web analytics

Rogue MP publicly disagrees with leader – party in disarray!

Written By: - Date published: 7:42 am, February 9th, 2017 - 52 comments
Categories: bill english, humour, leadership, spin, us politics - Tags: , , , ,

Naughty Chester Burrows – National MP condemns Trump’s ban, but PM won’t

National MP Chester Borrows has publicly condemned the immigration ban enacted by US President Donald Trump.

It’s a stronger stance on the issue compared to that of Prime Minister Bill English – who has only gone as far as “disagreeing” with the ban.

The Whanganui MP spoke at a Muslim and Refugee Solidarity Rally in Whanganui on Monday, where he lambasted the President’s crackdown on foreigners.

“We stand together with the rest of the world to condemn and resist President Trump’s discriminatory policy,” he told the crowd.

Showing his supine “leader” up with this public display of backbone, what was Burrows thinking? With these deep divisions on foreign policy exposed National is clearly in total disarray. Unfit to govern.

#IfItWasLabour

52 comments on “Rogue MP publicly disagrees with leader – party in disarray!”

  1. Bearded Git 1

    Brilliant.

    So how can we quickly highlight the media’s hypocrisy during the election campaign? I suggest a dedicated volunteer team of bloggers who disseminate posts such as this one to all key media outlets (including facebook etc) on a daily basis.

    I’m in.

    • Sam C 1.1

      Yep, that’ll make a huge difference.

      • Bearded Git 1.1.1

        Yeah, just throwing it out there because the Right is always favoured so heavily in the media and the Left needs to try to combat this-somebody out there may have a better idea.

    • Kate L 1.2

      Yes. And voters on the comments of articles. There must be a contingent of 30 + National trolls to every article. I’ll help. I do what I can now–but we get to the articles late. There must be an alert system to the major news posts. Organise it now!

  2. Tarquin 2

    Maybe he should have hired a P.R person to write it for him.

  3. ianmac 3

    Bill English must show some backbone and admonish Burrows for destroying the National harmony. What was he thinking! This will bring the Government down just as Labour has been destroyed by disharmony.
    So which Party remains to put our country back on track? Aha. Gareth Morgan will seize the moment!

  4. Bill 4

    And the difference between loggerheads and pushing the envelope…it escapes some?

  5. Carolyn_nth 5

    I have an idea that MPs in New Zealand are expected to toe the party line much more closely than in the UK, or the party representatives in the US. Is this correct?

    Are elected party representatives in the UK and US more free to disagree with their leader or party line publicly than in NZ? And is it only when they are strongly whipped that the reps in the UK and US will all follow the leader?

    eg McCain speaking our against Trump.

    • Andre 5.1

      In the US, Representatives and Senators historically were expected to be their own people, and party loyalty wasn’t that big a deal. The drift to hyper-partisanship has been a recent decades thing. But it’s been driven ideologically extreme activists in the primaries, rather than party hierarchies requiring loyalty through some kind of whipping process.

      • Phil 5.1.1

        You’ve missed out the critical step in the move toward hyper-partisanship: congressional district gerrymandering.

        The average representative in congress no longer faces a serious challenge from the other political party – in many states the districts are sliced and diced so specifically that it’s almost impossible to flip a district from red to blue (and vice versa). It means there is no incentive to work across the aisle to find bipartisan solutions. Instead, the real threat to an incumbent is from a primary challenge within their own party. Primary turnout is lower than a general election and only attracts the most ardent of supporters, so that;s the voting bloc a politician must play to.

        • Andre 5.1.1.1

          I dunno, gerrymandering has been a feature of American politics for a long long time. The recent hyper-partisanship really got going in the 90s, well before REDMAP and the Tea Party.

          http://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-visualization

          I lean a bit more towards the explanation that as the general public disengages from politics, and parties specifically, it’s ceding the decision making and power to the motivated extremists at the primary stage.

    • Phil 5.2

      I have an idea that MPs in New Zealand are expected to toe the party line much more closely than in the UK, or the party representatives in the US. Is this correct?

      I think you’re right, and it’s probably a function of MMP vs FPP and FPP-like electoral systems.

      • Carolyn_nth 5.2.1

        Wasn’t it always so in NZ even under FPP?

        • Marcus Morris 5.2.1.1

          You are absolutely correct. Please remember Mike Minogue and the brilliant Marylin Waring – who was instrumental in bring down Muldoon – and the fate they “suffered” for daring to step out of line. Not to mention Derek Quigley. Or am I missing the point?

          • Carolyn_nth 5.2.1.1.1

            Well, I think the Waring and Minogue thing was different. They crossed the House to vote with the opposition and against their party’s government, at a time when the Nats had a slim majority. Consequently, the government lost its ruling majority, which led to the collapse of the government.

            My recollection from Waring’s writings about this, was that she followed the party/government line publicly (on the Springbok tour, etc), until she felt it would be wrong ethically to remain quiet and continue to support the government.

          • mikesh 5.2.1.1.2

            Quigley, who was a cabinet minister, disagreed publicly with cabinet, thereby sinning against the convention of cabinet unity.

          • Phil 5.2.1.1.3

            …and lets not forget Michael Laws’ brief tenure as the ‘Independent’ MP for Hawkes Bay.

    • Brutus Iscariot 5.3

      Trump isn’t the Leader of the Party. The Presidency is completely separate from the legislature, unlike NZ where the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the largest party in Parliament.

      • Carolyn_nth 5.3.1

        True, But the president still is in reality seen as the figurehead for the party s/he is from.

        However, there are probably better egs of representatives in the US and UK speaking out against their party’s leader or policies or stated position. Just couldn’t think of one at the moment.

        • Carolyn_nth 5.3.1.1

          I was sure there are some egs of UK Labour MPs speaking out against some Blair policies. Here’s one – Glenda Jackson profile on wikipedia:

          As a high-profile backbencher, she became a regular critic of Blair over his plans to introduce higher education tuition fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. She also called for him to resign following the Judicial Enquiry by Lord Hutton in 2003 surrounding the reasons for going to war in Iraq and the death of government adviser Dr. David Kelly. Jackson was generally considered to be a traditional left-winger, often disagreeing with the dominant Blairite governing Third Way faction in the Labour Party. Jackson is also a republican.

          Edit: And of course, Jeremy Corbyn – as stated on wikipedia

          Between 1997 and 2010, during the most recent Labour Government, Corbyn was the Labour MP who voted most often against the party whip, including three-line whip votes. In 2005 he was identified as the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time when the party was in government.

  6. Morrissey 6

    The gloomy fact is that National routinely achieves near unanimity of opinion, at least in public, not because it is a more “disciplined” party, but because its only concern is holding power. The number of independent-minded National MPs can be counted on the fingers of one hand of a woodwork teacher: Marilyn Waring, Mike Minogue, and, errrr, that’s it. In the present National caucus, there are ZERO people of that calibre.

    Labour, and the “left” (i.e, liberal, thoughtful people) will always disagree about moral, philosophical and political questions.

    • Redbaiter 6.1

      “The gloomy fact is that National routinely achieves near unanimity of opinion, at least in public, not because it is a more “disciplined” party, but because its only concern is holding power. ”

      That is correct Morrisey. They disgust me.

      They stand for nothing, and its time they were dumped and their places taken by people who do care.

      I’m completely done with the turncoat party.

      Even ex Australian labor leader Mark Latham has better ideas than the National Party.

      • Morrissey 6.1.1

        Nice to hear from you again, Redbaiter. It’s been a very long time, my friend.

        • Redbaiter 6.1.1.1

          Congratulations on your success in driving the National party further to the left than its ever been in its history.

          They have no answer to the left’s strategy of gradualisation.

          Although the Labour Party here in NZ would be in power if they had a leader like Mark Latham.

          Replacing traditional Labour party values with identity politics does not win you any votes from the working class.

          Your party is infested with out of touch academia and it is this that keeps you from power.

          The longer you listen to inner city progressives, the longer the National Party will stay in power.

          You’re just not offering any political differences that are important enough to the working class.

  7. Sigh 7

    This hypocrisy is real, but it also shows why the people within Labour attacking Labour so publicly on something they know so little about are causing immense damage to the work all of us do to build a better country.

    They seem to think that their view (unfounded and unresearched) that one man’s apology wasn’t genuine enough is worth sinking the party in election year. Unbelievable stupidity and selfishness.

  8. Keith 8

    Is this post an ironic laugh at the tiny vibration of a Nat MP, who is retiring anyway, having a vaguely different opinion to that of his leader, who might I add will be PM of Nationals 4th term government, versus the 10 on the Richter Scale earthquake by Poto that just ended Labours chances this time around of changing this bloody awful government by launching a PR campaign that not just undermind her leader but blew the ground away beneath him completely and also in essence ended his leadership?

    If so its pretty sick humour!

    • xanthe 8.1

      Poto did not destroy labours credibility for 2017, Andrew did that when he brought on greg oconnor and willie jackson, both of whom are far right pricks. what on earth was Andrew thinking. Poto did the right thing .. and got smacked down for it which just makes it worse.

      • Keith 8.1.1

        Yep she guaranteed 3 more years,at least of National. Well fucking done!

      • mac1 8.1.2

        “far right wing pricks”, xanthe?

        I feel that is over the top as a description. ‘Far right’ should be reserved for those who deserve it.

        How do Jackson and O’Connor fit into the category below? Remember that there has always been a traditional Labour voter who is socially conservative, even offensively so, who may well deserve the ‘prick’ description.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

      • mikesh 8.1.3

        I wouldn’t regard O’Connor as “far right”. His public persona is coloured by the fact that he was spokesman for the police union, and the fact that he had to side with cops on many issues.

        • Keith 8.1.3.1

          You have the love the ironic nature of liberal lefts who believe that are the anointed ones when it comes to inclusion and tolerance. Once a mans former occupation is known, in O’Connors case as a Policeman, well then all the love and understanding is replaced by your average Klansman’s Grand Cyclops prejudiced discriminatory hateful views of the world.

          What they want to say is this far right prick O’Connor was a “Pig” and cops cannot be tolerated in the Labour Party. A cop, who whilst they were tucked up in bed at night dreaming of a party that will create heaven on earth with policies enshrining equality for transgender hedgehogs, was walking into the middle of domestic violence incidents at great personal risk to drag some angry man whose half beaten to death his woman or half a hundred other unpleasant jobs to keep civil society standing upright.

          I have heard and spoken to O’Connor. He is an extremely careful operator who is very measured in his approach and very well politically connected. He is no fool. And should he be elected would be about the foremost person on police and law and order in any government we have had. As said by someone above there are a great many socially conservative and not so conservative Labour voters who would greatly appreciate the likes and experience of Greg O’Connor!

          • Morrissey 8.1.3.1.1

            I have heard and spoken to O’Connor. He is an extremely careful operator who is very measured in his approach

            Nonsense. O’Connor, just like those craven “Fraternal Order of Police” spokesmen in Chicago, St Louis and similar lawless jurisdictions in the U.S., has reflexively and immediately backed even the most extreme and cruel police brutality against defenceless citizens. It would be better for him if supporters like you were able to excuse his actions as merely thoughtless; the fact that he is, as you say, “extremely careful” and “very measured in his approach” only underlines his unfitness to stand for a party which is supposed to embrace justice and human rights.

            … and very well politically connected.

            So what?

            He is no fool.

            That’s a stubborn statement of faith if ever there was one.

            • Keith 8.1.3.1.1.1

              Whatever, “backed the most extreme and cruel police brutality against defenseless citizens”. Back up that load of bullshit with some substance!

              But yeah he’s a cop mate, nuf said eh?

              • Morrissey

                But yeah he’s a cop mate, nuf said eh?

                No, you simpleton, that’s not the reason I and many others despise him and reject his claims to represent us. There are good cops and bad cops. The good cops do not, for instance, taser helpless individuals for no reason other than that they have used bad language, and good cops don’t pick on people just because they’re Maori or Polynesian.

