt Albert.

   Low on the party list, and bumped off now he actually may have a chance of winning.

   used and abused wouldn’t you say Jared?
   • Jared 9.1

     4 May 2009 at 5:29 pm

     The game has changed dramatically since the last two elections. There was no way Helen was going to lose her seat in 2005 or 2008, and its widely known that fresh candidates are put up in strong seats like Mt Albert to give them experience in an election. Congratulations, yes he has put in work. If we are taking a holistic approach, why have the greens not nominated Jon Carapiet who has stood in the last 2 elections for Mt Albert? Instead opting for a far safer option with Russell Norman. The truth is that just because you put in work in an election, unless you are sitting in that MP spot, you have just as much of a chance of selection as any other candidate. This byelection isn’t “fair”, its tactical.
10. gobsmacked 10

    4 May 2009 at 5:28 pm

    There is a clear difference between Goff and Key here, and pretending otherwise just won’t wash.

    Both leaders knew who they wanted. Except, only one was open and honest about it.

    David Shearer is Phil Goff’s man. Everyone knows it. People may or may not support the candidate, but Goff has promoted him, stood by him, and will be judged accordingly.

    Key, of course, does things differently. Why get your hands dirty when you can order somebody else to do the back-stabbing? Keep your distance, and keep smiling. Pretend it’s nothing to do with you. But make damn sure the knife goes in, on your orders. That’s Nice Mr Key.

    Still, the truth is out now.
    • Jared 10.1

      4 May 2009 at 5:34 pm

      Come on, get with the picture. You know as well as I do that Labour was almost certainly going to pick Shearer, as with National picking Lee. This isn’t about backstabbing, this is about winning a tactical seat. Everyone knew Lee was Key’s preferred candidate, he even said so “National’s possible candidates are led by list MP Melissa Lee, whom Prime Minister John Key yesterday called an “outstanding individual”.”
11. Nick 11

    4 May 2009 at 7:47 pm

    @ 1min 20.

    A grassroots Labour supporter furious at the lack of democracy in the selection process and the arrive-by-parachute shennanigans of Goff Shearer.
    • DeeDub 11.1

      4 May 2009 at 8:05 pm

      Really??? There is a guy ranting on there at 1:26, but where does the piece identify him as a ‘grassroots Labour supporter’? Do you assume that just because Fran Mould says ‘some members’ and then cuts to this guy having his fifteen minutes????
    • gobsmacked 11.2

      4 May 2009 at 8:16 pm

      So what’s your point, Nick?

      Phil Goff pushed for Shearer to be the candidate. We know this, because he was quite open about it. Some people were unhappy that Shearer was the candidate. We know this, because they were quite open about it.

      So your point is that National have been better at repressing dissent and faking unity, in a sham selection process? Well, whoopi-doo!
12. gobsmacked 12

    4 May 2009 at 10:50 pm

    A telling clip on One News tonight, of Ravi Musuku being interviewed by Francesca Mold, and two unsmiling MPs from National’s Goon Squad literally at his shoulder … you could almost see the arm being twisted behind his back.
13. Nick 13

    4 May 2009 at 11:07 pm

    True gobsmacked. Just like the TV1 clip I put in above where Andrew Little and Phil Goff are whispering in Shearer’s ear the answers to the interviewers questions.
14. Pat 14

    4 May 2009 at 11:41 pm

    Homepaddock posted on this earlier:

    “But it’s the paper (NZ Herald) that’s got it wrong. I’ve got a copy of the official programme and it says:

    Address by Mt Albert’s List MP Melissa Lee.

    Note the difference between Mount Albert candidate which she may or may not be after tonight’s selection, and Mount Albert’s list MP which she is.

    The programme notes her position as buddy MP for the electorate which isn’t represented by National, it’s not second guessing the selection process.”

    Conspiracy theory over, methinks.
    • TripleStandards 14.1

      5 May 2009 at 7:41 am

      So many commentators here whinge and moan about the lack of effort that the Herald makes in uncovering the facts, and yet they are so quick to jump on the bandwagon when a false story like this comes out. I would expect a few withdrawals and apologies (am I dreaming?)…lets just see how you guys spin this into either an attack on John Key, or an attack on the Herald.
15. gingercrush 15

    5 May 2009 at 12:54 am

    “We had eight strong nominees vying to keep Mount Albert Labour and we’re proud that our selection process was transparent and democratic.

    You gotta love Darren Hughes. He’s in such self-denial he actually believes that Labour’s process is transparent and democratic. Exactly how is it transparent? And what is so democratic about shutting up members on the floor. I don’t believe National’s selection was democratic. But the hypocrisy and blatant denial of Labour’s selection processes is truly maddening.
16. Tigger 16

    5 May 2009 at 8:44 am

    Look, both National and Labour’s candidacy processes are different examples how MPs gain selection. You can complain about it, you can sling mud, but it’s politics. Get used to it and get over it.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS