Open mike 25/09/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 25th, 2014 - 289 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

289 comments on “Open mike 25/09/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    25 September 2014 at 6:21 am

    Another day and more leaks from within Labour’s caucus.  

    It was not a “move to the left” that hurt the party in the recent election, not the leader, not billboard design, certainly not the on the ground effort by activists.

    It was the muppets in Caucus who persistently leaked for personal career advancement.  

    While this behaviour continues the party has no chance of recovering.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11330939

    • swordfish 1.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:37 am

      In retrospect, maybe we should have focussed less on encouraging Lab/Green voters to Candidate-Vote strategically in Ohariu and Epsom and more on encouraging them to do so in Mt Albert, Mt Roskill, Hutt South, Rongotai and, dare I say it (given that he’s only a youngster), Rimutaka.

      Wholesale wipe-out of the old Rogernome ABCs by voters in those seats would have done the Party a world of good.

      • Distilled essence of NZ 1.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:10 am

        They should all go join the bloody ACT Party. Do we have to wait for all these dinosaurs to die off before the left can be the left again? Seriously, it’s been 30 years, they should just fuck off already.

        • Chooky 1.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 8:31 am

          The Labour Party rank and file members who voted for David Cunliffe as leader should organise a break away ‘Red Labour’ Party where they can tightly control their representatives and make a new start, up from the ashes

          • lprent 1.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 8:33 am

            This has been tried before. Read about the rise and fall of New Labour/Alliance.

            • Chooky 1.1.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 8:44 am

              ..there were leadership issues at play there….lessons can be learned from past mistakes

              ….would you prefer two National Parties?…or Labour as a shadow National?….or Labour in coalition with National? ( the ABCs already are)

              • phillip ure …
                25 September 2014 at 9:57 am

                when studying politics in the 90’s..

                ..i looked at the proposition/question of labour ever doing a ‘grand-coalition’ with national..

                ..and came to the conclusion that..with certain ducks all in a row.. it was most likely that they would..

                ..and if these rightwingers in labour get their way..

                ..those odds of that happening sooner rather than later..jump..

                ..and any of them would be up for that..

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  25 September 2014 at 10:13 am

                  ..and if these rightwingers in labour get their way..

                  ..those odds of that happening sooner rather than later..jump..

                  Yep, that’s the really scary possibility. IIRC, Michael Cullen did say that parties were close enough in policies that they would make a near perfect coalition.

                  I suspect that the only thing stopping the present RWNJs in Labour from doing it is that they know damn well that they’d be out of a job at the next election.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.1.2
              25 September 2014 at 9:40 am

              Thanks for the links Lynn, been meaning to reread up on that.

              Differences this time. New Labour got 5.6% of the vote in its first election. That was under FPP and got them 1 MP. Under MMP, that would get them a fistful of MPs, which would put them squarely on the map and help build the party.

              A Labour split would need to take a number of MPs with it, not just one. It would also need the membership, including enough of those who have knowledge of the LEC structures and how the party operates. I would see the membership as more important than the MPs.

              Forget about an alliance. Forget about being a FPP biggest party who gets to rule the roost. Form a party that is able to build coalitions and work within those coaltions to . Talk with potential partners ahead of elections, but take time to build the party first.

              Get the core principles clear, and write the constitution to reflect that.

              Learn from the GP on how to set up a party that works democractically and won’t consolidate power in the hands a few MPs.

              None of that is without risk, but I do think we have come a long way since New Labour and the Alliance. And failing looks like a better option than the current alternative of a centrist Labour party that will do everything it can to hobble the left.

              • Chooky …
                25 September 2014 at 10:06 am

                +100 weka

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 September 2014 at 10:17 am

                Yep – I think you are definitely on the right track here.

              • Pat O'Dea …
                25 September 2014 at 10:28 am

                @weka

                The dividing line between all parties new or old will be their position on climate change.

                This Changes Everything

                • weka …
                  25 September 2014 at 1:16 pm

                  Thanks Pat. A large part of my anger and despair post-election is the fact that we are now set back at least another 3 years in terms of being able to do anything real via govt about AGW. Labour fiddles while Rome burns.

              • Ron …
                25 September 2014 at 11:50 am

                Trouble is that Greens can control their candidates better because they only really stand list candidates. Yes they put up electorate candidates but they are really only there to help build party vote. They would be really shocked if the public ever elected an electorate candidate. When you really only concentrate on the list you can easily get rid of candidates not behaving but removing then from list. Not so easy to discipline people if they are in a seat that they can in win they just go ahead and ignore party. Notice that two candidates have disappeared off the Greens list in the last 12 months.
                I have said it before Labour should hire someone to remove deadwood from electorate seats someone like Michelle Boag who did the job for National. It has to be someone absolutely ruthless. If they refuse to co-operate they should be removed from party and find someone better at next election. You can do this in opposition easier than when in power.

                Maybe as a separate change to rules we need to look at some sort of bar on any candidate serving more than three terms consecutively. Political parties like all organisations need constant blood transfusions.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.3
              25 September 2014 at 10:21 am

              This has been tried before. Read about the rise and fall of New Labour/Alliance.

              This time, members need to network and organise across the country – not to form a new party, but to take their party back.

              One general thing about the ‘ABCs’ (and I think there are a lot of factions within that broad grouping) – they tend to lose active members and activists, not gain them. That makes pushing back at them easier if you can find say even 30 determined people to join (rejoin) the Labour Party in that particular electorate. It will make a huge difference to be able to turn up to LEC meetings in force and hold MPs to account.

              • McFlock …
                25 September 2014 at 5:28 pm

                “Their” party?
                Almost half of votes in the membership were for someone other than Cumliffe. And then there’s the non-voters.

          • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.1.2
            25 September 2014 at 8:51 am

            Nah not a fan of that. Then you get MPs who are simply puppets subject to their puppet master’s demands. Which is a lot closer to the Nat Act model

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.3
            25 September 2014 at 10:08 am

            Or they could just join Mana or IP.

            • Chooky 1.1.1.1.3.1
              25 September 2014 at 10:30 am

              yes I think quite a few have already …or at least voted for them…what IP/MANA need is a radio station

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.1.1.1.3.2
              25 September 2014 at 5:32 pm

              If you can get 26,539 of them to join, you’d double their vote.

              Seriously, I’ve been in larger traffic jams.

      • phillip ure 1.1.2
        25 September 2014 at 7:19 am

        @ swordfish..

        “..maybe we should have focussed less on encouraging Lab/Green voters to Candidate-Vote strategically in Ohariu and Epsom ..”

        and that all went really well..eh..?

        ..dunne wins by 900+..

        ..green candidate gets 2,400+ electorate votes..

        ..duh..!..and doh..!

      • weka 1.1.3
        25 September 2014 at 9:06 am

        ha ha, nice idea swordfish.

        How about we actually name the ABCs/Rogernomes? I’m sure those on the in in Labour get it but most people won’t and it makes the issue messy and murky to not know who and what we are talking about.

        Here’s Bradbury’s list from winter last year in the context of Shearer and the leadership issues. Is this accurate? (not yet adjusted for MPs that have left/are leaving)

        Team Shearer (11)
        David Shearer, Phil Goff, Annette King, Trevor Mallard, David Parker, Damien O’Connor, Darien Fenton, Kris Fa’afoi, Ross Robertson, Maryan Street, Ruth Dyson.

        The Young and The Restless (8)
        Grant Robertson, Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Phil Twyford, Clare Curran, Megan Woods, Ian Lees-Galloway, David Clark.

        Cunliffe’s People (11)
        David Cunliffe, Lianne Dalziel, Moana Mackey, Nanaia Mahuta, Louisa Wall, Sue Moroney, Rajen Prasad, Rino Tirikatene, Su’a William Sio, Raymond Huo, Carol Beaumont,

        Other(3)
        Shane Jones, Andrew Little, Clayton Cosgrove

        http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/15/labour-party-coup-watch-downgrade/

    • Hanswurst 1.2
      25 September 2014 at 6:37 am

      Do you have any idea how accurate the leak might be?

    • tc 1.3
      25 September 2014 at 6:48 am

      The disunity theme in Labour the Nats ran with is validated by this leaking and shows DC as ineffective after his public no more leaks plea.

      Job done then by the egotists who would rather lead a small party then be in a larger one behind a leader who proved he can match Key. They are taking Labour further into minor party territory with this behaviour but they don’t care.

      The failure to work with the greens and use MMP to advantage ( akl central, TTT, ohairu ) pretty much handed this to the Nats, who made those decisions ?

      • mickysavage 1.3.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:08 am

        Awfully Bad Campaigners?

        • phillip ure 1.3.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 7:24 am

          @ m.s..on that ‘bad campaigners’..

          ..i have been wondering if the decision not to work closely with the greens had anything to do with matt mccartens’ historical-antipathy towards the greens..

          ..(he is one of those former alliance people who blame the greens for killing the alliance party..by leaving it..

          ..unhealed historical-schism-wounds would sum it up..)

          ..i wondered about that at the time that (stoopid) decision was made..

          ..and i am still wondering..

      • karol 1.3.2
        25 September 2014 at 7:16 am

        And congratulations to the ABCs. They have succeeded in helping the Nat smear machine in shifting the Labour Party (and the country) to the right.

        • tc 1.3.2.1
          25 September 2014 at 7:25 am

          Yes and giving the MSM weeks of material and diversions from what the govt is up to now, it’s like ACT never left the labour caucus in some respects and Helen knew how to keep it busy during her tenure with some ministerial baubles.

        • Saarbo 1.3.2.2
          25 September 2014 at 8:08 am

          Yes, I was wondering given the continuous stream of leaks whether there was a National plant in the Labour caucus, very possible given the revelations in Dirty Politics. But then realised that essentially, that is what the ABC’ers are.

          I enjoyed a tweet from somebody earlier in the week “Labour caucus choose John Key as their leader”

          • phillip ure 1.3.2.2.1
            25 September 2014 at 8:47 am

            @ saarbo..

            ..the right in labour have a revolving information door with national..

            ..the right in labour are buddies with slater..(yoo-hoo..!..nash..!..we’re looking at you..!..)

            ..there are more leak-holes in/from those rightwing ratbags in labour –

            – than in a colander..

          • Draco T Bastard 1.3.2.2.2
            25 September 2014 at 10:33 am

            Well, at one point Key did think he was leader of the Labour party:

            In a tub-thumping speech to National’s annual conference Mr Key said: “Under a Labour government I lead child abusers will be severely punished”.

            Perhaps it wasn’t actually a mistake on his part as we’ve all been assuming.

          • Jones 1.3.2.2.3
            25 September 2014 at 9:31 pm

            Hasn’t Whaleoil boasted about having people inside Labour feeding him info?

            • lprent 1.3.2.2.3.1
              25 September 2014 at 10:59 pm

              The problem is that Cameron Slater has been known to lie rather a lot. He even admits (after the emails got released) to embellishing a bit (in other words lying a lot).

              He isn’t exactly a person you can rely upon. Which is of course why “Pete” is now doing posts about getting information from Labour MPs. I suspect it is unlikely that any Labour MP would be that stupid. I think that Pete is just “embellishing” as well.

              Looks like it may be a body contact contagious disease, like a STD.

              • adam …
                26 September 2014 at 12:17 am

                Thanks Iprent I’m just going to bed and I almost wet myself. 🙂

                “Looks like it may be a body contact contagious disease, like a STD.”

        • Chooky 1.3.2.3
          25 September 2014 at 8:34 am

          yup and Morning Report is doing its best to help them….there is nothing positive on it for David Cunliffe (everything to get him to resign)

          another reason for a Left radio station

        • yeshe 1.3.2.4
          25 September 2014 at 9:20 am

          +100 karol. The named and unnamed of Dirty Politics have accomplished exactly what they wanted, and their corrosive plans continue unchecked. No Labour leader could have survived these subversive attacks from all sides. A clear victory to the dirtiest dealers we have ever had.

    • Paul 1.4
      25 September 2014 at 7:07 am

      Yes, there are several members of the Labour caucus whose careers come above the well being of the poor, elderly, vulnerable and young of NZ.
      1 million people did not vote. About double the number of people who voted for Labour.
      Almost for certain these people predominantly come from Labour’s original constituency.
      And yet who are the Labour caucus want to get to vote for them.
      The Centre.
      By that, they refer to the soft vote of National…those in the 20th to 30th percentile.

      • phillip ure 1.4.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:26 am

        @ paul..

        “..Almost for certain these people predominantly come from Labour’s original constituency..”

        + 1..

      • AklBanker 1.4.2
        25 September 2014 at 8:17 am

        Disagree. Wouldn’t a lot of the absent voters be those people who went overseas during the labour years? I’d say the election result (as opposed to your personal opinion) is probably a more accurate reflection of how the absent voters might cast their vote i.e. 48ish% National. Or alternatively, if you run with the Left’s argument that 48% of the population is ignorant, stupid & don’t know what they are getting themselves in for (where as the absent voters are intelligent and clearly know that left is best)…then yes, you might be right.

        • phillip ure 1.4.2.1
          25 September 2014 at 8:50 am

          @ akl banker..

          “..Wouldn’t a lot of the absent voters be those people who went overseas during the labour years?.”

          ..w.t.f. are you saying..?

          ..which orifice did you pluck that one from..?

          ..and yr whole thesis that the missing million wd replicate the election result in their voting..?

          ..once again..which orifice did you pluck that one from..?

          • AklBanker 1.4.2.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 9:03 am

            w.t.f. and orifice was the bulk of your argument against what I said…not all that insightful or challenging.

            My “thesis” is based on the circa 2.4 million people that cast their vote. Yours?