                And good cops don’t support the bad cops by going on radio—usually friendly and uncritical platforms like those provided by Larry “Lackwit” Williams on NewstalkZB or Jim Mora on RNZ National—and implacably defending their crimes, and pouring filth on the reputations of their victims, as O’Connor has done repeatedly.

                • Keith

                  As I said back what you said about O’Connor up with substance, not vague cop hating myths. He has never backed any cop tasering people because they are Maori or Polynesian or because they used bad language, ever. Or poured filth on victims or even repeatedly.

                  Do not whatever you do let the facts get in the way of a good story. Fuck it’s like reading a John Key biography!

                  • …back what you said about O’Connor up with substance…

                    Ha ha, you’ll be lucky mate. Morrissey has spoken!

                    I can only assume that the pearl-clutchers horrified that union representative O’Connor dared to support members of his union in the nation’s media either don’t know what a union is and how it works, or haven’t bothered engaging their brains before typing.

                  • McFlock

                    While I tend to agree with Milt about Moz’s reliability, the laws of probability have finally caught up with him on this one, and he actually has a bit of a point.

                    Greg O’conner was much more ‘my members can do no wrong’ than most union delegates I’ve met or even heard of.

                    For example.

                    • Keith

                      Unsure who “Eddie” is but it is accurate to say O’Connor is privileged to information that never makes it to the public and as he has said repeatedly, there is always more than one side to a story. As I said, this man is careful with his words and by virtue his own reputation and never once have I seen him backing someone who has intentionally done wrong.

                    • McFlock

                      There might be more than one side to a story, but if you’re arguing that the police should be able to break the law in order to gain a conviction, you’re on the wrong damned side.

      • Brutus Iscariot 8.1.4

        ” far right pricks”

        Shark officially jumped…

  9. xanthe 9

    The beauty of Littlies plan is breathtaking, while everyone is focused on the huge insult to identity politics of a dimwitted blustering buffoon…… meanwhile the real rat greg oconnor now has a free pass… brilliant play!

    • Morrissey 9.1

      Anyone that has heard him speak over the last few years knows that O’Connor is also a dimwitted blustering buffoon.

  10. Pat 10

    so “National did it too”…*headdesk*

  11. mlpc 11

    Nice try at deflecting attention, and I know you need cheering up, but this is not remotely comparable to the Little/Jackson fiasco.

    Borrows’ comments went further than English has been publicly prepared to go, but they do not amount to anything like the overt criticism that Little has faced from within.
    There’s been more deep discontent reported today.

    Now, which party did you say is in total disarray?

    [lprent: Perhaps you should read the categories used on the post. Are you against humour? ]

  12. HDCAFriendlyTroll 12

    Sigh, how is this undermining Bill English’s leadership? It’s not like Chester’s questioning a major decision by English now is it?

    In any case both Poto and Chester should go. Poto for undermining Little and Chester for being an idiot.

    [lprent: Perhaps you should read the categories used on the post. ]

  13. Bob 13

    So, Chester Burrows agrees with his Party Leader (both disagree with the ban, as stated), but used the word condemn while doing it.
    Who cares?

    Let’s compare this to the recent Labour situation:

    Party Leader announces a new Labour List MP who will be given a “winnable” list position even though he is not yet a Party member. A sitting Labour MP openly disagrees with Party Leaders decision even after Party Leader ‘had spoken to her previously about Jackson’s possible candidacy’ (clearly that went well), and Party Leader has to have second chat with Labour MP next week to clear up what he obviously didn’t clear up with her the first time around.
    Meanwhile, ‘Labour Party president Nigel Haworth said Willie Jackson’s candidacy was not a done deal’ completely undermining the press release of the Party Leader. What happened to Labour’s much vaunted ‘democratic selection process’ in all of this?

    Tell me again Natwatch, which Party is in disarray?

    [lprent: You appear to have read the post. But clearly not closely enough. Perhaps you should read the categories used. ]

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts