Reshuffle for unity

Written By: - Date published: 11:28 am, February 19th, 2013 - 229 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

As you all know I haven’t been the biggest cheerleader for Labour in recent times. And let’s not beat around the bush. I still have my concerns. But there’s a real opportunity on the near horizon. There’s hope for Labour yet. While the plan for the reshuffle before the vote was clearly punitive  things may have changed. Indeed they should have.

To win the party needs to unify. We all need to bury the hatchet and get on with bringing down this awful awful National government.

That unification starts with the leadership. Yes, they’ve ignored us. No, we didn’t elect them. And yes, the main guy can’t string a sentence together (Jesus tap-dancing Christ). But there’s still time for the leadership to prove to us they’re adult enough, and care enough about the Labour Party, to ignore the Goffs and Mallards and bring the caucus together.

It’s well known that 10 or 11 members of caucus did not give confidence to David Shearer as leader. He might be tempted to punish them in the upcoming reshuffle.

Shearer should go with his instinct and do the opposite.

Helen Clark put her main contender, Dr Michael Cullen, at number 2. And it worked. Superbly. Other leaders of the right, Phil Goff and Annette King were 3 and 4 once Steve Maharey retired. That was a bloody strong front row. They may have not been the best of friends but they knuckled down and did the job the party needed them to do.

To win, Labour must unify. To win Labour must use the best talent caucus has. Shearer should promote some of those capable members even if they have been part of the group pushing for change. Even if that means dislodging some of his own lieutenants. Because that is real leadership. And that is playing to Shearer’s strengths as a negotiator and deal breaker.

If he does the right job now, he may yet be remembered well.   And Labour might finally be in a position to take the fight to National.

Update: Oh dear. Chauvel is a big loss to Labour. He’s resigned rather than accept demotion. It should be the old guard moving out of Parliament, not young talented MPs with a future like Chauvel. This reinforces need to unify rather than punish and demote out of insecurity. It’s also a real shame because Dunne’s now a dead cert for another term. And it leaves Labour very under-powered on the legal front – as far as I know, only Parker, Dalziel, Huo and Little have law degrees and none of them are constitutional lawyers dying to be Shadow Attorney-General.

229 comments on “Reshuffle for unity ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. King Kong 1
    19 February 2013 at 11:36 am

    You guys lost. It’s head on spikes time.

    Cuddling up to the plotters who have done enormous damage to the Labour party will just prove to everyone that this kind of treachery goes unpunished.

    • One Tāne Huna 1.1
      19 February 2013 at 11:45 am

      🙄

      • McFlock 1.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 12:07 pm

        Actually, KK presented the alternative leadership option.
        Although personally I don’t think shearer has the elan to pull it off, so some measure of reconciliation might happen. Probably promote one or two of the suspected ten to provide a bit of balance.

      • Addison 1.1.2
        19 February 2013 at 12:09 pm

        WHat do rats and sinking ships have in common with Charles Chauvel and Labour?

    • Tom Gould 1.2
      19 February 2013 at 12:03 pm

      This is less about Shearer and more about Cunliffe. He needs to prove his loyalty and regain his leader’s confidence. What has he done to achieve these? Nothing by all accounts. So he should stay on the back benches, until he wakes up, parks his ego, and decides to be a team player. Same goes for his tiny band of disciples.

      • AmaKiwi 1.2.1
        19 February 2013 at 2:16 pm

        @ Tom Gould

        What will the leader the members did NOT choose do to prove his loyalty to us?

        • Tom Gould 1.2.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 3:05 pm

          As far as I am aware, members of the party who are not members of the caucus are unable to be appointed to spokesperson roles in the reshuffle.

      • TimD 1.2.2
        19 February 2013 at 8:06 pm

        So Cunniliffe should stay at the back while all the other potential leaders can have a go at Shearer? He’ll have his hands full trying to bfend the challengers off. Not.
        I can fully understand why you’d do nothing – give the guy enough rope to hang himself with.
        I wonder if you’ll see some sort of breakaway group like Jim Anderton’s progressives, with DC leading it?

        • The Al1en 1.2.2.1
          19 February 2013 at 8:09 pm

          “I wonder if you’ll see some sort of breakaway group like Jim Anderton’s progressives, with DC leading it?”

          Sadly, David assures me he won’t.

      • JBug 1.2.3
        21 February 2013 at 9:47 pm

        I don’t think 10 is tiny – and you could probably guess there would be a few more out there who might have voted against Shearer at another time. If I were Shearer, I would be looking to unify the party not divide it further by kowtowing to the old-guard clique.

    • Enough is Enough 1.3
      19 February 2013 at 12:11 pm

      What treachery was that? Oh that’s right there was none.

      Shearer should be gone and almost everyone who wants National gone agrees with that. However if he is going to be there he needs the best of caucus right beside him answering those questions he trips over on a daily basis. He must bring his ‘enemies’ close because he sure as shit can’t do it without them (I am far from convinced he can do it with them to be honest).

      • McFlock 1.3.1
        19 February 2013 at 12:27 pm

        Shearer should be gone and almost everyone who wants National gone agrees with that

        [citation needed]

        • Bill 1.3.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 12:38 pm

          Sheesh McFlock! On the basis that ‘ts’ is fairly representative of the thoughts and sentiments on the left around this issue – and given that the noble defenders of Shearer and ‘his’ labour Party on ‘ts’ can be counted…hmm, if not on one hand then certainly on less than two… then the “almost everyone” qualifier in the claim about who thinks what seems entirely fair and appropriate, no?

          • McFlock 1.3.1.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 12:50 pm

            Pretty thin basis.
            Don’t get me wrong, “ts” is an important forum, but not everybody who dislikes the government is a leftwing politico-geek. In fact such folk are probably a small minority of “everyone who wants national gone”.

        • The Al1en 1.3.1.2
          19 February 2013 at 6:01 pm

          I’m one of them

  2. One Tāne Huna 2
    19 February 2013 at 11:45 am

    Well said Eddie.

  3. xtasy 3
    19 February 2013 at 11:45 am

    Despair and a heck of a lot of unanswered questions, and being kind of ignored when asking for answers from MPs in Labour, that does sadly not make for fertile grounds to let much hope germinate.

    Shearer’s very last chance to save his face, perhaps, it seems, with this “re-shuffle”.

    What cards though are there to “shuffle”? Well, I will rather focus on other topics than this one.

  4. mickysavage 4
    19 February 2013 at 11:52 am

    Agreed entirely Eddie and the corollary is that if MPs who are not part of ABC are demoted without cause then the immediate future for the party is bleak.

    EDIT: This must be the first time ever that an author has linked to Pete George’s site in a post!

    [lprent: Probably. ]

  5. Raymond a Francis 5
    19 February 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Unlike King Kong I think what you suggest is the only way Labour can win and have an at least two term time on Government benches

    • Polish Pride 5.1
      19 February 2013 at 2:08 pm

      “what you suggest is the only way Labour can win and have an at least two term time on Government benches”…..before National get back in and they are again in opposition.

      ….little to the left, little to the right, little to the left, little to the right. A little tinkering here a little tinkering there but nothing really changes. What you have said is a big part of why the system doesn’t work and the real problems never get resolved.

  6. chris73 6
    19 February 2013 at 12:04 pm

    To win the party needs to unify. We all need to bury the hatchet and get on with bringing down this awful awful National government.

    – Shearer will string a coherent sentence together before that ever happens

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VSyx_s84Ak&feature=player_embedded

    – Tell you what if you make me leader I promise to do a better job
    (if Shearers reading this the correct answer is…No)

    • felixviper 6.1
      19 February 2013 at 1:04 pm

      He’s never going to face an easier question than that.

      Never.

      Ever.

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 2:56 pm

        If a junior backbencher had said that there absolutely was space in the Labour Caucus for MPs with homophobic attitudes I’m sure it would have gone down well.

    • the sprout 6.2
      19 February 2013 at 9:06 pm

      Good post Eddie, sound advice.
      Faith that Team Shearer will follow that advice: zero.

  7. Roflcopter 7
    19 February 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Charles Chauvel gone….

    • Roflcopter 7.1
      19 February 2013 at 12:11 pm

      Well, it said he was gone…. but now the “he’s gone” has gone.

      Going for lunch.

        • chris73 7.1.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 12:23 pm

          I’m saddened that he had to quit because of the rampant homophobia allowed under Shearer… 😉

        • King Kong 7.1.1.2
          19 February 2013 at 12:31 pm

          Thats what happens when you back the wrong horse. A good lesson for many on here.

          [it must be one of the great tragedies of your life that you were born too late and in the wrong country to be a bully boy for a totalitarian state. JH]

          [lprent: Looking at all of his comments in this post, they have been pure assertion troll comments without any argument designed to start flames. Not acceptable behaviour and something he has been banned for before.

          Banned for (ummmm looks up previous data) 6 weeks. That should give him time to learn to troll elsewhere.. ]

          • fenderviper 7.1.1.2.1
            19 February 2013 at 12:49 pm

            Well it’s better than backing the “right” horse that ends up running the wrong way.

          • bad12 7.1.1.2.2
            19 February 2013 at 3:33 pm

            Now that brings on a bout of hilarity, at you KK, next time i tell you your clock has just struck 2 minutes to 12 as i did yesterday you should seriously learn to pull your head in,

            Most of us here are happy to debate with you or anyone else from the right around the matter of ‘facts’ but your continual post-jacking solely based around smart-arse remarks makes reading the posts very laborious…

            • higherstandard 7.1.1.2.2.1
              19 February 2013 at 3:44 pm

              You are a fact free zone who spits abuse at anyone you perceive to be from a different team. Truly a blog based spanner of monumental proportions.

              • bad12 …
                19 February 2013 at 5:48 pm

                Because you are so insipid in ‘fact’ and in personality i estimate your clock to remain at 10 to midnight,

                Try harder wont you, as you self destructing by copping a moderators spanking will only serve to improve the level of comment in the Standard and make it a far better read even when not commenting…

                  • The Al1en …
                    19 February 2013 at 8:04 pm

                    Get fucked much?

                  • bad12 …
                    19 February 2013 at 8:36 pm

                    That just makes me laugh all the harder at you, gosh out of a zillion comments i have made on this site you have managed to trawl through them all and bring us a little % with the word f**k in them,

                    I should be really touched by the effort but am not and have to really consider that you are really ‘touched’ to have gone to such effort which in the end is pointless,

                    Or have you actually got a point???, there has to be a first time right???…

                    • higherstandard …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:28 pm

                      Effort ?… it takes 10 seconds within the Standard’s search function …….. surely even an illiterate cusser such as yourself could do it easily.

                    • bad12 …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:34 pm

                      Is that right, oh hardly illiterate, i do cuss occasionally as you say but what’s the actual point besides having me laugh at you all the more…

                    • higherstandard …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:59 pm

                      The point is you are an ass, a blip on the blogscape, a buffoon with a special genius for the provision of macrology.

                    • bad12 …
                      19 February 2013 at 10:25 pm

                      Lolz if i was so insignificant figure you wouldn’t have spent half the night attempting to denigrate me,

                      The point felix makes is valid why don’t you provide a valid reply, besides knowing like we do that a reply will just expose even more of your banal insipid stupidity that is…

                    • higherstandard …
                      20 February 2013 at 7:41 am

                      Everyone and thing on this blog is insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

                      I spent 5 minutes playing with you for the fun of it.

                      Why the tame tr0ll felt the need to leap your defense is most likely due to having finished his curry and post dinner glue sniffing. He never deems it necessary to give me a straight answer and repeatedly lies hence I don’t bother much with him apart from the baiting.

                    • felixviper …
                      20 February 2013 at 8:34 am

                      It’s astounding, I lie all the time but dear old Dr higherstandard has never been able to point out an example of it.

                      I expect that’s just because he doesn’t have the time or inclination to go searching around on blogs for examples of people saying things…

                      And yes, the glue was excellent.

                  • felixviper …
                    19 February 2013 at 9:21 pm

                    I don’t understand, hs.

                    What’s wrong with saying “fuck”?

                    • higherstandard …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:51 pm

                      Depends where and when it’s said.

                    • felixviper …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:54 pm

                      But your search results are for anyuse of the word connected to bad12.

                      So I ask again, specifically related to this discussion, in the context of your search parameters: What’s wrong with saying “fuck”?

                    • higherstandard …
                      19 February 2013 at 10:00 pm

                      Depends where and when it’s said.

                    • felixviper …
                      19 February 2013 at 10:16 pm

                      Not according to your search parameters. They tell us that it depends who says it, nothing else was factored in.

                      Of course if you actually have an opinion on where and when and how it’s wrong or right to use the word – for anyone I mean, not just for bad12 – then you could tell us all about how that works and why bad12’s use of it falls into the “wrong” category.

                      But I think we both know you won’t because we both know that all you really do here is sarcastic personal abuse, political disinterest, and occasional fear of lesbians.

                    • the sprout …
                      19 February 2013 at 10:45 pm

                      😆

          • Rogue Trooper 7.1.1.2.3
            19 February 2013 at 4:49 pm

            they will be missed…maybe Not!

          • Huginn 7.1.1.2.4
            19 February 2013 at 8:24 pm

            Thank you, Lynn

            • Rodel 7.1.1.2.4.1
              19 February 2013 at 9:51 pm

              Thanks….I ‘ll start reading again for 6 weeks.One gets tired of seeing KK nothingness.

  8. Arfamo 8
    19 February 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Chauvel’s departure no doubt will be seen by many voters as a vote with his feet on Labour’s prospects at the next election.

  9. Bill 9
    19 February 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Call me a [insert] optimist, but “creek”; “without a paddle” and “blood on the floor” keep circling in my mind.

    Simply on the grounds that Chauvel’s resignation seems a bit ‘out of the blue’ to me, I have to ask: Was he one of the Shearer/Robertson crew? Was he perceiving a watery future and striking out for safer drier lands? Are others raising their gazes and searching out new horizons too?

    Pfft, this optimism thing’s a pain!

    • higherstandard 9.1
      19 February 2013 at 12:35 pm

      Nah he just saw a larger more secure trough to gorge at.

      • Bill 9.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 12:48 pm

        Maybe so. Anyway. According to the ODT he previously backed Cunliffe. Optimism going down the gurgler.

      • gobsmacked 9.1.2
        19 February 2013 at 12:57 pm

        HS, if he only wanted to “trough” he would have kept his head down, sung the praises of the current leadership, and waited for Father Time.

        Politcians aren’t all venal. Sometimes they just can’t keep a straight face any more, when they have to keep lying about how great things are.

        • higherstandard 9.1.2.1
          19 February 2013 at 2:59 pm

          He’ll have fun at the UN, do less work and be paid considerably more. ……….. why should he have stayed in NZ ?

    • xtasy 9.2
      19 February 2013 at 12:48 pm

      Bill: In the NZ Herald story just out now, he is quoted as having been a supporter of the David Cunliffe challenge to Shearer! Now that is stuff to think about now.

      • Bill 9.2.1
        19 February 2013 at 12:53 pm

        Aye. Like I say. Optimism. Gurgler. 🙁

        • xtasy 9.2.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 1:14 pm

          Well, can you not see that enormous amount of convincing, contageous charisma radiate from the leader’s face, and wise words with decisive, clear messages come out of his mouth?