            • phillip ure 1.4.2.1.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 9:07 am

              @ akldbanker..

              ..there are many studies that show it is mainly the disaffected/ignored/marginalised/poor who don’t vote..

              (..many of them wd if a political party offered a real change for them..something labour-2014 didn’t offer..)

              ..so yr ‘thesis’ is just based on that election result..eh..?

              ..that’s it..?

              ..putting the simple in simplistic-thinking there..eh..?

              ..and i do chuckle at yr farcical image of 48% of those marginalised spilling out to vote for ‘their’ party..national..

              ..heh..!

              ..what’s next..?..they are all closet-actites..?

              ..those marginalised..?

              ..you’re funny..!

              ..you must be a real hoot down amongst the ledgers..

              • AklBanker …
                25 September 2014 at 9:28 am

                “many studies”…really?

                Commentators here at The Standard hypothesising that the election was Labour’s if they convinced the disaffected/ignored to vote…is not a study.

                I do chuckle at your farcical image that the million people who didn’t vote would spill out to vote for “their” party labour (who received 1 in 4 votes..). Labour can’t connect with the voting population…but has made a brilliant connection with the marginalised…

                • phillip ure …
                  25 September 2014 at 9:31 am

                  no..they haven’t made that ‘connection’..that is the whole point..

                  ..do try to keep up..!

                • GregJ …
                  25 September 2014 at 11:06 am

                  Quite a lot of research in the political science literature (both for NZ and overseas jurisdictions). You could start with the Statistics New Zealand analysis of non-voters in the 2008 & 2011 elections.

                  (Briefly summarized)

                  Characteristics of non-voters

                  Analysing the NZGSS data shows the demographic characteristics, such as age, income adequacy, labour force status, and migrant status are associated with non-voting behaviour.

                  *More non-voters in younger age group
                  *People with inadequate income less likely to vote
                  *Unemployed people were less likely to vote compared with employed people and those not in the labour force.
                  *Recent migrants less likely to vote than long-term migrants

                  Other characteristics

                  Those with a strong sense of belonging to New Zealand, and/or higher personal income, and/or higher qualifications are more likely to vote. The NZGSS data also showed that Asian people were the least likely to vote in the 2008 and 2011 elections, compared with those who identified as Māori, Pacific, or European. However, this is due to the large migrant population from Asia, rather than ethnicity by itself.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  25 September 2014 at 11:15 am

                  Commentators here at The Standard hypothesising that the election was Labour’s if they convinced the disaffected/ignored to vote…is not a study.

                  Good job nobody was talking about the commenters here then but were talking about studies done by universities over the last few decades.

                  • AklBanker …
                    25 September 2014 at 12:00 pm

                    Draco, the data that Greg points to only suggests the people who don’t vote, not who they vote for.

                    “More non-voters in younger age group” – I don’t see younger people having any stronger an affiliation with DC/Labour than JK/Nats.

                    “People with inadequate income” – granted these people would align with the Labour.

                    “Unemployed people” – a split between labour, greens, maori party.

                    “Recent migrants” – National.

                    • GregJ …
                      25 September 2014 at 5:58 pm

                      Actually one of the things the indepth analysis points to is the correlation between youth unemployment/low incomes and non-voting i.e. because youth have higher unemployment & lower incomes they are less likely to vote

                      It’s also tempeting to categorize “recent migrants” as National leaning – presumably on the basis of the increased attention given recently to Chinese migration and the anecdotal evidence they favour National.

                      However 32% of migrants come from UK/Republic of Ireland – Pacific migrants still account for about 12% and South & South East Asians (Thai, Indonesians, Malayasians, Indians, Filipinos) at about 14% which is almost as much as the North Asians (Koreans, Japanese, Chinese) – about 16%.

                      It’s just as likely these groups would lean left as right. It probably depends very much on their economic status and most migrants aren’t the “Donghua Liu”s or “Kim Dotcom”s.

                      You can check this out in the fast-facts section on migration research on the MBIE website.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      25 September 2014 at 9:37 pm

                      “the data that Greg points to only suggests the people who don’t vote, not who they vote for.”

                      Presumably you meant ‘who they [would] vote for’?

                      More importantly is that people who don’t vote are estranged from the entire process. Here’s some quotes from some Pew research on American non-voters a while back.

                      The first refers to ‘intermittent’ voters:

                      “The Pew analysis identifies basic attitudes and lifestyles that keep these intermittent voters less engaged in politics and the political process. Political knowledge is key: Six-in-ten intermittent voters say they sometimes don’t know enough about candidates to vote compared with 44% of regular voters ­ the single most important attitudinal difference between intermittent and regular voters identified in the survey. Intermittent voters also are characterized by feelings of boredom with politics. They are more likely than regular voters to agree with the statement: “I’m generally bored by what goes on in Washington” (38% intermittent vs. 25% regular).

                      Intermittent voters also are more mistrustful of other people than are regular voters. According to the survey, 40% of intermittent voters say that in general most people can be trusted, compared with 52% of all regular voters. This is another factor that may prevent intermittent voters from building the kinds of community and interpersonal connections that directly lead to political participation.”

                      And for unregistered voters:

                      “The survey also reveals broad differences between those who are not registered to vote and regular or occasional voters. Non-voters are politically estranged: They are the least interested in local politics of the four groups and the most likely to say voting doesn’t change things. They also are five times more likely to say they’re too busy to vote than are regular voters (43% versus 8%).

                      Americans who are not registered to vote also are more socially isolated from other people: They’re less likely to know people in their neighborhood. They also are more likely to be relatively recent arrivals in their current neighbourhoods ­ more than one-in-five (23%) say they have lived in their neighborhood less than a year. People who are not registered to vote also are generally mistrustful of others; just 27% say that most people can be trusted.”

                      The highlighted reasons in the above quotes also happen to be consequences of the 1980s reforms – reduction in serious media coverage of political issues from sensationalising political news to gain readership/viewership; increasing residential mobility (transience, higher rates of rental accommodation, etc.); increased work hours/multiple jobs especially for low income people; a lack of trust in others; reduction in social connectedness; levels of trust are also inversely correlated with income inequality (which has risen dramatically since the 1980s), etc..

                      Interestingly, in the Sovereign Wellbeing Survey (set for a retest around about now), New Zealand scored particularly low on ‘connectedness’:

                      “When compared with 22 European countries using the same population measures, New Zealand consistently ranks near the bottom of the ranking in both Personal and Social Wellbeing. New Zealand is well behind the Scandinavian countries that lead these measures.

                      New Zealand ranks 17th in Personal Wellbeing. Personal Wellbeing is made up of the measures of Emotional Wellbeing (rank 16th), Satisfying Life (rank 16th), Vitality (rank 16th), Resilience and Self-esteem (rank 19th), and Positive Functioning (rank 23rd).

                      New Zealanders did however rank above the mean for happiness, absence of negative feelings and enjoyment of life. However, we were still well below the top ranked countries.

                      New Zealand ranks 22nd in Social Wellbeing. Social Wellbeing is made up of the dimensions of Supportive Relations (rank 21st), Felt lonely (rank 20th), Meet socially (rank 21st), Trust and Belonging (rank 23rd), People in local area help one another (rank 21st), Treated with respect (rank 22nd), Feel close to people in local area (rank 23rd), and most people can be trusted (rank 11th).

                      Further exploration of our worst-ranked Social Wellbeing indicator ‘Feeling close to people in local area’ showed considerable variation across the country with the major cities scoring worst with Auckland at the top. Regional areas fared somewhat better. Younger people and NZ European New Zealanders scored lowest.”

                      This very low performance on social connectedness is particularly worrying – well beyond concerns over voting behaviour.

      • lurgee 1.4.3
        26 September 2014 at 6:26 am

        The ‘missing million’ will probably distributed across the political spectrum. A lot of people on the right won’t have bothered to vote because they knew National had it in the bag / because their favoured party (ACT) was doing so lamentably / because ACT is so obviously just a corrupt troughing opportunity for whoever gets to stand in Epsom.

        (There might be a disproportionate number of Labour voters in that ‘missing million’ but that’s at least in part because Labour has managed to drive its-self so far down in the polls, pretty much anything is going to be disproportionate when you’re on <25%.)

        But the bigger issue is these people are not likely to ever vote, now or ever. They've sat out three elections where National have led attacks on them. If Key x 3 couldn't motivate them to vote Labour, I very much suspect they are simply completely disengaged. You can carry on dreaming of them surging into the booths in 2017, but I don't think they will.

    • adam 1.5
      25 September 2014 at 7:10 am

      It seems to me the real divide in labour is getting worse. And I think it is a sinking ship. That said with all this shit, one person has been ignored over and over.

      Funny one name and one MP who I thought labour had a real chance of surviving and changing with, never gets mentioned, Nanaia Mahuta.

      But, then again – it seems what will finally kill labour off, is to many dicks fighting it out.

      • Chooky 1.5.1
        25 September 2014 at 8:41 am

        +100….and Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel were marginalised by David Shearer…and subsequently left…they supported David Cunliffe

        Really David Cunliffe did not stand a chance despite rank and file members overwhelmingly voting for him…time for a new ‘Red Labour’ Party imo…and leave the old carcass to National

        • phillip ure 1.5.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 8:56 am

          @ chooky..

          ..”..time for a new ‘Red Labour’ Party imo..”

          that may be well what the rightwing in labour will achieve..if they succeed in their current aims to drag labour even further to the right..

          ..they may well kill the labour party as we have long known it..

          ..and i am puzzled by this apparant only choice of totally left..or totally right..

          ..a labour party being honest to its’ roots/origins..

          ..should also be able to appeal to the centre..

          ..you can both end poverty and look after the middle class..eh..?

          ..it is just rightwing/neo-lib ideology that is driving these rightwing labour mp fucktards..

          ..not logic/common-sense..

          ..and they sure as hell don’t give a flying fuck about the travails/miseries of the poor..

          ..they..like their buddies/soul-mates in national..

          ..they just don’t fucken care..

          • Chooky 1.5.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 10:16 am

            @pu…a “labour party being honest to its’ roots/origins ….should also be able to appeal to the centre”..

            …that is all very well if you can get rid of the ABCs..but at the moment i see the Labour brand held tightly by a corrupt boys’ club which works with msm dirty ops PR and Nactional

            Labour at the moment is a very confusing in-fighting brand:- 1.)for the young would be Labour voter ( especially the axing of Hone) 2.) your average older Labour punter( looking forward to super or nursing their retirement home, or small business)3.) the desperately poor beneficiaries and struggling workers( eg housing being bought up by foreign investors)

            …and they are either NOT likely to vote at all ….or jump ship and vote NZF…or Greens ….or Int/MANA

            The problem is that Labour at the moment is perceived as having nothing much for its grassroots ‘supporters’…it is a confused brand

          • Draco T Bastard 1.5.1.1.2
            25 September 2014 at 11:18 am

            you can both end poverty and look after the middle class..eh..?

            Yep, you can – but the RWNJs in Labour are more about looking after the rich, those in the top decile and that means screwing over those in the middle and lower.

      • weka 1.5.2
        25 September 2014 at 9:12 am

        Adam: “And I think it is a sinking ship.”

        Nah, it’s worse than that. Sinking would be good at this point, but if Cunliffe goes, the ABCs will patch the hole, become a low vote party but hold onto the Labour brand and prevent anything rising in its place.

        If Cunliffe survives this, is there any reason (constitutionally) he can’t demote the ABCs and promote those who support the shift left?

        • Ant 1.5.2.1
          25 September 2014 at 10:17 am

          I don’t think demoting will do much, they’re just as damaging as backbenchers.

          Even if Cunliffe loses, they need to be cut from the party for it to carry on.

          • weka 1.5.2.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 12:31 pm

            Sure, but we all know what needs to be done. WHat’s not being discussed is how. For instance, afaik Labour cannot get rid of sitting electorate MPs. They can’t even expell them from the party. Best they can do is wait for the next election cycle and prevent them from being chosen as candidate. I don’t know how that happens (LEC level?).

            Hence, put the electorate neoliberals on the back bench. Sure they can continue their bullshit, but (a) they will have less power and (b) it will send a strong message to the membership that the party is moving left again and is willing to take action to make that happen and is not willing to put up with the bullshit.

            • Jenk 1.5.2.1.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 9:00 pm

              Its very difficult to un-select a sitting MP, Weka. It rarely (if ever) happens.
              Putting the neolibs on the back bench won’t stop them leaking …. they’re experts at leaks.
              The neo-libs don’t want the Party to move left, or even centre left. They’re rightwing and they want to stay there. That’s where they think the votes are.
              Poor fools. They fool themselves, and they’re trying to fool others, all they’re doing is giving food to the media.

              • weka …
                25 September 2014 at 10:34 pm

                so we should all give up now then?

                I didn’t say putting the neolibs on the back bench would stop them leaking, please reread my comments.

              • weka …
                25 September 2014 at 10:35 pm

                “Its very difficult to un-select a sitting MP, Weka”

                Why? Is that convention or in the constitution? What if they tank their vote at an election?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  26 September 2014 at 1:00 am

                  weka – what the ABC have done is secure their electorate seats via campaigning hard for electorate votes. Mt Albert, Dunedin South, Wellington Central. While letting the Labour party vote get destroyed.

                  Yes, it is very difficult to unseat a sitting an MP. The details of the Labour Party constitution provides many hurdles, but the main hurdle is an overly passive and deferential Labour Party membership.

            • adam 1.5.2.1.1.2
              26 September 2014 at 12:37 am

              I think the left would not only have to form a new party, but then work together to target certain sitting MP’s. They would also have to play hardball – whilst at the same time grabbing back the traditional supporters. Hard work – but I’m sure if the shit hits the fan, like the latest global warming science report suggests – then that may be sooner rather than later.

              Including an election. I think the tories are wholly unsuited to what is about to happen.

              • Colonial Viper …
                26 September 2014 at 1:30 am

                shit is coming down the pike big time. Certain parts of the power elite are very aware of it, too.

                Why do you think Australia has just implemented the legal framework for a turnkey totalitarian surveillance and security state aimed at their own citizens.

                • lurgee …
                  26 September 2014 at 6:42 am

                  It’ll happen sooner that climate change, the way milk prices are going, and global economic problems. Our ‘rock star’ economy is about to turn into Bon Scott or Freddie Mercury.

    • phillip ure 1.6
      25 September 2014 at 7:17 am

      @ m.s..

      “..It was not a “move to the left” that hurt the party in the recent election..”

      in fact..when cunnliffe went ‘left’..labour was polling @ 35%-37%…

      ..it was failure to deliver on those transformational-policies/promises..

      ..that saw labours’ support slide..

      ..i wonder how the rightwing-ratbag labour mp’s are trying to spin that irrefutable fact…?

      • The Al1en 1.6.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:36 am

        “it was failure to deliver on those transformational-policies/promises”

        List them, with the date of the policy/promise pledge.

        • adam 1.6.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 8:58 am

          What I think Phillip is talking about is the perception that Cunliffe was taking labour back to the left. The perception he was a good solid left wing candidate who would finally throw off the disgrace of the last 30 years. But, alas no.

          What I want is the policy – really Al1en , wonk it up – do you not see that puts people off? The Al1en policy wonking is such a lose, lose, position – it’s the bastion of those who want to limit the debate – please politics is more than policy and professional politicians.

          • phillip ure 1.6.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 9:15 am

            @ adam..but i will note again that cunnliffes’ failure to deliver on transformative-policies..

            ..was down to those same rightwing/neo-lib ratbag labour mp’s having their cold/clammy fists on the policy-creation control-levers..

            ..those same people who are now blaming cunnliffe for that failure on their part..

            ..they sent him out empty-handed..

          • The Al1en 1.6.1.1.2
            25 September 2014 at 5:24 pm

            I was with you up until the second bit, then I didn’t get it any more.

            But “the perception that Cunliffe was taking labour back to the left” isn’t the same or even close to “it was failure to deliver on those transformational-policies/promises.”. If there were policy promises he reneged on, then fair cop, but in the absence of any, it’s spin.

            • adam 1.6.1.1.2.1
              25 September 2014 at 5:51 pm

              OMG has this election taught you nothing the Al1en? Perception is everything – how do you think Key won? It was not on policy, or promises it was on perception – and like it or lump it Cunliffe gave a perception that things were going to change – he failed by the SNAFU he ended up presenting.

              I wish he didn’t, because now the neoliberal muppets are fully in charge of labour. It’s what I’ve been saying since election night. Labour are dead. The left got knifed in the back by these nasty, egotistical, muppets of cupidity.

        • phillip ure 1.6.1.2
          25 September 2014 at 9:03 am

          sorry..can’t help with yr short-term memory problems/issues..

      • Scott1 1.6.2
        25 September 2014 at 5:28 pm

        “..it was failure to deliver on those transformational-policies/promises..”

        Tough to do if you are not in government.
        But regardless, you appear to be engaging in wishful thinking again.

      • blue leopard 1.6.3
        25 September 2014 at 5:35 pm

        “..it was failure to deliver on those transformational-policies/promises..

        ..that saw labours’ support slide..

        How do you know it wasn’t a lot to do with the wall-to-wall attacks on Cunliffe by the media at the start of the year?

        It was at that time when the support started sliding.

        They painted him as ‘Tricky’ and incompetent continually. There was no mention on how he was having to learn the ropes and go through an election campaign all within a year of starting the job. Just pick, pick, picking and continually asking the public whether Labour should get another leader.

        Did anyone else wonder why they were asking such a ridiculous question when Labour had only just elected him as leader?

        I totally accept that some got put off because he softened his stance, however I really do wonder how much of the election was lost on the media coverage alone.

        Especially the stuff early in the year when people were forming their opinions of Cunliffe.

        • KJT 1.6.3.1
          25 September 2014 at 5:41 pm

          Just listening to Rachel Smalley and the vacuous chattering talkback hosts.. They are very indignant that David Cunliffe is not following their script.

          It seems the shameless media decision, to denigrate anyone who appears to pull New Zealand towards a decent and fair society, will continue.

          As will the shameless lack of support, for the parties democratic processes and their leader, from caucus.

          Looks like we really should have put Labour out of its misery after 1984.

    • Saarbo 1.7
      25 September 2014 at 7:21 am

      +1. Unbelievable.

    • lurgee 1.8
      25 September 2014 at 8:10 am

      Sabotaging election chances is hardly a means to “personal career advancement.”

    • Enough is Enough 1.9
      25 September 2014 at 9:00 am

      Unfortunately it will continue if the majority of the caucus does not support the leader.

    • Hami Shearlie 1.10
      25 September 2014 at 9:47 am

      Agreed Mickysavage – David Cunliffe worked his butt off for the Party and the people of NZ but I can’t say that for other members of the Caucus – Shearer and Goff (in his neighbouring electorates) didn’t even put up any Party Vote Labour hoardings in their electorates – Claire Trevett (the great soothsayer) claims that David Cunliffe is arrogant – Really?? Well what would you call a person who led the Party for two extremely embarrassing years, stumbling and mumbling and achieving absolutely nothing, who then turns around a year later, and wants to come BACK as leader AGAIN?? David Shearer had to admit that David Cunliffe did very very well in all the debates, yet he wants him to go?? What an arrogant self-serving person – I cringed with every word he spoke when he was Leader – the Caucus chose him – that shows how “clever” they are – if anyone is to blame for the electoral defeat it is Shearer and the people who imposed him on the Party as Leader – he demoted David Cunliffe and got rid of Lianne Dalziel AND Charles Chauvel, both very big losses to the Party – And now he wants to come back and embarrass us all again – I don’t think many party members will want to stay for more of that!! I have voted Labour for 34 years and I am a Party Member – If David Cunliffe is removed as leader I will never vote Labour again and will leave the Party. Most new members who joined in the last 18 months only did so because they were excited at the prospect of David Cunliffe being Leader – the likes of Grant Robertson, Stuart Nash, or Shearer will have them all disappearing.

      • Not a PS Staffer 1.10.1
        25 September 2014 at 10:29 am

        Hami Shearlie, I agree with all of what you wrote…except for the leaving Labour and not voting for Labour bits.
        As long as there are tories on the face of the earth there will be a need for Labour.
        There is no party on the landscape to fill the role that an effective Labour Party does – not that we do it well enough!
        NZ First is not about change and progress.
        Greens are not about change and progress.
        Mana is gone for the moment.

        Cunliffe is the only Labour leader who has a vision of change. The other pretenders are about mimicing Nats to a degree and are certainly not about real change and progress that includes the most throdden upon sections of our society.

        • Hami Shearlie 1.10.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 11:11 am

          This Labour Party may not be the ONLY Labour party in the future though!!

          • Not a PS Staffer 1.10.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 11:39 am

            The Labour Party brand is too historically important to be abandoned or allowed wither in the hands of careerists.
            Those who have a strong understanding of what “LABOUR” means must stay with it, though thick and thin.

          • Ennui 1.10.1.1.2
            25 September 2014 at 12:11 pm

            Here’s a thought: read Trotters latest on Bowalleyroad where he contends that the caucus will defeat the party members who voted Cunliffe in. In effect he says that the MPs will wag the dog and that the “centrist” position will be entrenched, so no move to the Left.

            There is one way for Labour to retain legitimacy and relevance: a counter coup. The party membership need to take control of the list and seat selection, plus they need to retire the old guard. In a number of cases the Admiral Byng principle might apply, “shoot (expel an MP or two from the Labour Party) to set an example to the others”. If Trotter is correct the Caucus is preparing a counter coup, the members must strike first.

            • Anne 1.10.1.1.2.1
              25 September 2014 at 7:13 pm

              The party membership need to take control of the list and seat selection, plus they need to retire the old guard.

              Been thinking long and hard about this, but how to do it? It would need a strong leader to take up the cudgels and organise the rank and file. Is there anyone who is prepared to do the job?

            • the pigman 1.10.1.1.2.2
              25 September 2014 at 8:43 pm

              Yep, been thinking about this since Monday too.

              Obvious candidate for the bullet: Cosgrove. He tanked in Waimakariri and the NZLP’s vote there was atrocious (http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-57.html). Mallard, Goff, Shearer and Hipkins have also been behaving atrociously vis-a-vis the media.

              It’s been outlined before, but I understand that there is a process for LECs to “recall” MPs. Presumably if they’re sitting MPs this would leave them as independents or force a by-election.

              Does anyone have an up-to-date understanding of the disciplinary processes and where they need to come from?

              • Anne …
                25 September 2014 at 9:52 pm

                I wouldn’t go so far as to “expel” them. In fact Hipkins spoke well yesterday when he told the media pack to leave Cunliffe alone and let him have a break. It was a genuine plea too.

                • the pigman …
                  25 September 2014 at 9:56 pm

                  Well, you only need to suspend one and prohibit him from standing as a candidate and the others (including Chippie Whipkins) should get the message.

                  Might as well make that one a list MP who performed terribly in the election and reportedly campaigned locally trying to keep as much distance between himself and the NZLP. Said to be a phenomenal leaker and destabiliser, too.

            • the pigman 1.10.1.1.2.3
              25 September 2014 at 9:46 pm

              Ahh google is my friend. From the Constitution (on Labour’s website). Guess the application should come from a local branch 😀

              “DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
              298. Forms of discipline available within the Constitution shall be censure, prohibition from seeking or holding any
              office, prohibition from seeking or holding candidacy, suspension of membership and expulsion from the Party.
              Any of these disciplinary measures may be imposed, as appropriate, for specified periods of time, according to the
              New Zealand Council’s resolution. Any communication whether verbal or in writing or otherwise made by any Page: 23 member or committee or organisation of the Party to another member or committee or organisation of the Party pursuant to or arising out of action taken under Rules 299 or 300 of this Constitution shall be privileged.
              299. The New Zealand Council shall be the only body to determine disciplinary action against any Party member by its
              own motion or upon application by any constituent body of the Party.
              300. Upon the application of any Branch or any Labour Electorate Committee or any other constituent body of the Party or by its own motion, the New Zealand Council may, for reasons determined sufficient by it, expel any person
              from membership of the Party or apply other forms of discipline. Such person shall be notified of the reasons and
              be given opportunity to state his or her case before the New Zealand Council.
              301. In all cases, principles of natural justice shall apply. There shall be a right of appeal to a body constituted for the
              occasion by the New Zealand Council, consisting of three members of the Party. There shall be one further, subsequent and final right of appeal to the New Zealand Council. The ruling of the New Zealand Council shall be binding on all parties.
              302. Disciplinary action shall be applied for and ruled upon on the grounds of:
              i. contravention of the Principles, Rules and policies of the Party as contained in the current Constitution and
              policy documents of the Party;
              ii. and/or for bringing the Party into disrepute;
              iii. and/or for standing as a candidate in opposition to, or publicly campaigning against, an official Labour
              Parliamentary candidate or candidates or a Local Body candidate or candidates selected pursuant to the
              allocation of campaign rights under Rules 97-105. Any such person standing as a Parliamentary candidate
              shall, from the closing of candidate nominations, have their membership of the Party automatically
              suspended or be not permitted to join the Party for a period of two years unless the NZ Council specifically
              makes a different decision in that case. Any such person standing as a local body candidate shall have the
              suspension or the ban on joining the Party as set out applied by resolution of New Zealand Council.”

              • Anne …
                25 September 2014 at 9:54 pm

                I certainly go along with disciplinary action against the “traitors” who are leaking like sieves to the media. I want them named and shamed for all to see.

        • phillip ure 1.10.1.2
          25 September 2014 at 7:21 pm

          nash makes jamie lee-ross look sincere..

          ..and that is saying something..

        • Foreign waka 1.10.1.3
          25 September 2014 at 8:01 pm

          Your comments portray the “old and tried” system. Its the same that the ABC holds on so desperately. Maybe its a good thing to isolate them and have them dying off like an old branch on a tree. Something new will develop as poverty will increase and many more people will not have enough to survive. It is a matter of time, patience, patience.

      • Chooky 1.10.2
        25 September 2014 at 10:34 am

        +100 Hami Shearlie

      • westiechick 1.10.3
        25 September 2014 at 10:45 am

        Me too Hami Shearlie, and what is “far left” about decent wages, education, and housing? Quite mainstream I would have thought.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.10.3.1
          25 September 2014 at 11:36 am

          Well, it’s far left in relation to National and, apparently, the present ‘centre’.

      • Treetop 1.10.4
        25 September 2014 at 5:40 pm

        I feel like you when it comes to a protest vote, however I never say never. I have always supported Labour and for about as long as you have.

        If the caucus think that a makeover of a new leader is going to get them very far, they all need to go home and have a long hard serious think until next Tuesday.

        I am not a party member, but I will become one just to vote for Cunliffe.

    • Murray Olsen 1.11
      25 September 2014 at 6:54 pm

      It took thirty years, but sitting around a table eating fish and chips has done possibly fatal damage to the Labour Party.

      • Anne 1.11.1
        25 September 2014 at 10:00 pm

        Oh yes, that photo was a classic. It was taken after the first coup attempt to oust Bill Rowling. It failed. The second attempt about a year later (or maybe less) succeeded.

        http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/archive_fc80.htm

        • Murray Olsen 1.11.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 1:09 am

          A great picture of the first ACT meeting. Somehow Lange never noticed how right wing the others were. This may well have been Aotearoa’s first Tui moment.