          Have another beer, mate, that is if it would not impact harmfully on your health! I think I may soon need it.

  10. xtasy 10
    19 February 2013 at 12:42 pm

    Charles Chauvel was in my eyes a very promising MP for Labour, although at times a bit timid.

    I am just wondering, is this the beginning of the Cunliffe supporters, maybe David Cunliffe also himself, leaving the “sinking ship”???

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10866354

    A good job at the UN rather than leading NZ into a better future, that maybe a good choice for Charles in some ways, perhaps for greater ambitions and good intentions. But it looks to me, that he has given up on a promising career as senior member of NZ’s second most poverful party (presently, and so far).

    This is NOT a good sign for Labour!

  11. gobsmacked 11
    19 February 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Chauvel quits, and yet the dead wood hangs on.

    This is about more than Shearer. Labour’s rump are dedicated to self-preservation, at the expense of both party and country, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, except wait for them to quit or die.

    Good luck to those who are fighting the good fight from within the party, but it’s going to be a long, long battle.

  12. wobble 12
    19 February 2013 at 12:57 pm

    It’s sad to see Charles go, when so many many of the old guard are holding on for their dear lives.

    I guess it’s part of the problem. Talented MPs have somewhere else to be.

  13. Kevin Welsh 13
    19 February 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Does any amount of reshuffling really matter when you have a leader who seems incapable of stringing a meaningful sentence together?

    • Arfamo 13.1
      19 February 2013 at 1:27 pm

      No. Sad, but there it is. The ABC camp has locked itself and the party to a mumbling, bumbling election-loser who hasn’t been able to define what Labour stands for or who it represents as fundamentally any different from the Natzys. If they’d hung on to Goff I reckon they’d be doing better in the polls by now than under Shearer’s “leadership”.

  14. Addison 14
    19 February 2013 at 1:03 pm

    What will be of major interest will be who replaces him! The next on the list, a dyed in the wool unionist, or will the list be massaged again to throw up a Shearer man/ woman? It could be another bad week for Mr Shearer!

  15. George D 15
    19 February 2013 at 1:08 pm

    FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.

    Fuck you Labour. Fuck you Mallard and Hipkins, you talentless pieces of shit. Fuck you Mumblefuck.

    Fuck the lot of them. Let it burn.

    • Tom Gould 15.1
      19 February 2013 at 1:13 pm

      So does that mean you won’t be voting Labour in 2014?

      • mallard/hater. 15.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 2:13 pm

        Tom gould, yup that means labour wont get my vote first time ever .cunliff is a better man and should have been leader.

        [lprent: putting you into auto-moderation until you can demonstrate that you can restrain your duplication problems. Just filed a two more into the trash. ]

        • George D 15.1.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 3:11 pm

          It was an outburst of anger. I’m not proud of it, but it’s here now. See my comments below for a slightly more reasoned take.

      • AmaKiwi 15.1.2
        19 February 2013 at 2:28 pm

        It means after donating thousands of hours and thousands of dollars I will NOT be party voting Labour unless there is new leadership (unlikely).

        Colin Craig (Conservative Party) is poking around on Labour and National’s vulnerable flank: MPs failure to represent their constituents.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10866235

        Will the Greens pick up on this, too?

        If either Labour or National tried to claim they are democratic, the laughter at their hypocrisy would be deafening.

    • mallard/hater. 15.2
      19 February 2013 at 1:50 pm

      Go george g , ever so frkn tru my man u just made my day 🙂

      [lprent: removed your dups. ]

  16. xtasy 16
    19 February 2013 at 1:24 pm

    It was not my intention to comment further after my first one in this thread. But the sudden, unexpected resignation of Charles Chauvel raises yet more questions about what goes on within caucus, and how the “chemistry” is between members of it in the Labour Party.

    It seems to me that Shearer may also simply have or bring bad “karma”.

    Whenever there is any suggestion of him having done, or being able to do something decisive and positive, like a smart re-shuffle, there is suddenly some news or developments, that throw everything in disarray again, so any “credit”, hope or prospects get(s) shot to pieces again.

    Bomber Bradbury, are you perhaps also having a new plan in regards to party policies – or perhaps founding an new left party with prospects for this country, after announcing this promising new blog this morning? I am praying, I am praying, I am despairing.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      19 February 2013 at 1:55 pm

      Whenever there is any suggestion of him having done, or being able to do something decisive and positive, like a smart re-shuffle, there is suddenly some news or developments, that throw everything in disarray again, so any “credit”, hope or prospects get(s) shot to pieces again.

      And note how Key has just the opposite – good luck even in stormy seas. This match up is not going to go well.

      • xtasy 16.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 2:25 pm

        Yes, sadly Key gets away with almost anything, having also the media mostly go softly, softly on him. It does not look like a good, equal and exciting match, it looks like a game few will bother going to watch in 2014.

  17. George D 17
    19 February 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Hmm, I guess I’m angry, and wanted to shout at someone.

    I know that he wasn’t liked by everyone – his personality put a few offside, and that others thought he had less talent than the superstar he was supposed when he entered politics, but he was certainly ahead of most of his party.

    I’m also quite upset at the profound failure of Shearer’s leadership this represents. This represents a major fuckup though. You want to be able to manage such things if you’re a leader, and hold on to your MPs. And when they do want to resign, you want some control over that too. There obviously wasn’t the trust to negotiate a shared departure.

    • McFlock 17.1
      19 February 2013 at 1:45 pm

      What’s a “shared departure”?

      Isn’t this a resignation announced shortly before a reshuffle (unless I missed it)? What’s so bad about that?

      • The Fan Club 17.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 1:47 pm

        Fact it’s stomped all over the A-G’s report on pokies deal & the Chch school closures news.

        • Socialist Paddy 17.1.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 2:50 pm

          So Fan Club Chauvel should have put up with the petty backstabbing and the undermining and bullying just so Shearer would get a good headline?

          Fecks sake man. There is something terribly wrong and blaming the losing side for it is stupid, rude and damaging to the party.

      • George D 17.1.2
        19 February 2013 at 1:51 pm

        A shared departure is what Nicola Roxon and Chris Evan’s resignations looked like two weeks back. You tell the leader, who tries to talk you out of it and tries to offer you things that might make you stay. If this fails, the leader organises a press conference and summons the media. You might even negotiate with the leader for a good time, and they come along and say goodbye. It’s obvious that there was insufficient trust between them for this to occur, and thus the whole process was a unilateral one.

        • McFlock 17.1.2.1
          19 February 2013 at 1:57 pm

          Those two names don’t ring a bell, but ok.

          Looks like KK might have been right – Team Cunliffe folks packing up and leaving. Which means at least caucus will be slightly more coordinated.

          • Te Reo Putake 17.1.2.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 2:23 pm

            Aussie Labor ministers. Resigned a fortnight ago, just after Gillard announced the election date. Roxon would have been PM one day, if she’d stayed.

          • Colonial Viper 17.1.2.1.2
            19 February 2013 at 2:26 pm

            Looks like KK might have been right – Team Cunliffe folks packing up and leaving. Which means at least caucus will be slightly more coordinated.

            Ahhhh, a version of Muldoon’s famous line about people who leave.

            • McFlock 17.1.2.1.2.1
              19 February 2013 at 3:32 pm

              No.

              Simply an observation that groups that have less internal division can act in a more consistent and cooperative manner. Which is the outcome that this post seems to ask for: (at least apparent or relative) unity.

              But then if you read the “improves the iq of both countries” line into that fairly obvious statement, then methinks (as if I didn’t already) that the problem with Shearer is more your perspective than anything about him in reality.

    • gobsmacked 17.2
      19 February 2013 at 1:51 pm

      But George, you were the guy at Imperator Fish telling us to shut up now and support Shearer.

      Maybe some of us recognize that when something can’t be saved, then silence is not loyalty.

      It all comes down to this – can Labour/Shearer survive and succeed by papering over the cracks? Day after day, week after week, for two years and beyond, can Labour/Shearer somehow get away with being dysfunctional?

      Some think so (or pretend they do), but those of us who don’t think so get pretty tired of being told we’re the ones to blame, and if we all kept quiet about the shambles, then the shambles would stop.

      • George D 17.2.1
        19 February 2013 at 2:10 pm

        I tried to publish it here first, actually. I believe that we on the left have a duty to create governments on the left that deliver to our country what we believe in. Negative blog comments almost never help that aim – I’m actually sorry for my outburst above.

        As we’ve learned many times, the only way to create change is to organise. Words here don’t change things; organised action changes things. It’s still up to Labour members to decide whether that action is for or against the current leadership.

        • Te Reo Putake 17.2.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 2:36 pm

          Nicely put George. It’s worth remembering that LP members now have a say in policy. We may have missed the opportunity to get the leader we wanted, but we can still determine what we take to the voters next year.

          • George D 17.2.1.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 2:44 pm

            You have at least one AGM before Labour is in power again – I encourage you to make full use of them.

  18. Rob 18
    19 February 2013 at 1:37 pm

    What has Charles done in the last two years?

    How about the last 5?

  19. Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 19
    19 February 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Darien Fenton for Attorney General.

  20. alex 20
    19 February 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Are we sure that Chauvel was actually that valuable? The biggest story I can remember him being involved with was him shouting at a child on a plane.

    • Tigger 20.1
      19 February 2013 at 2:00 pm

      That’s all the media saw fit to present, alex. Charles was an incredibly talented lawyer and did a lot of work behind the scenes. Remember, politicans pass laws…

      Such a loss. Now the only high profile gay male in Parliament with a law focus is the Nat who voted against gay marriage…

    • alwyn 20.2
      19 February 2013 at 2:10 pm

      Give him a break. An acquaintance of mine was on the flight and said that Charles looked severely hung over.
      When you are in that state it is hardly surprising that you get upset when they allow kids up near the front of the plane and they upset their betters.
      Might just have been flu of course.

  21. irascible 21
    19 February 2013 at 2:01 pm

    There are times that I think many of the commentators on this thread would rather remain as opposition rather than government because they can only be secure as critics of the party they ostensibly support while being mortally afraid to truly grasp the spokes of power and responsibility. It is, for such as these, easier to remain “pure” to their belief that opposition is the best place to remain than to actually take part in constructive policy building and active campaigning in order to get a Labour Party government elected. It does beggar the mind somewhat!!!

    • Arfamo 21.1
      19 February 2013 at 2:11 pm

      It is no longer sufficient for parties to seek voter support on the basis of their party name. Shearer clearly cannot get votes on the basis of his eloquence, his wit, his appearance, his team leadership skills, or his self-confidence. So he needs to define what a vote for Labour under his leadership will mean.

      By comparison, Key can argue that under his leadership big business will prosper, everyone will benefit from the trickledown effects, smarmy remarks will be his style, and everybody but the already wealthy will continue to become progressively poorer. It’s a huge target. And Shearer hasn’t been able to score a bullseye yet.

  22. KhandallaViper 22
    19 February 2013 at 2:22 pm

    “And that is playing to Shearer’s strengths as a negotiator and deal breaker.”

    That is very important, Bill. We have welcomed David for this aspect of his back-ground.

    Now s the time for him to apply it.

    • Socialist Paddy 22.1
      19 February 2013 at 8:21 pm

      You mean like when he had the chance as the former UN big guy leader in the middle east to respond to Richard Tosser’s tosh and he said “If it was in anywhere else – perhaps even in New Zealand – it could incite violence”?

      Give me strength.

      This is meant to be the area of Shearer’s strength, you know international relations and the middle east and mango skins and nice guy and all that. And he fecked up.

      I repeat, give me strength. Are we meant to go out to battle for him?

  23. Te Reo Putake 23
    19 February 2013 at 2:26 pm

    “It’s well known that 10 or 11 members of caucus did not give confidence to David Shearer as leader.”

    Is it? I’ve not seen a skerrick of evidence (WO and KB don’t count).

    “He might be tempted to punish them in the upcoming reshuffle.”

    If it a) happened

    and b) he knows the names (secret ballot, remember)

  24. michael 24
    19 February 2013 at 2:40 pm

    Labour in 2017 then? Will the caucus be united behind a leader who can run a government?

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      19 February 2013 at 3:19 pm

      Green/Labour Government, 2017.

    • Afewknowthetruth 24.2
      19 February 2013 at 3:35 pm

      In view of the fact that most people struggle to manage their own affairs, the idea that someone can manage other people’s affairs is absurd.

      Governments are simply facilitators for corporations and money-lenders who mismanage everything in their quest to make easy money and steal from the commons.. Fascists wearing red or green will be no better for NZ in the long run than fascists wearing blue, particularly since all of the current mob are scientifically and financially illiterate. Besides, we’ve already experienced what fascists wearing red do (from the mid-80s to the early 2000s)…. and what a disaster they were. Hence the voters ‘had a guts full’ and put the other lot of fascists into power.

      Actually, I’d be very surprised if current economic arrangements are still functioning in 2017, now that the implosion of Europe, Japan and the US are accelerating..

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell pretending to be Afewknowthetruth 24.2.1
        19 February 2013 at 3:44 pm

        Governments serve no purpose. We are all doomed. You are all too stupid to know. This is despite me having told you all so many times both that you are all doomed and that you are stupid.

        I, on the other hand, am smarter than Gallileo.

        You will all be sorry when you find out I was right. This will be either in 2013, or any of the other years between 2013 and 2050. Do not ask for any of my canned goods, when this happens, idiots.

        • Colonial Viper 24.2.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 3:54 pm

          Canned goods? The usual US survivalists joke is around “rice and beans” as apparently they are easier to store in bulk for long periods of time. And if that’s ‘survival’ it might not be that worth it.

          • Rogue Trooper 24.2.1.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 4:54 pm

            alright with a little salmon and tomato

            • AmaKiwi 24.2.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2013 at 6:06 pm

              Will there be a Labour party in 2017?

              In June 2012, the three centrists Greek parties went into the election with 70% of the seats in Parliament. After the election TOGETHER they had only 30%.

              Major parties DIE, especially during times of economic crisis. I will bet after the 2017 election at least one of our major parties will have fewer than 15% of the seats (maybe both).

              Maybe it’s time for the Labour Party to die so it can be replaced with something better. Don’t get me started or I’ll go on for pages about how the LP could be improved.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell pretending to be Afewknowthetruth …
                19 February 2013 at 6:28 pm

                I’ll go on for pages about how the LP could be improved.

                Just give us your top 50 things.

  25. Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 25
    19 February 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Charles has shown his confidence in Shearer/Robertson winning the next election by voting against them…..with his feet.

    Bye Charles. Please keep your membership current. Things will get better …. sometime.

  26. Antony Cotton 26
    19 February 2013 at 4:03 pm

    I have got 3 applications to Join three Political Parties Labour National and United Future I can now cross of Labour It toss up between United and National for who gets my Membership it hard decision to make I usually a Labour Voter not in 2014. Not since the Cunliffe demotion I cannot stand Labour and there attitude. Labour 2017 maybe.

  27. Rich 27
    19 February 2013 at 4:10 pm

    I can’t be bothered to google, but would lay bet that those asserting that people should support Shearer unconditionally made exactly the same arguments about Goff last term and will no doubt make the same ones about next term’s time-server.

    • McFlock 27.1
      19 February 2013 at 4:33 pm

      those asserting that people should support Shearer unconditionally

      [citation needed]

      • Rich 27.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 7:54 pm

        *I can’t be bothered to google*

        • McFlock 27.1.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 11:34 pm

          well, the number is zero, anyway.

          Or at least I’ve never seen anyone demand shearer be supported unconditionally.

          • felixviper 27.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 11:41 pm

            I haven’t seen anyone say it either.

            Criticise anything he says or does though…

            • McFlock 27.1.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2013 at 11:51 pm

              Criticise everything he says or does though…

              fify

              • felixviper …
                20 February 2013 at 12:12 am

                Nope, just the lame, stupid, offensive things.

                Entirely up to him really, presumably he could stop doing all that any time he likes.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  20 February 2013 at 12:15 am

                  Don’t be too harsh. He’s not doing it himself, he’s doing it under advisement.

                • McFlock …
                  20 February 2013 at 12:47 pm

                  Nope, just the lame, stupid, offensive things that we work really hard to extract out of such fiendish and blatant whistles as “happy new year”.

                  FIFY-again

                  • Rhinocrates …
                    20 February 2013 at 12:50 pm

                    MIFY-again

                    Misrepresented it For You – again.

                  • felixviper …
                    20 February 2013 at 9:26 pm

                    Pretty much, Rhino.

                    McF, how hard do you think I’m working to extract offense from ‘Absolutely, homophobes have a place in the Labour party’?

                    If you want to criticise my criticisms, how about sticking to the ones I actually make, eh?

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 1:30 am

                      Fair enough. Let’s pretend the first ‘Shearer says’ of 2013 wasn’t greeted with bullshit quibbling over his use of his use of the phrase “Happy New Year” in the first fucking comment.

                      The homophobe fluff was a pretty fair call to be criticised on. Although I’d like a link to what he exactly said, as I’m pretty sure you just made up what you put in quotation marks. It is probably a good place to start if you think Rich’s comment about commenters demanding “unconditional support” for Shearer was all about how you might have been criticised for making Shearer seem worse than he actually is.

                      The actual quote from a radio transcript seems to be

                      “Shearer: Oh look yes, absolutely, there are some, when I say homophobic I don’t think we’ve got any homophobes there, but, there are some people who don’t agree with, ah, um, unsection (?) marriage, you mean you know, a marriage between two, two people of the same sex, um, that’s ah, that’s not ah a a majority but um look you know at the same time as we, you know we’ve been at the forefront of these things, we’ve also had people who didn’t agree with it, there’s plenty of room for them as well. “

                      which I agree is a dumb piece of waffle that tries hard to avoid any position on the issue and is a general fuckup. If pete george’s transcript is accurate. I don’t visit his place, though.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 February 2013 at 1:43 am

                      FV said:

                      McF, how hard do you think I’m working to extract offense from ‘Absolutely, homophobes have a place in the Labour party’?

                      McFlock said:

                      Although I’d like a link to what he exactly said, as I’m pretty sure you just made up what you put in quotation marks.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 February 2013 at 1:45 am

                      bear in mind, Shearer was not asked about whether or not people with homophobic views had a place in the Labour Party.

                      He was asked whether or not Members of Parliament with homophobic views had a place in the Labour Party.

                      Answer: “Oh look yes, absolutely, there are some”

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 1:56 am

                      So pete seems pretty accurate about the waffle. As supplied by Whaleoil. But light years between that drivel and a firm ‘Absolutely, homophobes have a place in the Labour party’.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:00 am

                      The response to whether or not there is place for MPs with homophobic views in Labour is recorded on the youtube link above.

                    • felixviper …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:03 am

                      “Let’s pretend the first ‘Shearer says’ of 2013 wasn’t greeted with bullshit quibbling over his use of his use of the phrase “Happy New Year” in the first fucking comment.”

                      And what the fuck does that have to do with me, McF? Again, how about criticising stuff I’ve actually said. FFS.

                      “Although I’d like a link to what he exactly said, as I’m pretty sure you just made up what you put in quotation marks.”

                      That’s why it’s in single quotes. I thought that was obvious, but if you think it’s not an appropriate paraphrase then do tell me if you think it misrepresents him in any way.

                      “if you think Rich’s comment about commenters demanding “unconditional support” for Shearer was all about how you might have been criticised for making Shearer seem worse than he actually is.”

                      Sorry mate, didn’t notice where I’d done that. Point it out, would you? I’m presuming you don’t mean that simply joining a discussion implies that I think everything said up until that point was about me, but I could be wrong.

                      “which I agree is a dumb piece of waffle that tries hard to avoid any position on the issue”

                      I’d have to disagree with that, I think he takes quite a clear position. The question was whether there is a place for homophobes in his party and the answer is yes, absolutely, also blah blah blah. Which is a yes in anyone’s book, unless you were going out of your way to make him look better than he really is.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:09 am

                      The question was whether there is a place for homophobes in his caucus and the answer is yes, absolutely, also blah blah blah.

                      fify

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:09 am

                      And then said that he didn’t think any homophobes were in “there” and then tried to separate same-sex marriage from homophobia and otherwise dig his way out. He fluffed it badly.

                      But there’s a marked difference between that and a firm “homophobes have a place in the Labour party” coming from his lips.

                    • felixviper …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:11 am

                      Course there is.

                      That’s why it’s so good that he said “no”.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:13 am

                      But there’s a marked difference between that and a firm “homophobes have a place in the Labour caucus” coming from his lips.

                      fify

                      Both the question and Shearer’s response is in the youtube link above.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:24 am

                      CV: party/caucus, still a marked difference.

                      FV:
                      And what the fuck does that have to do with me, McF?

                      Oh, sorry, you joining a discussion immediately makes every subsequent comment all about you. I’ll bear that in mind.

                      I’d have to disagree with that, I think he takes quite a clear position. .

                      No shit you disagree. A “clear position” from that waffle based on two words he immediately backtracks on? You’re psychic.

                      Fuck this, I’m off to bed.

                    • felixviper …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:40 am

                      Well McF, usually when people reply to a comment I made with a direct response to a question I asked, I reckon they’re talking to me.

                      But then you seem to think ‘yes absolutely there’s still a place for homophobic views’ is ambiguous on the subject of homophobic views, so ymmv.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 12:11 pm

                      To you, yes – not about you.

                      And ‘yes absolutely there’s still a place for homophobic views’ is indeed completely unambiguous. My point is that he never actually fucking said it.

                    • felixviper …
                      21 February 2013 at 12:26 pm

                      Just so we’re clear we’re talking about the same thing, here’s what I asked:

                      McF, how hard do you think I’m working to extract offense from ‘Absolutely, homophobes have a place in the Labour party’?

                      If you want to criticise my criticisms, how about sticking to the ones I actually make, eh?

                      And here’s your answer:

                      Fair enough. Let’s pretend the first ‘Shearer says’ of 2013 wasn’t greeted with bullshit quibbling over his use of his use of the phrase “Happy New Year” in the first fucking comment.

                      You seriously saying those two comments aren’t related? Fine, whatever.

                      And again, if you don’t like my paraphrasing then tell me where I’ve got it wrong. Where’s the bit where Shearer says ‘No, there’s no place for homophobic views’?

                      Because not only is that the correct answer, it’s also just as easy to say as ‘oh look yes absolutely’ or whatever the fuck he said.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 12:58 pm

                      So.
                      You entered a general conversation about whether people here were demanding unconditional support for shearer, and have warped it into a discussion about whether you, personally, have ever made an unwarranted criticism of Shearer (or have been accused of aiding and abetting tories for making a fair criticism).

                      Okay, let’s work with that:
                      You are correct to criticise shearer’s waffly response to being asked whether there’s a place for homophobes in caucus. It was a crap effort on shearer’s part.

                      However:

                      I think that your “paraphrasing” of a convoluted, non-committal, and self-contradictory response into a clear endorsement or acceptance of homophobes in caucus is a perfect example of people taking shearer’s shortcomings and building them into something they’re not.

                      It might not exactly be rolling a glitter-ball in shit, but whatever shearer gave you to work with was not as nauseating as the pungent, manky, slimey turdishousness that you “paraphrased” it into.

                    • felixviper …
                      21 February 2013 at 2:10 pm

                      If what Shearer said was “self-contradictory” then surely you’ll be able to point out the contradictions it contains.

                      I don’t see him saying anything that contradicts the ‘yes absolutely’ that he opens with or the ‘plenty of room for them’ that he wraps up with.

                      Even more so on listening than reading, it’s a resoundingly affirmative answer. And if that’s not what he intended, then in spite of all the protestations of his fan club, he still really, really sucks at this stuff and isn’t getting any better.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 3:58 pm

                      lol. Is vto right that opposing same-sex marriage does not equal homophobia?

                      there are some, when I say homophobic I don’t think we’ve got any homophobes there, but, there are some people who don’t agree with, ah, um, unsection (?) marriage, you mean you know, a marriage between two, two people of the same sex,

                      um, that’s ah, that’s not ah a a majority but um look you know at the same time as we, you know we’ve been at the forefront of these things, we’ve also had people who didn’t agree with it, there’s plenty of room for them as well.

                      I don’t see him saying anything that contradicts the ‘yes absolutely’ that he opens with or the ‘plenty of room for them’ that he wraps up with.

                      “them” – is that homophobes or people who oppose same-sex marriage? Would a homophobe feel like “there’s plenty of room” in a party that’s “been at the forefront of these things” (whatever “these things” are)?
                      And what’s the “yes absolutely” in reference to, anyway? Is it, as your position seems to be, a “yes absolutely there is room for homophobes”, or is it Shearer hearing more of an “are there homophobes in labour” question, or is it just a goddamn habitual verbal filler that he got into the habit of using?

                      Even more so on listening than reading, it’s a resoundingly affirmative answer. And if that’s not what he intended, then in spite of all the protestations of his fan club, he still really, really sucks at this stuff and isn’t getting any better.

                      I dunno – I think he did a better soundbite on telly than Turei when it came to lobby questions about the skycity A-G report. He does seem to be improving, but I agree that this particular cockup was a regression.
                      But I’m sure you and whaleoil will disagree with me about that.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2013 at 4:07 pm

                      cocked up and failed edit – 2nd blockquote redundant, third is you, first and fourth quote blocks are shearer

                    • The Al1en …
                      21 February 2013 at 4:12 pm

                      “lol. Is vto right that opposing same-sex marriage does not equal homophobia?”

                      Coincidentally, that’s failed Hamilton West conservative candidate Pat Gregory’s same question to the local rag.

                    • The Al1en …
                      21 February 2013 at 4:20 pm

                      Am I going to abuse it when I get an edit button

                      Of course that would be in general, not to vto’s post

                    • felixviper …
                      21 February 2013 at 7:42 pm

                      For what it’s worth I thought his interview the other day on the AG report into Sky City was excellent.

                      I’d guess the difference was he knew exactly what he was talking about and was well prepped.

                      So yeah, this would be a regression from that for sure.

    • AmaKiwi 27.2
      19 February 2013 at 6:13 pm

      “people should support Shearer unconditionally”

      Same b.s. said about every unworthy leader.

      List your reasons why he is the best or stfu.

  28. hush minx 28
    19 February 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Two things spring to mind. First is that the news from Charles C highlights how key this reshuffle for instilling a sense of hope and fairness, not just amongst caucus but the wider party. Secondly that’s a talented MP walking put the door. If he thought labor was going to win would he be leaving? I doubt it. So where’s the upcoming talent of new blood into caucus? And no, I do not count JT! 🙂

  29. bad12 29
    19 February 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Yes i thought Charles Chauval was a good MP as well, but, the gap left in the line-up will soon be filled and most of us 6 months from now will have mostly forgotten His contribution,

    A re-shuffle now from David Shearer, why not,at the same time He should give the signal that He could again reshuffle in early 2014 if any of the team aint making the required impact,

    I await more policy from Labour for us to see the true shape of the proposed Labour/Green Government in 2014, that being i would suggest 1-2% either way from being a done deal i would also suggest that such a conclusion to 2014 is as much up to ‘us’ as it is the Parliamentary teams of the Party’s we support,

    Questions of leadership we should now consign to the back-burner,(or the party conference),until 2014 if the unthinkable becomes a reality…

    • AmaKiwi 29.1
      19 February 2013 at 6:17 pm

      “Questions of leadership we should now consign to the back-burner.”

      Yes, it’s clear the members and affiliates are powerless to select a leader. The LP is run like a mini-dictatorship. I’m out.

      • bad12 29.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 6:48 pm

        Lolz with a toy tossing attitude like that i have to inquire whether you were ever actually ‘in’,

        That’s funny, i see no evidence of this mini-dictatorship, the Labour Caucus just held a vote,( entirely within the rules),to ascertain whether or not David Shearer would face a party wide vote and the decision of that caucus was that He wouldn’t,

        So where’s the dictatorship???

        • George D 29.1.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 8:16 pm

          Then there’s the fact that those MPs were electing consistent with a process that was set by the party, they themselves were selected consistent with a process that was set by the party, and that the party itself changed the processes just last year after its conference.

          If you don’t like the outcome, blame the rules. If you don’t like the rules, then change them. It’s your party.

          • bad12 29.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 8:24 pm

            Yep, that same Caucus has elected Shearer once under each set of rules, no matter what anyone thinks of Him as the Leader He is all there is,

            Instead of whining about Cunliffe not being the leader the next best thing the Labour lot can do is push good Labour policies through the committees and hope like hell to have them legislated for,

            Carrying on the bitter little fight is going to get none of us anywhere except 3 more of Slippery and the present ugly little bunch of Shysters…

  30. The Al1en 30
    19 February 2013 at 6:21 pm

    “Questions of leadership we should now consign to the back-burner”

    What about lack of leadership, is that okay?

    “if the unthinkable becomes a reality”

    If you mean Labour don’t win under Shearer = 😆

    • bad12 30.1
      19 February 2013 at 6:55 pm

      The bloke sounded and looked Ok to me on the TV1 news tonight, seemed to come across quite forcefully,

      Should He continue to improve in that vein until November 2014 he should give the current Slippery little Shyster a riun for His money in the TV debates…

      • The Al1en 30.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 7:00 pm

        So we’ll see the opinion polls reflect that about when?

        And just to be clear, the 😆 isn’t about DS not winning in 2014, that would be a wry smile tinged with much sorrow to be comfortable, no, it’s that you think Shearer not winning is unthinkable.

        I get hope over expectation, but what do you see? What makes you think he’ll win it for you?

  31. bad12 31
    19 February 2013 at 7:13 pm

    ‘He’???, i don’t see David Shearer winning anything for ‘me’ full stop, what i see is a National government run by a Shyster and a bunch of yesterdays men only interested in feathering the nests of the few and the voters to attempt to keep them in power,

    What i see is a Roy Morgan poll which would have a Labour/Green/Mana Government if the election was last week,

    What i see is a Maori party with no support and a NZFirst Party bleeding their support by the day thanks to Richard, given that what i see is the highly unlikely situation of either of those 2 figuring in the next Parliament,

    What i see is the loss of at least 1% of the National party’s support being gone by 2014, what that says is Labour/Green Government…

    • The Al1en 31.1
      19 February 2013 at 7:18 pm

      “He’???, i don’t see David Shearer winning anything for ‘me’ full stop,”

      “Should He continue to improve in that vein until November 2014 he should give the current Slippery little Shyster a riun for His money in the TV debates…”

      I must’ve misread and/or misunderstood you. I apologise.

      “What i see”

      Maybe you misread or misunderstood me 😉

      I’m talking about Dave. What do you see in him that makes him the leader? What do you see that makes him the best man for the job?

    • JK 31.2
      19 February 2013 at 7:53 pm

      bad12 – NOTHING will stop Nat voters voting NAT – even if they don’t like what’s happening under their current shyster. What they do NOT want is to see Labour in Power again. So they’ll keep voting Nat.

      Labour voters on the other hand have a record of NOT VOTING if they do not like what their Party puts up …… and there is evidence coming through (see the most recent TV1 poll) that Labour supporters don’t like what Labour is putting up. In addition there are the 800,000 non-voters from the 2011 election who still need to be persuaded to vote – preferably Labour.

      In 1987 Labour voters stayed home, but Nat-Act type voters liked what Douglas et al were saying and voted Labour back in. By 1990, more and more Labour voters stayed at home and didn’t vote.

      Labour people like to vote. Its very difficult for them NOT to vote. with MMP they now have a choice – they can stay home, or they can vote Green (or Mana) or even NZ First.

      what’s the betting that Labour loses votes in 2014, but Green and/or NZ First and maybe Mana, increase their votes ? This might still amount to a coalition, but it could be a very unstable one !! and not
      governable …….

      On the other hand, if enough Nat voters continue to vote Nat-Act-United : then we’ve got another three years of them. And this is a likely scenario ….. give that Nat-Act people do not WANT to see Labour take over.

      • bad12 31.2.1
        19 February 2013 at 8:03 pm

        YA-A-AWN, in answer to that long winded rant,(a) National Party voters, or to be more accurate, the slight part of the current National Party vote that is ‘the swing vote’ have been well bought and paid for by tax cuts which has ensured their loyalty while they wait for some assets to buy,

        The TV1 poll, even the apologist, cheerleader,and big mouthpiece for the National Party Mathew Hooten admits that the TV1 poll always reads the National Party votte at least 2% above what it actually turns out to be,

        Try last weeks Roy Morgan Poll which gave Labour/Green/Mana the numbers to form a Government…

      • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 31.2.2
        19 February 2013 at 9:45 pm

        should we have compulsory voting with a small fine for not?

  32. bad12 32
    19 February 2013 at 7:26 pm

    I dont!!! the Labour Caucus have seen ‘something’ in Dave that they have voted,(twice), to have Him the leader of the Labour Party, as i am not a member of that party such decisions are out of my hands…

    • The Al1en 32.1
      19 February 2013 at 7:44 pm

      “I dont!!!”

      Good. 😆

      “the Labour Caucus have seen ‘something’ in Dave that they have voted,(twice), to have Him the leader of the Labour Party,”

      To be fair, at this point it’s only at least twenty two of caucus.
      Maybe the question should be directed at them, but seeing as they’ve not been listening for the last four years, I won’t be counting on a credible answer.

      “as i am not a member of that party such decisions are out of my hands…”

      So no real reason to advocate for putting the leadership question to bed just yet, just because at least twenty two want us to.
      No one ever achieved anything like that.

      • bad12 32.1.1
        19 February 2013 at 7:48 pm

        SO, what exactly do you hope to achieve by continually fermenting a question of leadership that you and the others continually fermenting that question have already lost twice…

        • The Al1en 32.1.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 7:57 pm

          Given the circumstances I’d dispute lost, and twice, but like you, that’s not my fight.

          I dare say I can’t achieve much of anything to change the minds of at least twenty two caucus fuck nuggets, but I’m always happy to let a shit show know they’ve got a shit show’s chance.

          So strap in, it’s going to bumpy when there are more and more ‘rogue polls’ and the months dwindle away.

          • bad12 32.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 8:08 pm

            So sit on the sidelines and add a larger glass of whine to the cheese-board, because you achieve exactly nothing ranting on endlessly over a battle that you didn’t have a vote in by the sounds of it either at Party or Caucus level,

            Cunliffe lost and if you want to try and lose Labour the next election because of a bit of toy tossing in your head well that’s your problem…

            • The Al1en 32.1.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2013 at 8:25 pm

              “So sit on the sidelines and add a larger glass of whine to the cheese-board”

              Front and centre, Pams diet cola, and cheese-board? What do you think I am? The bourgeoisie ET. 😆

              I reckon it’s going to get real messy, real soon, so get a swanny on and watch out for the flying splatty bits.

              • bad12 …
                19 February 2013 at 8:43 pm

                Lolz s**ts so cheap in the supermarket these days that the kids can buy and still have change from the pocket money…

            • The Al1en 32.1.1.1.1.2
              19 February 2013 at 8:30 pm

              “if you want to try and lose Labour the next election because of a bit of toy tossing in your head well that’s your problem…”

              So it would be my fault Labour fucked it and are acting like retards. Don’t be silly.
              But I might change my mind. That selfish wry smile might just become a ‘so fucking what, you earned it’ chortle or guffaw.

              I’d urge everyone to send their votes elsewhere than red.
              Don’t trust the man, don’t trust the people – At least twenty two of them, anyway.
              You do what you like, of course, but I’ll not follow you down the cul-de-sac, if you don’t mind.

              • bad12 …
                19 February 2013 at 8:53 pm

                I am sure you know what i mean and if you don’t then i cannot at this late hour be bothered explaining it to you,

                Cul de sac???, knock out the Maori Party ,kick the % of left leaning vote away from NZFirst thanks to Richard,and, hey presto what have you,

                Wheres the cul de sac, a Labour/Green Government, is that a cul de sac???…

                • The Al1en …
                  19 February 2013 at 9:00 pm

                  If I don’t trust the men and women who have been losers for four years, and hand on heart, I bet even those of his supporters are hoping more than expecting, what should I do? Be quiet? Just vote red because I always have?
                  I reckon I’m okay stating opposition to a very bad job, done by bad people who’ve done a very bad job against very bad people.

                  No need to reward their incompetence with my silence.

                  • bad12 …
                    19 February 2013 at 9:09 pm

                    Now let me just get this straight, in all these bad men,losers blah blah blah there’s, drumroll lights,violins, one yes one heroic figure, not a bad man, not a loser, it’s Dave Cunliffe the hero of the movie,

                    Did i get that right???…

                    • The Al1en …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:25 pm

                      The spotlight is always on me and always will be 😉

                      They can fight (or not as it appears) their own battles, for their own reasons.
                      Those 33 visit these pages, they go by numbers, they read the for and against.
                      You say C’mon pull together – They think ‘see, we’re unstoppable’.
                      More write, you suck, you’re shit, and on record alone, you’ve failed very badly* – They think ‘see, we’re unstoppable’.

                      Never go quietly, bruv. Always kick and scream a bit.
                      Fuck dignity when you’re in the grip.

                      * See 2008 onwards

                    • bad12 …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:40 pm

                      S**t, are you suggesting 2008 backwards was a bunch of roses,all shining light and praise Helen,

                      Helen was actually the one that finally decided for me that i should stop voting red and take it elsewhere,

                      Lolz, if you knew who me was you would know that there is no such thing as going quietly,

                      Sometimes i am quietly going about my biz most of which has a fair amount of politics in the mix…

                    • The Al1en …
                      19 February 2013 at 9:51 pm

                      “S**t, are you suggesting 2008 backwards was a bunch of roses,all shining light and praise Helen,”

                      I’m saying since 2008, Labour haven’t put a single scratch on the government, not one. Maybe someone will post a list proving otherwise, but they should save themselves the trouble and derision that even attempting to will bring. The polls say, no. The end.

                      “if you knew who me was you would know that there is no such thing as going quietly,”

                      Glad to read it. Now post ‘Shearer is the lost McMumble Womble’ in four words or less, and we’ll strategize disorderly rear guards over Green tea and your cheese board. 🙂

                    • bad12 …
                      19 February 2013 at 10:09 pm

                      Actually the tea of any hue with a cheese board would be a really really bad idea you might end up eating the board by mistake…

                    • The Al1en …
                      19 February 2013 at 10:14 pm

                      “Actually the tea of any hue with a cheese board would be a really really bad idea you might end up eating the board by mistake…”

                      I’d suggest crackers, but there’s only so many tory trolls to go around.

            • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 32.1.1.1.1.3
              20 February 2013 at 10:58 am

              Yes it gets to the point where the destructive force of pressing for change mounts higher as it continues and what is being destroyed is Labour’s chances to do anything because it doesn’t get elected. So I think keep working for change (limitation of terms or?). And push for more positives rather than blanket disapproval and increase the positives.

              From LyricsDepot
              – Words and Music by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer
              ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE
              Peak Billboard position in 1945.

              Hear it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3jdbFOidds

              Gather ’round me, everybody
              Gather ’round me while I’m preachin’
              Feel a sermon comin’ on me
              The topic will be sin and that’s what I’m ag’in’
              If you wanna hear my story
              The settle back and just sit tight
              While I start reviewin’
              The attitude of doin’ right

              You’ve got to accentuate the positive
              Eliminate the negative
              And latch on to the affirmative
              Don’t mess with Mister In-Between
              You’ve got to spread joy up to the maximum
              Bring gloom down to the minimum
              Have faith or pandemonium’s
              Liable to walk upon the scene

              To illustrate my last remark
              Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
              What did they do just when everything looked so dark?
              (Man, they said “We’d better accentuate the positive”)
              (“Eliminate the negative”)
              (“And latch on to the affirmative”)
              Don’t mess with Mister In-Between (No!)
              Don’t mess with Mister In-Between

              (Ya got to spread joy up to the maximum)
              (Bring gloom down to the minimum)
              (Have faith or pandemonium’s)
              (Liable to walk upon the scene)

              You got to ac (yes, yes) -cent-tchu-ate the positive
              Eliminate (yes, yes) the negative
              And latch (yes, yes) on to the affirmative
              Don’t mess with Mister In-Between
              No, don’t mess with Mister In-Between

    • Colonial Viper 32.2
      19 February 2013 at 8:03 pm

      as i am not a member of that party such decisions are out of my hands…

      Wouldn’t have made a difference; no labour Party members except the 34 in caucus had any say.

      • bad12 32.2.1
        19 February 2013 at 8:09 pm

        The Caucus tho did what the rules said they should do right, is there any denial of that???…

        • Colonial Viper 32.2.1.1
          19 February 2013 at 9:55 pm

          Yeah that’s TRP’s argument. By the way, just because you can do a thing, does not mean that is the thing which should be done.

          Not giving the membership a vote to fully confirm Shearer’s leadership was a serious strategic error IMO.

          • bad12 32.2.1.1.1
            19 February 2013 at 10:18 pm

            yes i agree it was a serious strategic mistake, unlike the anti-Shearer crew that comment here, there and everywhere i see the mistake having been one that Cunliffe made, He hasn’t ever had the numbers to roll Shearer full stop,

            The Caucus voted recently to keep Shearer as the leader, that’s the new rules, the strategic mistake there was one made at party level where the trigger for a leadership vote is in the hands of the caucus,

            To keep thrashing Shearer over what looks to me like His oppositions strategic mistakes seems pretty pointless…

            • Colonial Viper 32.2.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2013 at 10:29 pm

              To keep thrashing Shearer over what looks to me like His oppositions strategic mistakes seems pretty pointless…

              For sure mate. Absolutely pointless. What about mistakes like, “is there room in the Labour Party caucus for people with homophobic attitudes” “oh, absolutely…”

              • Te Reo Putake …
                19 February 2013 at 10:34 pm

                Well, technically Shearer’s correct. Damien O’Connor is a Labour MP.after all.

              • bad12 …
                19 February 2013 at 10:49 pm

                Here’s one from Helen Clark that had real meaning and real effect on one hell of a lot of people that actually hurt them physically,

                ”If those on benefits want to share in Working for Families they should get a job”,

                i aint about to sit here all night and baby sit Shearer but i think you all are being a little bit precious with the ongoing wah wah wah,

                S**t i am pretty homophobic, don’t really give a s**t what people get up to in their private lives but wouldn’t have any of them in my house thanks,

                If Damien Oconner is a bit that way too, so what, does it stop Him from doing His job, does it stop Him from supporting Labour party policy…

                • Colonial Viper …
                  19 February 2013 at 11:00 pm

                  Here’s one from Helen Clark that had real meaning and real effect on one hell of a lot of people that actually hurt them physically,

                  ”If those on benefits want to share in Working for Families they should get a job”,

                  The same sentiment would have been right in place from the lips of Thatcher, Douglas, Prebble, Richardson, Brash, Bennett, Shearer, …

                  • bad12 …
                    19 February 2013 at 11:08 pm

                    Exactly, far worse than anything Shearer has so far managed, although the roof painting sickness bene speech takes Him close,

                    That one from Helen is now why i am not a member of the Labour Party, the Green Party now get what little i can afford in the way of political donation and will be getting both my votes at 2014 which if the Green Party stay true to their principles will put ahalt to Labour’s bene-bashing ways…

              • felixviper …
                19 February 2013 at 10:54 pm

                Sorry CV, anyone from the left who criticises Shearer for anything, for evermore, is clearly just a disgruntled ex-Cunliffite trying to undermine him.

                • bad12 …
                  19 February 2013 at 11:02 pm

                  Lolz, but they are…

                • Colonial Viper …
                  19 February 2013 at 11:02 pm

                  Hey dude. Before the Feb leadership vote Cunliffe made it very clear he was out of contention. So many ex-whatever’s here apparently, Chauval just expressed it more emphatically.

                  • bad12 …
                    19 February 2013 at 11:20 pm

                    Lolz Dave C getting clever perhaps, would he have changed that tune if the Caucus had of triggered the Party wide vote???

                    My opinion is that He would have thrown His hat in the ring if that Party wide vote had of been triggered…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 February 2013 at 11:27 pm

                      And he may well not have been the only one. However, I think grudgingly that TRP was right all along – there was never any chance of that Feb vote going against Shearer.

                    • bad12 …
                      19 February 2013 at 11:48 pm

                      Oh i was hoping big time that it would be triggered as well, it would have been a great contest,

                      and although many here thought that should the wider Party had a vote Dave C, should he have been in the contest, would have won it i think that there is still a chance that He would not have as i do not see all the union affiliates as voting toward a left leaning candidate as a foregone conclusion…

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  19 February 2013 at 11:02 pm

                  Resistance is futile, felix.

  33. bad12 33
    19 February 2013 at 7:29 pm

    LOLZ, undefined seems to be my ‘new’ secret name, bestowed by none other than the ‘machine’ yes the machine (gasp),

    That’s my reward for trying to edit the last comment which should have said that Dave is the leader of the Labour Caucus…

  34. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 34
    20 February 2013 at 11:09 am

    Just finished a post submitted it and ? Page saying Closed. I went back a step and pressed home and waited over a minute. The blog seemed to be down for a short time.

    I tried to reach a couple of comments, couldn’t, tried again and did get through then checked and my post had gone through. (I had copied stuff from the internet.)

  35. Jbug 35
    20 February 2013 at 9:46 pm

    Very sad Chauvel has resigned. Not like we have a wealth of intelligent, thoughtful, committed Labour MPs in there at the moment! Interesting that the talented ones are leaving. Love to see Mallard or King try to get a new job, let alone at the UN. Sorry to see you go Charles. But good on you.

Links to post