          • Not a PS Staffer 1.11.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 11:00 am

            Yes, the first ACT meeting. Thankfully they fucked off and the party recovered under Helen. The same shit is going down now and we MUST hold onto Labour and not let them take the Party brand.

            Replace Bassett with Robertson
            Replace Moore with Cosgrove
            Replace Douglas with Nash

            In the sense that he didn’t know what the hell was going on, and that he was being played, Shearer had something in common with David Lange!

            David Cunliffe has to take a lead from the photo. Last year he offered them an olive branch and they spat it out. Never again.
            Robertson, Consgrove, Shearer and Nash should be branded the Fish and Chips Club!

            What says you?

            Who is good with Photoshop?

    • FredFrog 1.12
      26 September 2014 at 2:34 am

      ‘It was not a “move to the left” that hurt the party in the recent election’

      I beg to differ. It’s been very obvious for quite a few elections now that the parties who manage to attract the centre voters are the ones who get the most votes. All the lurch to the left achieved was to lose votes in the centre, and cannibalise votes from the watermelons and the other far-left loons.

      ‘not the leader’

      Yes it was that too. Preachy, arrogant narcissists do not attract voters. Leaders who try to be everyman for everyone instead of just being themselves do not attract voters.

      ‘not billboard design’

      No comment. They were pretty bloody boring. But so were the offerings from everyone else too

      ‘certainly not the on the ground effort by activists’

      Activists are a two edged sword. They fire up the faithful, but piss off mr. and mrs. average who just want them to get the fuck out of the way and stop blocking up the bloody pavement. They do very little to persuade swing voters.

      You lot need to take a good hard look at who is currently driving the party. Unions represent roughly 17% of the total workforce, yet the unions have an extraordinarily huge say in the direction the party takes. Unions served a purpose once, but in this day and age, their sole purpose is to ensure the wellbeing of the union bosses – It’s quite ironic to see, as it’s the same sort of boss-exploited relationship that they supposedly despise.

      I foresee a split coming, with the bulk of the caucus going centre left, leaving the union dogs and the hard-left of the membership to fight it out with the watermelons.

  2. Gruntie 2
    25 September 2014 at 6:23 am

    In the media frenzy around Nationals “landslide victory”, no one in the media seems to have noticed that the actual numbers of Nat party vote dropped by. 50,000 from 2011. That is not a landslide endorsement of National Act Key regime that the MsM make it out to be.

    Labour dropped 100,000 votes from 2011 – much I supect to the right wing NZ First and Conservatives.

    • swordfish 2.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:47 am

      Yeah, but I think you may be basing that on the Election Night count rather than the final result. The Nats will certainly finish with a higher raw vote number than 2011. As will everyone except Labour (and even Labour will only be slightly down). All down to a larger electoral population and higher turnout.

    • alwyn 2.2
      25 September 2014 at 5:58 pm

      You are comparing the election night figures for the 2014 election with the final results for 2011.
      If you do a like-with-like comparison and compare the election night results for the parties you find that, between 2011 and 2014 –
      National rose from 957,769 to 1,010,464.
      Labour dropped from 541,499 to 519,146
      Greens dropped from 211,931 to 210,764
      Those are the numbers that count.

      • swordfish 2.2.1
        25 September 2014 at 11:29 pm

        “Those are the numbers that count.”

        Except that the Specials usually favour the Left. So the Final Result is likely to show (1) a milder decline for Labour than your Election Night figures would suggest, (2) a slight increase (rather than decrease) in the Greens’ raw number of votes and (3) a somewhat weaker Nat rise.

        • alwyn 2.2.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 11:06 am

          That isn’t true, and I think you will agree when you think about it.
          When you look at the final figures you will of course be comparing the final figures for 2014 and the final figures in 2011 for each party.
          Unless you can explain why the specials should break differently in 2014 than they did in 2011 you must expect that the final figures for parties on the left for each election will remain lower by the same percentage as they did in 2011. The final figures for National should be higher than the 2011 results by the same percentage as the election night ones are.
          The numbers for any given party as a share of the total vote may change but that is not what is being discussed here. We are only looking at what happened to a single party in 2014 compared to the same party in 2011.

  3. Gosman 3
    25 September 2014 at 6:57 am

    Anyone see Backbenches last night? David Seymour came across extremely well. Jan Logie was made to look a bit silly on Charter Schools especially when she brought up special needs children.

  4. Disraeli Gladstone 4
    25 September 2014 at 7:15 am

    While everyone bickers about Labour and tactical voting in Epsom, and so on, here’s a reminder (an overseas example but oh well) of what we should really be discussing.

    http://news.sky.com/story/1341399/mps-sob-at-keep-your-mitts-off-my-nhs-speech

    • Sans Cle 4.1
      25 September 2014 at 8:09 am

      +++ well worth watching.
      Such pre-war poverty he talks about in the UK is a reality for so many people here. Kiwis suffering until they present themselves at A&E.
      “Poverty is our history, keep it that way”……..how relevant for NZ now. Thanks for the link Disraeli.

    • Te Reo Putake 5.1
      25 September 2014 at 10:40 am

      That’s not what Edwards wrote at all, Hamish. He’s not denying the class struggle, just pointing out that we are losing.

      He says “The problem now for Labour is that many of those people have come back to the party but their political views remain firmly rooted in the past. They still view politics in terms of a class struggle.

      In that context, they view National as a party of the rich engaged in class warfare against the working class. They ignore the fact that while National has strong support from the business community, many of its party members are people who former Labour leader Mike Moore would describe as life’s battlers.”

      Edwards is pointing out that National has co-opted people who should be ours; that’s not denying the nature of class, it’s defining the nature of the struggle.

      It’s actually a really good article and even though it’s a painful truth, we need to look at where voters are at, not where we think they should be at.

      • greywarbler 5.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:27 pm

        @ TRP
        Thanks for giving a good critique of the piece. I’ll listen to that because that pull to National is a conundrum to me. Though I have some theories..

  6. adam 6
    25 September 2014 at 7:30 am

    What we are missing is a very big and nasty elephant in the room. Those that did not vote. The days when you can sit there and blame apathy or personal responsibility are over. This great majority of people who did not vote are an angry mass. A disempowered, frustrated, angry mass – why do you think Key and co have been playing it calm and cringing at the media’s cowing over the victory? Actually it’s the one time I’ll give a modicum of respect to Key.

    How do you think it looks to the non-voters – labour talking about walking away from them even more. Because quite frankly that what this bullshit of moving to the centre really means and guess what, working people aren’t that stupid.

    But please – labour move to the mythical centre. It will kill you off quicker and maybe we can pick up the pieces.

    • weka 6.1
      25 September 2014 at 9:13 am

      “This great majority of people who did not vote are an angry mass.”

      How do you know this?

    • Scott1 6.2
      25 September 2014 at 5:34 pm

      Pragmatically this does not matter.

      An effort is always made to get voters out to vote, and this election probably a much greater effort than usual. But clearly – at some point the ROI just isn’t very high. that makes all the other statistics irrelevant.

      The only very effective tool is one you don’t yet have access to.
      What you need is to win an election and then force through compulsory voting.

      But you won’t win the election by spending all your money on trying to get non voters to vote.

      • adam 6.2.1
        25 September 2014 at 6:40 pm

        But countries who have compulsory voting like Australia have the same problem. It just manifests itself in different ways. From memory – they have a large amount of votes which are disallowed, when people deliberately just put a line thru the voting paper or just get the papers then walk out with them. They also don’t have to vote if they don’t enroll.

        I’m not saying scott1 that I think people should not spend the money – A slightly batty solution could be – each party should hand over a percentage of it’s warchest before the election for each promise they have broken. Then a group of people, one from each registered party should spend that money to get people to engage.

        Or truly disengage – which is my prefered option. I want people not to vote – but I want them not to vote because they choose it as a political option. Not, to not vote because of the systemic failures that have arisen – because greed has become the one true god.

  7. Dont worry. Be happy 7
    25 September 2014 at 7:33 am

    Ah yes, charter schools, the ultimate oxymoron.

    You don’t need real teachers. You don’t have to teach the curriculum. You will not be held to account. You will however be allowed to keep any money left over from your tax payer provided funding.

    Small wonder ACT and their garbage education “plans” gets all the love from National…used to be the “entrepreneurs” just farmed old people, now they’re moving in on little kids. (How long before we see All Blacks ‘investing’ in charter schools? Even imagining the television coverage when they drop by for some one on one with their little fans is vomit making…)

    With all that money being handed over no questions asked isn’t it about time the ultimate political rorter showed up with his educational “initiatives”?

    Rupert Murdoch anyone?

  8. travellerev 8
    25 September 2014 at 7:51 am

    Just a word of warning. A facebook group called “John Key has let down New Zealand” has just been closed for violations of the user agreement. This group had 16.000 members and was one of the most active political facebook pages in NZ. The group was closed and had an extremely tight team of moderators and there is absolutely no reason for this other than that John Key’s PR team is trying to shut down dissent and people organizing online.

    They did the same with the Vinny Eastwood Youtube channel about a week before the elections based in the same reasoning. They must have a team of lawyers sitting up there in the Beehive going over all our websites and facebook pages to see if they can shut them down. This is outrageous! Welcome to censure and spying and shutting down dissent. But hey, no conspiracies here! Our government would not do that no sire

  9. Once Was Tim 9
    25 September 2014 at 7:52 am

    Has anyone (the media and others) considered that the reason Cunliffe wants a Caucus/MP vote is to gauge the level of those still wedded to the right?
    If it does transpire that the old guard/ABCers are in the ascendancy, he may well consider it time for a split and formation of ‘Democratic Labour’ leaving the careerists and National-lites to it.
    Just a thought.

    • RedLogix 9.1
      25 September 2014 at 7:58 am

      It’s way past time this left/neo-liberal split in the Labour Party was lanced.

      Get it out into the open. Covering it up and pretending is only going to keep losing elections.

      Everyone knows this.

      • Once Was Tim 9.1.2
        25 September 2014 at 8:26 am

        +1
        There’s a whole household of 3 generations and extended whanau here that would agree with you too. Some of them working 2 and 3 jobs, unable to raise a deposit on a modest house and stressing about their and NZ’s) future. Never mind aye? – a new flag should fix it! (/sarc)

  10. Tautoko Viper 10
    25 September 2014 at 8:36 am

    The move-to-the right brigade need to find out how many of the grass roots LEC workers will follow in that direction.
    I’m in favour of forming 2 parties: centre party (ABC) and true-Labour which forms an Alliance with the Greens (which is the one I will be supporting.)

    • Chooky 10.1
      25 September 2014 at 8:50 am

      TV…+100

    • brian 10.2
      25 September 2014 at 9:15 am

      @ Tautoko Viper (10)

      Very vague. Listening to Morning report this morning hearing people complain that they do not know what Labour stands for. That needs to be sorted out first. Otherwise there will be two Labour parties that nobody knows what they stand for.

      What does Labour stand for? What is it’s vision?

      How will that differ from your “Centre Labour Party” and your “True Labour Party”?

      Can you please explain what you expect these two parties will have in common, and where do you think that they will differ?

      Do you contemplate the alliance you are thinking of to be able to extend to BOTH labour factions as well as the Greens, and even possibly Mana? Seems odd that you excluded your “Centre Labour” out of your proposed coalition.

      If you imagine your “True Labour” to be a clone of the Greens, why do you not propose simply joining the Greens?

      • weka 10.2.1
        25 September 2014 at 9:23 am

        The wouldn’t be a clone of the GP. The GP’s core membership is white and a bit brown middle class. Left Labour’s needs to be brown and white working class (although there are problems with definitions of class now, but I think you get the general drift). Their principles and policies need to reflect their membership.

        • Chooky 10.2.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 9:59 am

          @ weka…ironically this sounds like Int/MANA led by Hone Harawira and Laila Harre….this is a dynamic Left party

          In agreement with TV…imo…if David Cunliffe is ousted or if he walks because of the ABCs and the NACT dirty ops PR and msm journalists…maybe he could form a ‘Red Labour’ Party ….and take his grassroots support voters with him and join in a coalition with the Greens ( as suggested by TV above)

          the old ABC Rogered Labour could then form a coalition with National and the right wing…to which they already have strong links and an alliance

        • brian 10.2.1.2
          25 September 2014 at 12:23 pm

          @ weka (10.2.1)

          I think I’m getting your “drift” all right. I thank you at least for being the first person to describe to me this great divide in the Labour Party.

          Holy moly, mother of god, to where have we descended?

          “Look, you cannot join our club. Your skin is not quite brown enough. Your brother can though”

          “Did you say you dug 10 post holes yesterday, or was it only 6?”

          “Sorry mate, You will have to go. Your business has been too successful, and you have ascended out of both the working and middle clubs. What about trying the Nats?

          This sort of stuff is just simply stark looney crazy. This is Colin Craig stuff, mixed up with a little Jamie Whyte, with Cameron Slater added to the mix, and there is certainly an element of Sarah Palin in there too. And Dirty John and Crusher at the sidelines laughing their pants off, at Labour being “given back double” without any of their own planned nasty intervention. This is oblivion sort of talk, that I don’t think I could even have dreamed of.

          Is there any problem with a party that considers social justice is important for everybody, brown, white and Orange? Working, Middle and Obese? Do not the same principles ….fairness apply to everybody?

          • weka 10.2.1.2.1
            25 September 2014 at 12:44 pm

            I think you are missing the point (I certainly wasn’t suggesting what you have just parodied).

            Look at the GP. They’re predominantly a middle class party, mostly white but with crucial Māori presence at some levels (not voters, and not in the top ten of the list, but their co-leader, within the organisation, and their commitment to Te Tiriti). Very low involvement with Pasifika and Asian communities as far as I can tell. But, their policies are aimed at fairness for all. Their core vote comes from middle class people who believe in fairness for all (and the environment).

            If, as you suggest, they were to change so that the GP was made up of a rainbow, what would you do with the people who want social justice at the expense of the environment? Or vice versa? No party can be all things to all people, even left wing people. It makes more sense in the MMP environment for parties to arise from the people who need and want representation, and for those parties to then work together.

            Labour are traditionally a working class party. That makes huge sense to me, because the middle classes by and large simply don’t understand working class issues, needs and culture, so you need a party that is made up of working class people who can explain their needs. This doesn’t mean that middle class people can’t be part of Labour, it means that the culture and core values remain working class (and so middle class or no class people can join who support those values and want to be part of that culture).

            As I said, there are problems with defining class (class has shifted in NZ hugely since the 80s, including the creation of the underclass, and the increase in the more well off working class/self-employed/small business). But that’s something for Labour to figure out.

            Do you know how many working class people there are in Labour’s caucus?

            Anyway, I’ve said all that as someone who is middle class/underclass, so it’s not really my place to have a clear position on Labour and class, there are others here much better placed to speak to that.

            • brian 10.2.1.2.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 6:42 pm

              @ weka (10.2.1.2.1)

              I have not been able to log onto the Standard for nearly six hours, (Probably a good thing) …but have been able to access all other web sites.

              You are indeed serious.

              Your way forward appears to break into a couple of parties with an initial constituency base of about 12% each, with a vision to advocate for the “working class”, and the “middle class who are not voting Green”

              An interesting approach that will work under MMP, but not the normal type of approach. (WInston First has successfully embraced advocating for the Greys).

              This is the future that I predict for your “True Labour Party – Working Class” with your proposal:

              The approach will provide permancy under MMP, and with a skilful Leader will ensure a vote of about WInston’s size (of about 5-10%) on a sustaining basis. And of course you will “work together” as a coalition with others to form a government , having shown that you are incapable of working together in the current Labour Party.

              I am sure you will come up with some very good policies that your constituency will love you for. Without a hope of being the main party in a Government, you can promise a lot, and not have to deliver, much as Winston First currently behaves.

              The Greens in the meantime have a clear vision of Social Justice for all, and the Protection of the Environment. Without straying from their well thought out vision, they can plunder votes from you, and other parties as the vision is explained further, and they can research into why some groups in the population are not currently voting for them.

              The Greens will surge in popularity as (a) Labour becomes recognised as a Special Interest group; (b) Social Justice remains important, and (c) as the environment, Global Warming issues start to really bite politically. Of course any decent policies you have can swiftly form part of the Green’s platform as well, which you will complain about, in much the same way that the Conservatives are sniping at Winston First.

              Fortunately the Greens will see you as a friendly coalition party, as there is a lot of synergy in their social justice platform for everybody, and your social justice platform for the working class. So you may be able to tag along, and with luck periodically gain an appointment as Minister for the Working Class …. that is unless the Greens form a majority Government with Mana and Winston First, and do not need you this time.

              No, I am of the firm view that Labour is better to try and stay a party with a broad constituency; Learn how to balance policy objectives that you refer to involving social justice and the environment (If it cannot be done within a party it will be much harder in coalition arrangements); Understand that fairness is easily transportable and not significantly different for ALL “classes” of people (A ‘fair-go’ is after all something that almost all New Zealanders understand). Then be in a position to plunder the vote from Dirty John, as more people get fed up with Dirty John’s reverse Robin Hood philosophies.

              As I’m writing this it appears extremely likely that Cunliffe is toast. I’m not saying this as a good thing or a bad thing. My prediction is that a Robertson/Ardern team will take over. Their task, and I hope they have it in them is to unite the divided Party as soon as possible and explain to the Country what Labour is all about. If they don’t know what Labour is all about, then they (and the Party) will be toast as well.

              • weka …
                25 September 2014 at 7:15 pm

                Lolz, brian, great visioning there. I have no problem with that happening so long at the GP sort out poverty and working class issue along the way. ie it doesn’t matter which parties are in power, it’s the policies that are important. So any truly left wing govt is fine by me even if that means Labour becomes a small party or disappears entirely (ditto the GP if they behaved like a pack of over-privileged children and lost sight of their values).

                btw, I’m not part of Labour, have never voted Labour and am a non-active member of the GP 😉

                • brian …
                  25 September 2014 at 7:49 pm

                  weka (10.2.1.2.1.1.1)

                  We have a remarkably similar outlook, as it transpires.

                  I’m thinking that it’s actually important that the opposition is strong, regardless of whether it is left or right (with the caveat that the politics are clean) There is nothing like a sharp opposition to sharpen the mind for the ruling party. The Current Government with it’s majority takes us back to the dark days of FPP, where there were three year mandates to do anything.

                  One of the most positive things Cunliffe has done since the election is to acknowledge the mistake he and Labour made in saying no to the Greens proposal to cooperate. Maintain their independence but fight together. The share of the vote that each would receive will quickly provide an indication of the importance of each policy mix. (Weighted against the Greens for their concern about Global Warming – concerns that deliberately lead the public, rather than follow)

            • karol 10.2.1.2.1.2
              25 September 2014 at 6:51 pm

              My experience volunteering for the Greens in Auckland – I came across a few Māori & Pasifika women who were also volunteering and/or party members. And some Asian people.

              This fits with Marama Davidson’s comments:

              Thanks to our ground focussed campaign we have built up a promising core of Auckland based Māori and Pacific young women support in particular. This is very exciting and is something I want more than anything to help grow. Whatever profile I am slowly building will also be used to support the Green Party in my strive for recognition of indigenous rights and social justice.

    • phillip ure 10.3
      25 September 2014 at 9:24 am

      @ tv..

      for once/perhaps the first time i find myself agreeing with edwards-the-younger..

      ..he posited that labour should move to the left..

      ..and leave the centre to the greens..

      ..and that does have a certain logic to it..tho’ like i have said elsewhere..i can’t see why labour can’t both end poverty..and look after/to the middleclass/centre..

      ..why do they feel they cannot sell that mix..?

      ..why this either/or being the only option on the table..?..

      • Chooky 10.3.1
        25 September 2014 at 10:02 am

        the Greens are actually a Left Party…and they would be gutted if they moved to the centre

        • Ron 10.3.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 12:28 pm

          Where do you get the idea that Greens are a Left Party. Most of the people that I know in Greens talk and walk like National.
          Did I not hear Norman almost pleading to become part of National Coalition a couple of months back, and it was only when Key rubbished the idea of Greens and National together that it suddenly become a good idea to work with Labour.
          have a read of Greens constitution and then read Labour’s.

          • weka 10.3.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 12:49 pm

            The GP are a left wing party who also transcend traditional left/right spectrum politics.

            They’re definitely not right wing, and a coalition with National as we know it would be the death of the party.

            “Did I not hear Norman almost pleading to become part of National Coalition a couple of months back,”

            No, that’s all in your own head. The GP remit from 2011 was confirmed at the AGM this year. The GP would consider working with National if National’s policies were close to the GP, but since they’re not and unlikely to be, it’s extremely unlikely that they ever would support a National govt. They continue to be open to working with any party on shared policy.

            Their clearly stated intention this election was to either change the govt (to one on the left), or to be in opposition if that weren’t possible.

          • Chooky 10.3.1.1.2
            25 September 2014 at 1:19 pm

            @Ron …”Did I not hear Norman almost pleading to become part of National Coalition”..?……Answer: You heard wrong!

            …and it wasnt in the few months preceding the Election…it was in the last few days!…..also that report and claim was made by a right wing msm journalist…not Norman

            …and it confused potential Green voters who saw the Greens as selling out to the enemy ( my own sister , who is not stupid, was confused and thought that report to be true!)

            ….and I think the Green vote went down by several points accordingly in the week before the Election…because people had their doubts about the Greens selling out on Labour and moving to the other side at the last minute…it was also a slap to Labour’s chances of winning the Election ( brilliant PR black ops play by Nactional journalists)

            ….this is yet another reason for the Left to have their own radio station and media …so they can counteract the lies from the right wing msm

            • Ron 10.3.1.1.2.1
              25 September 2014 at 5:27 pm

              Did not read it in MSM instead I read it in The Standard a few days back??!!

              • Chooky …
                25 September 2014 at 5:35 pm

                well it came from a television report, and this report was denied by Norman!

                …Norman said the Greens had no change in who they would work with

                …the Greens were committed to changing the Nact government

                …the Greens did NOT want a coalition with John key or Nact

                …however the Greens would work with whoever formed the government to further Green policies

                …there had NOT been a change in Green Party policy!

                John Key swiftly came in and said he would Not work with the Greens ( the whole thing was a right wing spin set up imo)

    • Colonial Viper 10.4
      26 September 2014 at 12:55 am

      Tautoko Viper:

      The move-to-the right brigade need to find out how many of the grass roots LEC workers will follow in that direction.

      I’m in favour of forming 2 parties: centre party (ABC) and true-Labour which forms an Alliance with the Greens (which is the one I will be supporting.)

      Dear T.V. I suggest an alternative plan. Kick out the ABC’s from Parliament (who cares what they do after that), automatically turns the NZ Labour Party, having lost its ABC taint, into ‘true Labour.’

  11. Hanswurst 11
    25 September 2014 at 8:57 am

    If Cunliffe really wants to put the vote straight to the party, can’t he just stand down, state that he is standing for reelection, notify the president and away it goes? That seems to be what the constitution says. If he’s concerned about being tainted by being seen to be the leader while the caucus purportedly leaks and bickers for a couple of months, then that would surely be a better option than waiting for the caucus to decide what to do.

    • GregJ 11.1
      25 September 2014 at 9:31 am

      The relevant sections of the Constitution state:

      378) An election for the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party will be held when the position becomes vacant, or on receipt by the President of the Party of written notification that the Caucus has passed a motion that the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party is not endorsed by at least one-half (50%) +1 of the Caucus.

      379) As a matter of course, no later than three (3) months after the date of a general election, there will be a caucus vote to endorse the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The number of votes required to endorse the leader shall be 60% of votes cast +1. If the Party Leader is not endorsed, a leadership election process, as described in Rule 380, is triggered.

      So the short answer appears to be yes he could resign and force an immediate(?) election. There may of course be various internal “political” reasons why he doesn’t or hasn’t.

      One assumes if there was such a contest that would then supercede the need for 379 but I don’t know enough about Labour’s rules (otherwise you could have a contest – win the vote then fail to be endorsed! However I don’t think the framers of the new constitution were planning for the circumstances where the caucus seemingly is so out of step with the membership & affiliates).

      • alwyn 11.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 6:07 pm

        As a true cynic may I suggest that he doesn’t want lose the extra pay of the Leader of the Opposition and the warm back seat of the limo?
        As someone who may be looking for a new job shortly he just might need the pay for as long as he can get it.
        Also he must be pretty tight if, even on his salary, he needed someone (anonymous) to finance his campaign for leader.
        No I’m sure that is far to cynical really.

        • GregJ 11.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 7:40 pm

          Your cynicism is based on what exactly?

          He’s ambitious, sure, but I haven’t seen evidence that suggests he is driven by avarice.

          Or are you subscribing to the Slater School of the gratuitous ad hominem smear and innuendo (in which case you need to include “tricky” in your post)?

        • Murray Olsen 11.1.1.2
          25 September 2014 at 8:07 pm

          It’s not even cynical. It’s just vile and stupid bullshit.

  12. Chooky 12
    25 September 2014 at 8:57 am

    Symptomatic of the Right Wing Nact aligned Labour Party

    ‘The graceless win of Kelvin Davis’

    By Martyn Bradbury / September 25, 2014

    “The graceless win of Cameron Slater’s mate in the North, Kelvin Davis is difficult to swallow…

    – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/25/the-graceless-win-of-kelvin-davis/#sthash.6FGi3aX2.dpuf

  13. brian 13
    25 September 2014 at 9:00 am

    Another day. The sun is shining. Jason Ede is still missing.

    • yeshe 13.1
      25 September 2014 at 9:27 am

      brian .. I am not sure Ede is missing, except from public scrutiny. his grubby fingerprints are everywhere imho. did you see #8 above ?

      but yes, the spring sunshine is delicious and we live another day …. 😀

  14. cogito 14
    25 September 2014 at 9:09 am

    “Coroner to look at Winz worker’s sudden death”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11331148

    Something is starting to smell… Paula Compassionate Bennett is overdue for a reality check. Time for her to join her friend Crusher.

  15. Mark 15
    25 September 2014 at 9:10 am

    As someone who was involved in that the last time it was tried, the pitfalls are huge and I hope you have plenty of time to wait to effect change. Oh and don’t elect a leader of your new party as we did who is centre right. As a staunch left winger I would never vote left again in any form why those arseholes like Mallard and Goff are still on the scene.

    • weka 15.1
      25 September 2014 at 9:19 am

      I’m sure there are lessons to be learned from New Labour, and the Alliance. One I suspect is how to set up the constitution so that the membership have more say in what happens (ooh, democracy!) as well as structures that prevent the membership from being hijacked. The GP will have done a lot of work on this.

      “Oh and don’t elect a leader of your new party as we did who is centre right.”

      Did you know at the time that Anderton was to the right?

      • yeshe 15.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 9:31 am

        weka .. re. structures: Internet Party used truly innovative and smart ideas in terms of membership input into policy-making …. 100% democratic.

        • weka 15.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 9:42 am

          I’m not sure about that. I haven’t read their constitution, but the way I understood it, they were using innovative consultative processes with membership but power was still largely held by the people at the top. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on that.

          But yeah, cherry pick the best from other parties, GP, Mana, IMP, possible Mp.

          • alwyn 15.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 6:11 pm

            “cherry pick the best from other parties …. IMP”.
            Just how do you think that IMP elected their leader?
            I didn’t hear anything about an election. She was just appointed by the moneybags, KDC.

            • weka 15.1.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 7:19 pm

              so? what does that have to do with my comment about cherry picking the best from other parties?

              “She was just appointed by the moneybags, KDC”

              [citations needed]

      • Mark 15.1.2
        25 September 2014 at 10:27 am

        Jim had railed against Rogernomics so no I thought he was one of us. When it became apparent he wasn’t it was way to late.

        • weka 15.1.2.1
          25 September 2014 at 12:52 pm

          Ok, thanks Mark. I guess the lesson there is for the party to build in to its constiution that leaders can’t consolidate that kind of power.

          He really should have stayed away after the first time he resigned after the death of his daughter. Coming back prevented the party from growing and moving to where it needed to.

    • brian 15.2
      25 September 2014 at 9:30 am

      @ Mark (15)

      I’m still mystified by the degree of antagonism towards the so called “arseholes” that you talk about because they are not “staunch left”

      I think the party would be much worse off without a full ranges of voices in the choir. There is something beautiful about a mixed gender choir, than a choir made up of only female sopranos or male bass voices. Is it not possible to sing the same song, which of course will be significantly different than the song National sings?

      People rabbit on and on and on and on this blog about the bad and evil and traitorous MPS whose crime is apparently to be on the “centre”.

      But curiously nobody ever defines what policies these evil people wish to promote that is worthy of the tag traitorous.

      If they do I might agree. For example, are they proposing that the TPPA is in the best interests of New Zealand? That Cameron Slater and Jason Ede (if he can be found) each be offered a knighthood? Or what?

      Labour: Please make up your mind what you stand for. Please. Quickly.

      • weka 15.2.1
        25 September 2014 at 9:43 am

        The problem is that the membership wants Labour to move left, but some MPs are blocking that. How would you resolve that under the broad church idea?

        And yes, there are Labour MPs who want NZ to sign the TPPA. How would you resolve that?

        • lprent 15.2.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 9:43 am

          The problem is that the membership wants Labour to move left

          There is, and then there are a few people who’d like to move right (Josie Pagani – take a bow).

          There are also people like me who just wish that they’d simply get their shit together so they can win an election.

          They can’t do that with someone who doesn’t have the required skills, is slow on thinking on their feet, and has absolutely no idea how the street level organisation works (Shearer). I’m pretty sure that a 6 year MP Wellington based professional politician (Uni followed by parliament) isn’t going to do it either. Nor a policy wonk (Parker – very valuable but not good at organising a party).

          Goff could do the job. But he’d really need to do what he didn’t do last time, to shift his policies to a position between caucus and the party, and to whip the damn MPs.

          Cunliffe was already in the right policy position – just left of centre. But had the same issue on the MPs and not enough time to get used to the types of things he needed to do at the decision level. He needed a driving COS earlier and could have done with a better caucus deputy (Robertson, Goff or even King – each for different reasons).

          In short exactly the same considerations that applied last year and for that matter in 2012 apply just as much now. Until some of the less experienced MPs (Robertson, Ardern, Twyford, Shearer) do the hard yards to gain the required electorate experience (which as far as I can see only Ardern and Twyford are doing) they won’t have the required support in caucus or outside to gain the experienced staff and the

          The only real issue is if Labour wants to win the next election or not. To do that they have to concentrate on the party vote which the MPs did not do.

          • weka 15.2.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 11:00 am

            “The only real issue is if Labour wants to win the next election or not”

            Except there appear to be people in Labour (MPs, but I assume others) who want the power but are still likely to do stupid shit like work against their natural coalition partner(s) and as you say not work on the party vote, the very things that will cost them the next election. From the outside the issue appears to be less about wanting to win the election than what Labour can do about the people who won’t/can’t/don’t understand the things needed to win the next election.

            I’d add that as this conversation has been going for a long time (years now), it seems unlikely to me that the people concerned are going to learn or change.

      • Mark 15.2.2
        25 September 2014 at 10:34 am

        Broad churches are lovely in first past the post but absolutely hopeless in MMP.
        National lost its liberal wing years ago and has become a very narrow centre right party with a few key messages. Mallard, Goff, Shearer would be very much at home with the current National Party. What I don’t get Is why they don’t show some integrity and just join them. My dying wish is for the current Labour party to implode and if I can help in any small way I will be there in a flash.

        • weka 15.2.2.1
          25 September 2014 at 12:53 pm

          National probably wouldn’t have them. That leaves them UF and NZF, which would be far too lowly for them I’m sure.

      • Karen 15.2.3
        25 September 2014 at 11:40 am

        Phil Goff is very keen on the TPPA and I suspect he is not alone. Nash is in cahoots with Lusk and Slater.

        Helen Clark had to manage the Rogernomes within Labour and that is why she was unable to implement policies that would have reduced the inequalities created during the 80s and 90s. She was, however, strong enough to stop the slide rightwards.

        If the Goff/Shearer/Cosgrove/Nash etc faction get control then expect more beneficiary bashing, no opposition to the TPPA or the changes to the RMA, and increases in minimum wage will be reduced.. Cunliffe never had a chance against a dirty tricks campaign from within and outside the Labour Party.

        • KJT 15.2.3.1
          25 September 2014 at 12:03 pm

          As I said elsewhere.

          “Of course it suits some to keep Labour as National(tm) light, so their gravy train of shareholdings in ex State assets, immigration designed to keep property speculators, and financiers, profits high and wages low, and their lucrative cosy deals with dodgy foreign companies continues, when everyone is sick of National”.

          I have a fair idea of Helen Clark’s goals on entering politics, having been at the meeting she was introduced as the Mt Albert candidate. I am sure she would have achieved a lot more without the brake from the remaining Rogernomes.

        • yeshe 15.2.3.2
          25 September 2014 at 12:48 pm

          +100 Karen and KJT

      • Draco T Bastard 15.2.4
        25 September 2014 at 10:17 pm

        For example, are they proposing that the TPPA is in the best interests of New Zealand?

        Goff and Shearer are definitely saying that and I’m sure, from past discussion on Red Alert, that Mallard will be against the further restrictions on selling land in NZ to foreign owners.

  17. Chooky 17
    25 September 2014 at 9:46 am

    ‘Can Labour be saved? Why Whaleoil & National won and why we need a new media’

    By Martyn Bradbury / September 24, 2014

    “The Labour Party of NZ need to work out what they are. Are they a modern democracy whose members and affiliates have an active say in the shape and direction of the Party, or are they merely a political management team who work to not spook the corporate forces of capitalism?…”

    – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/24/can-labour-be-saved-why-whaleoil-national-won-and-why-we-need-a-new-media/#sthash.qGrN5boc.dpuf

    • KJT 17.1
      25 September 2014 at 10:46 am

      “We are not just fighting National, we are fighting the entire media industry of NZ as well.

      The day we allow the Herald and Seven Sharp to define who we are as progressive political movements, is the day we end being progressive political movements.

      We must present a better vision and provide the medium for that vision to be articulated while constantly challenging the limitations those in the media wish to consign us to.

      If we can’t do that, Dirty Politics remains the winner.
      – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/24/can-labour-be-saved-why-whaleoil-national-won-and-why-we-need-a-new-media/#sthash.qGrN5boc.C2XksKnS.dpuf“.

      Pretty much my thoughts, but better expressed.

      Don’t always agree with Bomber, but when he is good, he is very very good.

      • adam 17.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 11:52 am

        I hate to say this but for once I agree with Gosman. The left need to take a leaf out of the old labour party and set up it’s own media.

        Maorilandworker or later call the standard. Love you guys who set this up by the way *HUGS* I may disagree and I may snip at times – but I appreciate this forum and respect all who write here.

        They knew, what we have forgot – when business own the media, they will always work for self interest. And the media self interest is, making money at any cost.

        http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=CL1.MW&essay=1&e=——-10–1—-0–

        http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/document/35752/the-maoriland-worker-1913

        We really have no choice – I think this forum is a great start for something printed and distributed.

        I have some ideas on radio. On the low frequency spectrum – a relatively cheap option, and their are many ways doing it – I just think we need to sort something out in the Auckland to curb what is happening. Yes the rest of country is important, but Auckland has effectively lost community radio and the rest of the nation still has that avenue.

        • phillip ure 17.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 1:15 pm

          @ adam..

          “..The left need to take a leaf out of the old labour party and set up it’s own media…”

          (ahem..!..)

          http://whoar.co.nz/

          there isn’t exactly nothing happening in that area..eh..?

          ..over 20,000 websites around the world have whoar on their best-of lists..

          ..here..?..can’t even get a drink…eh..?

          ..bradbury moans on and on about no left/progressive daily media here..

          ..he knows what i do @ whoar..

          ..the only time he has ever mentioned whoar is when he posted a cartoon of bennett ‘the boy’ and i had done..

          ..he didn’t know it was mine when he posted it..he got it from its’ top google-image result for bennett..

          ..so..belatedly..he had to acknowledge the cartoon from whoar..

          ..and that has been about it..

          ..chrs..!..eh..?

  18. paddy 18
    25 September 2014 at 10:14 am

    Grant Robertson came a poor Party vote third in Wellington Central. Even worse than he did in 2008. All over Wellington there were hoardings urging a vote for Grant Robertson in large font and a smaller font for Vote Positive and Party Vote Labour. At MTC meetings he made a few perfunctory appeals for the Party Vote but when you compared his performance against that of James Shaw and even Paul Foster-Bell you could clearly see that he wanted a low party vote result in order to get the result he wanted. A Labour loss, a resignation of Cunliffe and his elevation to the leadership. He did enough “campaigning for the Party Vote ” to have plausible deniability but a rise in his personal vote and a huge fall in the Party Vote speaks volumes. This treason for personal gain was repeated in many constituencies. We lost Dunedin South , Mount Albert and Hutt South and only won the Party vote in 4 general electorate seats. Beware Robertson, vote Cunliffe. Everyone deserves a second chance.

  19. logie97 19
    25 September 2014 at 10:20 am

    Sadly, it would appear that David Cunliffe is now totally damaged goods.
    He cannot win.

    Despite his recent demonstrations of being able to foot it with Key on television, and despite the party faithful recognising his qualities, he is being well and truly stuffed as far as the caucus and media and thus public perception is concerned.
    It is difficult to see, after all the vitriol how he is going to avoid being blamed for the total demise of the Labour Party. The caucus seem content in fuelling it.
    And, of course, Amstrong, Trevett, Watkins et al want him gone.

    Thank you David, for attempting to turn the party’s fortunes around from the disaster that was developing under Goff and Shearer’s stewardship. You picked up a poisoned chalice and you are now going to carry all the blame.

    Good luck.

    • Te Reo Putake 19.1
      25 September 2014 at 10:53 am

      Starting to look that way, logie. There’s a coup happening as we speak, and the loss of the two whips is a sure sign of that. However, the loss of David Parker is a problem entirely of Cunliffe’s making. The most regular criticism of DC is that he is smug and aloof. Sadly, his failure to take personal responsibility for the loss confirms the flaw in his personality and has cost him even more support in caucus.

      I’m really in two minds about this. Continuity is important and HC bounced back from a poor start. But Cunliffe is starting to look like a dead man walking and I’m not convinced he would win a party wide vote now, particularly if a reform ticket stood against him. He has failed to engage with voters and the carping about the ABC’s is pointless. During the campaign proper, the caucus was incredibly disciplined (Moa Mallard aside).

      The Manpology was the killer moment and he is never going to get past that. I think there was another strategic error even earlier on. That was the hiring of Matt McCarten. It may have seemed like a stroke of genius from out of leftfield at the time, but the one consistent aspect of Matt’s career is failure. He never actually succeeds in achieving the planned outcomes.

      • phillip ure 19.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 1:28 pm

        @ trp..

        “.. I think there was another strategic error even earlier on. That was the hiring of Matt McCarten. It may have seemed like a stroke of genius from out of leftfield at the time, but the one consistent aspect of Matt’s career is failure. He never actually succeeds in achieving the planned outcomes..”

        ..+ 1.. that case can be made…that serial-failure case..

        ..and i wd like an answer to the question was his virulent dislike of the greens at all part of the reason that tactical-footshoot of refusing to work in tandem with the greens..came to pass..?

  20. Hayden 20
    25 September 2014 at 10:36 am

    Hekia Parata making things up again?

    Hekia Parata says she has spoken to the profession about a need for a “common assessment picture for years 9 and 10” and, while any model would need to be “fully discussed”, the profession agreed it was needed.

    But principals and unions spoken to by The Dominion Post said they had not been part of any conversation about assessing year 9 and 10 students, and were not in favour of doing it.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10541278/Doubts-over-tests-for-years-9-and-10

    However, there were no plans to do so, as it “provides really useful information of where young people are at in secondary school”.

    Yes, let’s put this person in charge of educating our children.

  21. yeshe 21
    25 September 2014 at 10:54 am

    Heart warming … a little good news …

    We know Lucy Knight was savagely thrown to the floor fracturing her skull saving an elderly Chinese woman from a bag-snatcher in Northcote earlier this week.

    A crowd source fundraiser was created for her yesterday and so far the total has climbed quickly to reach $44,000 with the original target only $10,000.

    But Lucy Knight seemingly has also done much for race relations … have a look at the donor lists .. almost all are Chinese surnames and some of the notes are insightful …

    Heartwarming and so rewarding for her husband and six children … may her total recovery be swift.

    https://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/HelpLucy

    • Ovid 21.1
      25 September 2014 at 11:57 am

      It’s a wonderful gesture, but isn’t this precisely why we have ACC in this country?

      • yeshe 21.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 12:08 pm

        Sure we have ACC, and how important it is.

        But this is just regular Kiwi ordinary people thanking her, appreciating what she did even with two young children in tow, and acknowledging the harm she has suffered … nothing to do with ACC or govt.

        Just like flowers and chocolates, and probably much more useful in the circumstances.

  22. Karen 22
    25 September 2014 at 11:55 am

    Dirty Politics is going to get even dirtier it seems, while the MSM spend their time attacking the Labour Party.

    http://www.jarrodgilbert.com/blog/just-because-youre-paranoid-doesnt-mean-the-government-isnt-playing-dirty

    • Murray Olsen 22.1
      25 September 2014 at 9:15 pm

      Why would they stop? It’s been incredibly successful and they haven’t been called to account in any meaningful way. It kept Labour out of government and no one’s in prison.
      Until someone gets hit hard for their sins, they’ll keep it up.

  23. Annie 23
    25 September 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Labour caucus up to their usual tricks, talking to journalists instead of demonstrating discipline and unity: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10541279/Powerless-Cunliffe-told-to-quit?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    • Karen 23.1
      25 September 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Annie
      This is the section in the Stuff article that I was most interested in:

      “Cunliffe was reported today to have lost the support of key backers in the caucus however one of these believed to be at the centre of that speculation insisted today that they remained a Cunliffe loyalist.
      Another of those who is supposed to have deserted Cunliffe is also said by sources within Labour to be rock solid behind him”

      So what does this mean?

      • KJT 23.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 5:51 pm

        It means that “journalists” are still shamelessly making things up to suit their own agenda, instead of reporting the news.

      • blue leopard 23.1.2
        25 September 2014 at 6:11 pm

        Lol, I saw that too. Unbelievable!

        It is like Monty Pythons ‘nothing happened’ skit.

  24. Gareth 24
    25 September 2014 at 12:44 pm

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/education-portfolio-likely-act-rookie-6090008

    As if this govertnment hadn’t fucked the eductation system enough already.

  25. Puckish Rogue 25
    25 September 2014 at 12:58 pm

    While I’m enjoying the strife that Labours in (you’d think I’d get bored of it after three drubbings but no its still amusing) I don’t think the problem is with the leader

    It doesn’t matter who the leader of Labour is unless they’re supported by caucus and the fund raisers do their bit it’ll be the same old same old

    Having said all that I would suggest the best person for the role would be Stuart Nash and not because hes Slaters man (or whatever is the latest conspiricy theory) but because he has:

    Name recognition
    Won his electorate seat (it doesn’t matter how he won it
    Is as yet unsullied by being part of any clique (to the voting public)
    Not seen as part of the 84 lot (for obvious reasons) or being mentored by Clark (he may well have been but the perception is he isn’t)
    Is someone the right might actually worry about (just to let everyone know the right do not fear the Cunliffe or Robertson and seriously please don’t even think of the right fearing Ardern as thats just plain insulting to the right)

    • yeshe 25.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:00 pm

      is that you Jason ?

    • Treetop 25.2
      25 September 2014 at 6:03 pm

      Every political party is there to serve the people who vote for them. A person does not always like their boss/leader.

      Being left or right means zero to me, the ethos and manifesto of the party is what I vote for.

      I reckon the country is going to veer to the left in the next three years.

      Peters has got it right, he tries to be a strong opposition party against the government and this is a good place for the Labour party to start.

  26. SPC 26
    25 September 2014 at 1:16 pm

    The same MSM editorialising in favour of increasing the super age and making Kiwi Saver compulsory (probably two policies not attractive to voters) then saying that it was Labour’s move to the left that was the problem.

  27. newsense 27
    25 September 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Will the unnamed caucus sources come to Kelston and Mangere and explain to the P.I. folk who voted Labour by 70 percent, why tearing down the leader those electorates want was their first order of business? Rawshark didn’t leave us anything on Shane Jones and the Nats, Sky City or Labour, but you now start to wonder.

  28. lprent 28
    25 September 2014 at 5:44 pm

    *Sigh*

    I was a bit busy today so didn’t get back to TS after a midday sweep.

    Cleaner hit the off switch on the UPS doing the fibre. I need to either get rid of the technophobic cleaner or protect the new crucial switches from her.

    The fallover server in sydney was up and ready within minutes. Good.

    The DNS failed to switch over. Have to work on that.

    I didn’t get notified that the server was offline because my mail server was also cut off. Change to add the work email.

    The SMS alert didn’t happen because that is a paid service and I didn’t top up its overrpriced SMS. Change to get my phone to scan the site for outages.

    In any case it wouldn’t matter because my phone was on my desk and it’d been silenced because of the frigging noisy twitter app.

    Curse Chorus. I set aside 6 weeks to get fibre installed, tested, and the other systems tested. They arrived at 8 weeks on the friday before I restarted work. I did a scratch job getting the system up the following weekend, and have been trying to work on a live system ever since.

    The election is over. I’ll be working on it this weekend.

  29. JanMeyer 29
    25 September 2014 at 5:44 pm

    Unsurprisingly I was mocked yesterday for suggesting that if Labour aspires to be a 40%+ party then it should elect Nash with Ardern as his running mate. I now see that well known rightie Selwyn Manning is saying exactly the same over at the Daily Blog (he ain’t getting a nice reception to be fair).

    • GregJ 29.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:23 pm

      What is it about a Nash-Ardern team you see as being advantageous for Labour? What skills do you see them bringing? What policy focus do you think they would bring?

      • JanMeyer 29.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:52 pm

        Electablity by 40%+? Policies aren’t the issue.

        • GregJ 29.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 9:13 pm

          Ok – I went back and looked at your early posts. From what I can deduce you seem to be advocating Nash-Ardern becuause they “connect” with middle NZ (or middle-class NZ or is that the same thing?). It loooks like you are saying Labour should go, periously close, for “style over substance” (you indicated the policies of Labour at the moment are OK?).

          Sort of a reality TV “popularity” approach to securing votes?

    • phillip ure 29.2
      25 September 2014 at 7:34 pm

      @ j. meyer..

      ew..!..just ew..!

      ..nash walks in the door boasting about how he won napier all on his own blokey-merits…

      ..and he is a bloody liar..

      ..he is only there because garth mcvicar split the right vote by taking 4,500+ electorate votes..

      ..and he will likely lose it again in 2017..

      ..and you want to make him leader..!

      ..f.f.s..!

      ..he takes shallow self-promotion to new heights..

  30. Jellytussle 30
    25 September 2014 at 5:58 pm

    Socialist & Proud. Go left young man. New party time. Let labour go to the centre or wherever their pollsters think they should. Perhaps DC has an opportunity to create something special. I suggest getting Helen Kelly involved. I also suggest refusing to ever talk to TV1, NZH & Stuff.

    • Mark 30.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:31 pm

      Hope it happens. Can you imagine the ABCs if the party split and a lot of those 84 seat warmers were in the wilderness for the rest of their political life. It would be heaven on earth.

  31. adam 31
    25 September 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Stupid bloody question of the day

    I miss Ideologically impure where did she go?

  32. Scott1 32
    25 September 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Speaking of high risk strategies like spinning off a red labour party, swinging to the left of the greens and campaigning against ones own MPs…
    labour could just go nuclear next election and try to win only electorate seats, campaigning against it’s own party vote to create a massive over hang in a gambit to force through major electoral reform.

  33. Jellytussle 33
    25 September 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Also can we do something more about the trolls. Keep the same sort of banning rules (thank you moderators) and continue to allow vile comments in the interests of free speech & all that. However how about introducing an automatic large TROLL label that appears beside their names?

    • lprent 33.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:33 pm

      One person’s troll is another persons clear thinker.

      There is a pretty clear definition on this site about what a troll is. It is someone that the *moderators* consider is disrupting the flow of robust debate according to the policy.

      The retribution for making the moderators have to work too hard tends to be balanced but mildly irritated. That of the sysop (me) is purely a matter of luck but could easily be (and frequently is) described as being excessive. That is because I’m a grouchy 3 decade veteran of the net and I enjoy being nasty and highly educational. Basically I’m a BOFH.

      The moderators consider that people wanting to demanding changes to the rules of the site are immediately under the suspicion of being trolls. Perhaps you should read the policy?

      • Jellytussle 33.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:12 pm

        Lol. Ok I’ve looked at the definition of trolls & maybe I used the wrong label. The opinions that occasionally bother me don’t always interrupt the flow of debate but they can be tiresome and sometimes annoying. A nice plain heading beside a name……….perhaps ‘right wing lunatic’ (automatically based on previous comment history)……..would make life nice & easy and allow me to ignore the non relevant & digest the other opinions much faster.

  34. Kiwisaver 34
    25 September 2014 at 6:34 pm

    The Labour party is tearing itself apart. Who do they represent these ABC people? Working people? Because these are where Labour came from and have to reconnect with. IMO Grant Robertson would be laughed out of the room in the next election debates. Maybe they should just elect Robertson and then Cunliffe can form a new party. RealLabour or LabourNow or NZLabour.

    • GregJ 34.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:54 pm

      Robertson is a pretty decent debater – although he would have to spend the next 3 years(?) honing his skills against the Teflon Don and his MSM cohorts.

      Much as I hate even having to mention it (& I seriously though about not adding this) if he is selected there will be another more insidious meme pushed out quietly through the “talkback” media and other avenues. It will need a robust strategy to combat it (not that we should, even for one minute, allow that to be a reason not to select him – just being aware of the need to be be prepared to counter it).

      • Kiwisaver 34.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 9:12 pm

        Yes he can talk okay, but is that enough? I don’t think NZ is ready for a gay PM. The right would just add it to the many things they attack Labour with.
        I think Cunliffe worked hard and did well in the debates. Yes the CGT and man apology hurt, but Dotcom didn’t help either.
        The missing 800,000 are the poorer, younger people who the left have lost touch with. Who’s more likely to connect with them? The ABC’s or Cunliffe?

        • GregJ 34.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 9:23 pm

          Well I’d agree it isn’t enough. I would much rather see Cunliffe lead a genuinely progressive, social democratic & united Labour Party. I don’t think the caucus wants that though.

          However even if Robertson does become leader he’s going to have to take control at some stage otherwise he will just be a cypher. And that process still wouldn’t be pretty.

          • Ron 34.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 10:52 pm

            If Cunliffe steps down he will not be used by Robertson et al so what is there left for him to do. I would imagine that he would leave parliament at first opportunity, which would raise the possibility that New Lynn would fall to National.
            But i guess ABC would be happy to lose another seat to get rid of Cuniliffe
            sigh

    • The Lone Haranguer 34.2
      25 September 2014 at 9:38 pm

      “Who do they represent these ABC people? Working people?”

      I would suggest that they belong to a group who believe that strong successful business will lead to more and better and safer jobs for working people.

      A lot of you here seem to reckon that Rogernomics was about destroying the working man. I am sure that Douglas was a believer of the above theory, and believed that his recipe/medicine would lead to a great new future for the working people of new Zealand.

      Some others may disagree tho, as is their right.

    • millsy 34.3
      26 September 2014 at 12:11 am

      Robertson [r0b: deleted – homophobic – take a month off]

  35. feijoa 35
    25 September 2014 at 6:42 pm

    I was chatting to my teenager last night and asked what were the main policies of National and Labour. She could quote the National Party rowing ad straight back, saying our economy was doing better than France , USA, Mexico etc.
    As for the Labour Party, well, she remembered something someone had told her about reducing inequality.

    It got me thinking about the strategy for this campaign, and how woeful the communication was. I think a lot of people wouldn’t have had much idea about Labours policies at all, and I think the positive thing was a bad idea, as it didn’t really tell voters anything in those few precious minutes of TV advertising.

    I also think it has been 6 years of poor communication, and silence from most in the Labour team.

    I don’t think its the leader, or the left/ right, or any of that stuff.
    The whole team needs to grow some balls, and reach out to the country and stop navel gazing, and do your job.

    • KJT 35.1
      25 September 2014 at 6:55 pm

      From an outside perspective it seemed that a lot of the time they just rolled over with the medias perspective and framing.
      You cannot do that when the media is a cheer squad for National.
      They are following the media script over the leadership. DC knows that you can’t do that. The others don’t.

      For example instead of all of them strongly defending the “being a man speech” they sort of half apologised.

      Even my fellow rednecks, who are not into “identity politics” will respect a strong stand, saying, for example, “fuck off, women are second class citizens and we need to do something about it”.

      Too many times the caucus seemed lukewarm about defending Labour’s social, welfare and equity policies.

      QOT will, rightly, tell me off for saying this, but one thing Helen Clark definitely has, is “balls”.

    • Chooky 35.2
      25 September 2014 at 6:56 pm

      +100 feijoa

    • BM 35.3
      25 September 2014 at 7:39 pm

      My guess is, Vote positive was picked because of Hagers book.

      • GregJ 35.3.1
        25 September 2014 at 7:48 pm

        Whalespew conspiracy time eh BM?

        • BM 35.3.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 7:58 pm

          Did seem a bit of a coincidence.

          • Scott1 35.3.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 8:01 pm

            Not really. If you remember – Labour was in trouble fighting negative.

            • BM 35.3.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 8:03 pm

              OK, was bad timing though.

              Did rather give the impression that Labour was in cahoots with Hager.

              Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people made that connection.

              • tricledrown …
                25 September 2014 at 9:45 pm

                what trash BM the National adds and keys Dog whistle alah Crosby Textor Spin plus Bought-off Media won the middle voters!
                Throw in terrorist raids across the ditch 4% growth Labour was on the back foot!

      • Hanswurst 35.3.2
        25 September 2014 at 8:23 pm

        That seems to me like a ridiculously long bow to draw, and it felt like deliberate spin or a line that had been fed to the media by the RIght at the time. “Positive” has a fairly weak relationship to the content of Dirty Politics; there are loads of expressions (trust, honest, decent, fair, clean, “a vision you can believe in”, “up front with New Zealand”, etc.) that would actually capitalise on that content. “Vote Positive”… doesn’t. It’s no less likely that National chose “Working for New Zealand” because they new Dirty Politics was coming.

        • lprent 35.3.2.1
          25 September 2014 at 11:20 pm

          I can tell you absolutely that Labour HQ and parliamentary wing didn’t know that dirty politics was coming.

          I knew that something was coming down the pipeline about Whaleoil because I got asked some quite specific questions by someone I trust. It turned out that they were acting as an intermediary with Hager. To get my cooperation they told me what the research was going to be about. I then put them on to a number of other people who’d know bits of the story and told them to trust the questioner and to not gossip or ask questions. As far as I could tell none of them did….

          What it looked like was someone doing research for a newspaper story based in insider information from in the National party. In reality (as we now know) it was looking for verification of the detail of the emails.

          We avoided anyone who had a history of leaking or blatting their mouths off. Since that appears to be most of the Labour caucus and most of their staffs, few of them were asked.

          Neither Labour nor the Greens nor IMP had an idea what was coming down the pipeline.

          • Hanswurst 35.3.2.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 1:12 am

            And in any case, using “Vote Positive” as evidence is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. My impression is that it was simply invented to put some heat on Labour over Dirty Politics so that it wasn’t exclusively Key getting it in the neck. It should have been, and that particular craven attempt at “balance” was another shameful episode in the right-wing media’s election circus. Even if the idea was fed to the media from elsewhere, their reaction should either have been to say “Meh”, or to look for some actual evidence before mentioning it.

    • Scott1 35.4
      25 September 2014 at 7:59 pm

      +1 Good point.
      Of course your teenager was not actually answering the question a rowing add is not a policy.

    • phillip ure 35.5
      25 September 2014 at 8:28 pm

      my recollections from doing commentaries on questiontime @ parliament..

      ..is that labour have pretty much just sat there holding their dicks/lady-parts..

      ..for the last six years..

      ..the greens have been doing most of the opposition heavy-lifting..

      ..and peters some of it..

      ..and as for those commentaries..an mp told me he missed them and asked why i had stopped..

      ..i told him i got bored..

      ..i was looking forward to commenting on a new parliament..

      ..but now..yeah..nah..eh..?

      ..i think the boredom factor will be high in the next parliament..

      ..just those same old same old abc’ers from labour..

      ..just those same faces that have been there since forever..

      ..do you know that goff was an mp when i first started flirting with heroin..

      ..and after major addictions..i have been clean for decades..

      ..and goff is still a fucken mp..

      ..he is like a parliamentary form of herpes..

      ..seemingly with us forever..

      ..he just keeps on coming back..

      ..him and all those other walking-dead..

      • phillip ure 35.5.1
        25 September 2014 at 8:57 pm

        one of my other strong memories from those many many questiontimes..

        ..is how robertson never impressed..

        ..just saying..!..

        ..and how often cunnliffe did do the job..

        ..i actually supported cunnliffe as leader on the basis of how impressed i was by how he was the only one in labour who national were scared of/who could hold national to account..

        ..i haven’t changed that opinion..

        ..and yes..this anti-cunnliffe campaign is both relentless and co-ordinated..(all the media trouts leaning in on cue..)

        ..and don’t forget it was always planned..eh..?

        ..the abc’ers wanted to lose this election..

        ..then roll cunnliffe..

        ..then take control of the party again..

        ..with one of their drones in the leadership role..

        ..don’t let them succeed..

        ..i hope cunnliffe hangs tough…

        ..i repeat..just going on that long/major exposure to all these characters/contendors in parliament..

        ..none of them come within a bulls roar of cunnliffe..

        ..in raw talent/ability..esp. ability to take it to national..

        ..and key will eat roberston..and not in a nice gay way…

  36. Westiechick 36
    25 September 2014 at 7:45 pm

    I think the nats will be relieved to see Cunliffe go. The dirty politics worked. He was in the job for eleven months being subjected to dirty politics and character smears. He made John Key sweat during the debates. Cunliffe with a united caucus and party behind him and a media that had wised up to the dirty tricks would frighten the bejesus out of them.

    • mickysavage 36.1
      25 September 2014 at 8:16 pm

      Agreed fellow westie. He really needs time and the caucus need to take a deep breath.

      Interestingly if the rumours about who will take over are right ABC ought to be very concerned. Their claim that the party needs to move to the right and not engage in identity politics will be hard to defend if Robertson and Ardern are the top two.

      • karol 36.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 8:22 pm

        Their claim that the party needs to move to the right and not engage in identity politics

        Now I’m really puzzled.

        I always thought that it in the Labour party it was a working class (male?) focus that was needed, and that this was opposed to (so-called) “identity politics”

        If it’s neither going left on class issues, nor (allegedly) “middle class identity politics” – what exactly would there be left of any kind of left wing values?

        • KJT 36.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 10:05 pm

          Working class in Te Atatu voted for Chris Carter.

          I don’t think that “identity politics” is the issue with working class males, that some think it is.

          The biggest one, that sent votes to Winnie, that I saw amongst our lot, was the retirement age.

          What I do think is the issue, is that the right are happy to let us have some wins on identity politics, to distract us, so long as we do not interfere with, the money!

          • Draco T Bastard 36.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 11:40 pm

            And it’s the money that’s the problem. Fix that and we can have an egalitarian society but the plutocrats don’t want that.

      • GregJ 36.1.2
        25 September 2014 at 8:52 pm

        Assuming it’s not Cunliffe or Parker then I tried to break the caucus down by experience on the theory you would be looking at someone at least entering their 3rd term as an MP as your leader (accepting that there is also a 2nd term theory putting Nash in the frame- which seems more talk that reality or possibly Little although he appears to have ruled himself out even if he survives)

        Now assuming also that none entering their 5th term or longer is seen as a viable leader i.e. Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Dyson, Goff, King, Mahuta, Mallard, O’Connor, Parker that means you are looking at a leader from:

        L=List

        (4th term): Sue Moroney (L), Sua William Sio

        (3rd term): Jacinda Ardern (L), Clare Curran, Kris Faafoi, Chris Hipkins, Iain Lees Galloway, Grant Robertson, David Shearer, Phil Twyford, Louisa Wall, & (technically) Kelvin Davis

        That means selecting someone who will have no ministerial experience which may be seen as a disadvantage (although sometimes this can be countered if there is significant extra-parliamentary experience or if a Deputy is experienced).

        So who are we left with as viable candidates? Robertson but with whom as Deputy? (if it is Ardern see mickysavage above). If it is Ardern (youngest ever labour Leader at 34?) then she would almost certainly have to have someone from the 5th+ termers as Deputy (Parker? Cosgrove?). A Shearer rerun? (which seems almost impossible but who knows).

        There doesn’t really seem like much choice

        • Jenk 36.1.2.1
          25 September 2014 at 9:11 pm

          Why does everyone focus on Ardern as the girl to be at the top ? WHY is she near the top of the List ? I’m really puzzled by this : Ardern doesn’t seem to me to have enough of the gutsiness needed to be a leader (or even a deputy leader). What has she done to make everyone think she could be ?

          • GregJ 36.1.2.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 9:28 pm

            I really don’t know. As LPrent suggested she really needs to spend some time as a Whip and get some hard parliamentary experience behind her. The same question could be asked about Nash – I don’t see it in him either but some seem to. (need a shrug smiley).

          • Colonial Viper 36.1.2.1.2
            25 September 2014 at 9:39 pm

            Ardern needs a full term in Cabinet, preferably two, before people start reaching her way.

          • mickysavage 36.1.2.1.3
            25 September 2014 at 10:12 pm

            Carmel Sepuloni is way more impressive IMHO

          • brian 36.1.2.1.4
            25 September 2014 at 10:19 pm

            She perhaps is the one person in the caucus who has an X factor that could rival that of Dirty John. I suspect she would unsettle Dirty John as well … to the point that he would be less capable of his continuous sledging

            Ardern is somebody that perhaps may unify, still getting the best out of all the talent that is there (from both factions), less ego driven than most other contenders. If she is chosen for a top job (Leader or Deputy) it will be a very public way of announcing to the world that Labour is rejuvenating. Setting their own style for a Leader, and not making the job description simply be “skill in election debating with Dirty John”

            When a party is in opposition for three terms, making cabinet experience a prerequisite for the top job is unrealistic.

            The caucus will be able to make judgement on whether her abilities match the possibilities. Other commentators appear to be wary.

            Why is Labour not seriously looking at the possibility of co-Leaders? This would be the perfect time to initiate such a practice. It has not failed elsewhere.

            • Colonial Viper 36.1.2.1.4.1
              26 September 2014 at 12:22 am

              She perhaps is the one person in the caucus who has an X factor that could rival that of Dirty John. I suspect she would unsettle Dirty John as well … to the point that he would be less capable of his continuous sledging

              Ardern is somebody that perhaps may unify, still getting the best out of all the talent that is there (from both factions), less ego driven than most other contenders.

              You have got to be fucking kidding me. Who is paying you to be her agent.

              • brian …
                26 September 2014 at 8:43 am

                @ Colonel Viper (36.1.2.1.4.1)

                I’ve got nothing at stake with regard to Ardern, any other candidate, and I’m neutral on the Great Labour Left/Right/Wrong divides that everybody talks about, but almost nobody defines in substance.

                Your criticism here of my suggestions could be very interesting if they had been constructive rather than from Whaleoil 101.

                If she is such a ‘fucking’ joke, please tell me why she is being talked about positively (eg as a running mate for Robertson, or “preferred candidate” in a (possibly dirty) One News poll) ?

                When Ardern’s name is mentioned here, most feedback I receive is general unease and smear. Insidious, how politics has become. She apparently has to do several terms as whip, cabinet minister, and making the coffee before she can become an assistant. Old farts exempt from such requirements. I am beginning to suspect that the main reason she is not suitable is that she has to cross a higher bar of eligibility because of her age, her gender, and what she looks like.

                The more I receive responses such as yours, the more I’m beginning to think that Ardern may be just what the Party needs.

                But hey, perhaps there is something that somebody really knows about her abilities and her performance that is relevant. I think it was lprent who suggested that her performance in some debates was somewhat pedestrian.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  26 September 2014 at 8:49 am

                  LOL mate. Keep talking Ardern up. BTW what “the party needs” is far more than changing who is sitting in that top chair; changing the leadership is something you are promoting and something that will seal 2017 for the Tories.

                  • brian …
                    26 September 2014 at 9:30 am

                    @ Colonial Viper (36.1.2.1.4.1.1.1)

                    ~~~~~

                    LOL mate. Keep talking Ardern up

                    Still nothing of substance from you on the issue. “fucking kidding” last time. A condescending “LOL” this time.

                    ~~~~~~~

                    BTW what “the party needs” is far more than changing who is sitting in that top chair;

                    Now with this comment, I can completely agree with you. I have repeatedly said in my posts that the party really has to sort out what it stands for. The public really have no idea at the moment. What is the vision for the party? If this is not sorted out, then 2017 will indeed be another smirk on the face of Dirty John.

                    The need for a vision overrides every other topic at this stage, in my opinion. The issue of who the leader is pales into insignificance, important as it may be.

                    When the Party has worked out what that vision is, then the question should be how can that be implemented and presented. The Leadership will be part of that process.

                    Unfortunately, the Party seems to be hell bent on doing the Leader stuff sooner …unless this so called “review” has as part of it’s brief to work out what the Party stands for.

                    So choosing the best Leader ….(a new leader, or the current leader), is a bit of guesswork at this stage, depending on second guessing what the answer is to what the Leader is expected to lead.

      • Ron 36.1.3
        25 September 2014 at 10:57 pm

        Which is why I don’t think Ardern will be Deputy I have a feeling that they might stay with Parker. Parker might give some form of stability to the team.

  37. adam 37
    25 September 2014 at 7:47 pm

    Chris Hedges Nails it on Willful Blindness, Climate Corporatism & the Underground Revolt.

  38. Draco T Bastard 38
    25 September 2014 at 8:30 pm

    Interesting observations coming from Piketty’s data. Wonder what it’s like in NZ during growth phases.

  39. Princess 39
    25 September 2014 at 9:48 pm

    Changing leaders is not the solution. It is clear to the public that Labour are full of individuals, not a unified party and that is why they have lost so much support. Lost the election and the anti- Cunliffe crew are still fighting and jostling for their personal preferences, further damaging the party’s image. Fingers crossed Cunliffe stays because for Labour stability is paramount.

  40. feijoa 40
    25 September 2014 at 11:11 pm

    Agree about Carmel Sepuloni>> a woman worth nurturing for leadership

    Does the Labour Party do nurturing???????????

  41. joe90 41
    25 September 2014 at 11:23 pm

    Dilworth Karaka, Tama Lundon and Tama Renata unplugged at the Whanganui opera house supported by The Black Trio were marvelous this evening.

    By far the best $22 I’ve spent this year.

Links to post