Shearer confirmed

Written By: - Date published: 10:24 am, February 4th, 2013 - 511 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

According to, Patrick Gower David Shearer has be confirmed in the leadership vote this morning.

There’s no sign of the voting numbers yet but this offers certainty going into 2014. Let’s hope he shows some steel in his reshuffle and puts together the best team to take it to the tories in 2014.

Congratulations David, now it’s time to do the hard yards.

Update: Stuff reports an “overwhelming” majority.

511 comments on “Shearer confirmed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. r0b 1
    4 February 2013 at 10:31 am

    OK, so that’s done. I know the outcome won’t please everyone here, but I ask those who aren’t DS fans to consider now what’s best for the Left (not just Labour, but the Left) over the months ahead.

    • One Tāne Huna 1.1
      4 February 2013 at 10:33 am

      What’s best for the Left?

      The Green Party.

    • Yawn 1.2
      4 February 2013 at 10:39 am

      what’s best for the Left probably isn’t a party whose caucus blocks the membership’s clear desire for a say on the leadership.

      You know, the Greens let their members vote on the co-leaders every year….

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.3
      4 February 2013 at 10:42 am

      but I ask those who aren’t DS fans to consider now what’s best for the Left (not just Labour, but the Left) over the months ahead.

      Good luck with that. Really.

    • Colonial Weka 1.4
      4 February 2013 at 11:03 am

      “I know the outcome won’t please everyone here, but I ask those who aren’t DS fans to consider now what’s best for the Left (not just Labour, but the Left) over the months ahead.”

      What does that mean to you r0b?

      • r0b 1.4.1
        4 February 2013 at 11:35 am

        I’m a hopeless idealist CW. What I think is best for the Left is for Labour supporters to unify round Shearer and give the party their all. For Labour and the Greens to formalise a strategy of cooperation, and present a unified front as a government in waiting. For them to work together to highlight how completely crap the current Nat government is, and to present bold new policies for social democratic, environmentally aware and sustainable change.

        Like I said, a hopeless idealist.

        Sigh.

        • Colonial Weka 1.4.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 12:03 pm

          Thanks r0b. But I’m not really getting this (from you and others). The only thing that has changed from yesterday is that Shearer has been confirmed leader. Why do people think this will mean a change in policy development or in how Labour relates with the GP?

          Honestly, I’m not understanding where people are coming from on this at all. Can you please explain your thinking?

          • r0b 1.4.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 4:19 pm

            I don’t think that it will necessarily result in change – what I described was what I think is best for the Left, not what will happen…

        • Fortran 1.4.1.2
          4 February 2013 at 1:20 pm

          I am not convinced that the Greens would really co-operate with anybody.
          Not in their interest as they have to be seen to be different and not a patsy of Labour.
          Their make up of MPs is different.
          Most are middle class, well educated, financially secure, unafraid to be activists, tied in to their beliefs, as the only way forward in their righteousness.
          Under MMP they have worked for over 20 years to see their movement come close to political power, and to be seen consorting with Labour politically would be anathema.

          • tc 1.4.1.2.1
            4 February 2013 at 1:47 pm

            +1 this is their moment with the mallarfia at play and they don’t come across as the trougers like goff/trev/king do so why sully your brand.

          • Foreign Waka 1.4.1.2.2
            4 February 2013 at 6:40 pm

            Given the alternatives and policies presented there is no contest – labour is too much hung up on their own outdated empire building mechanism, with no real policies of any hue and I for one don’t want to move further right. So that means to me: green.

          • Colonial Weka 1.4.1.2.3
            4 February 2013 at 10:11 pm

            “I am not convinced that the Greens would really co-operate with anybody.
            Not in their interest as they have to be seen to be different and not a patsy of Labour.”

            Nah, the Green Party are leaders in co-operation. They use co-operation well within their own organisation, and they demonstrate both the willingness and the ability to do so with other organisations.

            Co-operation doesn’t mean agreeing with the Labour party, or being subsumed by them. The Greens can keep their identity and independence, still play hard ball when they need to, and yet also work with their allies as and when that’s appropriate. Seeing how the Greens and Labour form a coalition could be one of the most interesting aspects of the next electoral cycle (expect some ground-breaking things to occur).

            Unfortunately I suspect that the great good for the left, and for NZ politics, that could have come from that will be substantially limited by the current Labour leadership (not just Shearer). I don’t trust the current lot to do anything other than play the game for their own ends. If we get really lucky the GP will have enough party vote clout to force Labour into a decent coalition, but it’s not likely to reach the potential of two coalition partners who genuinely know how to work with each co-operatively.

        • Blue 1.4.1.3
          4 February 2013 at 2:07 pm

          What I think is best for the Left is for Labour supporters to unify round Shearer and give the party their all.

          Been there, done that – under Phil Goff’s leadership. The only problem was that we still lost.

          How many more useless leaders do we have to rally behind? Are we going to be asked to get our pom-poms out for David Parker in 2017?

        • Dr Terry 1.4.1.4
          4 February 2013 at 3:43 pm

          rOb – the best word here is “sigh”. I admire anybody for having ideals and I take none of that away from you. But I cannot help thinking your message above could just as well have applied to Phil Goff not so many years ago. I am more cynical than you unfortunately,and am inclined to say “Welcome back John Key 2014” with huge regret. My ideals are reserved for the Greens.

        • Tiresias 1.4.1.5
          4 February 2013 at 8:45 pm

          “What I think is best for the Left is for Labour supporters to unify round Shearer and give the party their all.” – r0b

          Problem is that you elect Chairmen, spokesmen, Head-boys, first-violins, Boards of Trustees. You can’t elect a ‘leader’. A leader elects himself, by leading.

          Having to exhort others to “unify around” a leader just means he isn’t leading.

    • The Fan Club 1.5
      4 February 2013 at 11:13 am

      Hahaha, this is not going to happen. Y’all have wound up the rubes, dangled all sorts of carrots in front of them, convinced them this is a fight for the soul of the party, and now you’re telling them that it’s not that big a deal and now we’ve lost to go home quietly?

      Not going to happen. Shearer’s the big bad, the neo-liberal devil. And Mallard and King are witches at his Black Mass.

      So yeah, have fun watching the Standard commenters lose their shit even as the more in-touch writers start to walk back the crazy in a vague (and I suspect deluded) hope that this year they can get back into the mainstream of the party.

      • IrishBill 1.5.1
        4 February 2013 at 11:23 am

        I had thought you were a Shearer supporter but now I’m beginning to suspect you’re a sophisticated tory troll because if anything will turn this into a Pyrrhic victory for Shearer it’s the line you’re taking.

        • The Fan Club 1.5.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 11:31 am

          Dude if I thought anyone actually read this shit that wasn’t already either a nutter or In Play, then the line, like all good, disciplined members, would be: Shearer’s going to lead us to victory in 2014 as a unified team.

          But it’s a collection of hacks and crazies, so I don’t really mind saying what I think. And it’s not like I’m speaking for the Leader’s Office or anything. I’m just a member.

        • One Tāne Huna 1.5.1.2
          4 February 2013 at 11:34 am

          +1

          Another possibility is that Fan Boy is showing all the symptoms of life in the bunker. The enemy within etc etc…

      • r0b 1.5.2
        4 February 2013 at 11:37 am

        Y’all have wound up the rubes

        Not me, Fan Club, not me.

        • The Fan Club 1.5.2.1
          4 February 2013 at 11:39 am

          Yeah, that’s true, and I apologise for the broad brush approach.

          • Pascal's bookie 1.5.2.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 11:42 am

            Though it’s interesting to note how you view the punters.

            • The Fan Club 1.5.2.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 11:52 am

              Pascal, you’re a bright enough guy. Look around you at the other people writing here. There’s 9/11 Truthers. There’s various weird banking obsessives. There are a surprising number of people who have difficulty with basic grammar and punctuation. It’s not exactly the drawing room of the Goncourts here.

              The Standard comments section just doesn’t have much to do with the vast bulk of the punters in NZ, or even the vast bulk of the Labour Party.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                4 February 2013 at 12:05 pm

                And yet, how did that vote go at conference, and why does the leadership fear going to the broader party to confirm Sheaer’s leadership?

                You can’t make claims about the broader party’s support while at the same time saying that the conference vote was an attemted coup.

                Well you can, obviously, because people are doing it. But it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

                • The Fan Club …
                  4 February 2013 at 12:10 pm

                  In fact the vote at conference was lost if you count the rank and file members. It only passed on the block vote of the (to use a traditional left wing term) union bureaucracy.

                  So there’s that.

                  Also the claim isn’t that everyone who voted aye was so voting in an attempt to roll Shearer. The claim is that Cunliffe was running a coup, which is a different thing.

                  I note that you aren’t really coming out in defence of the Truthers or the banking obsessives or the paranoiacs here.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    4 February 2013 at 12:13 pm

                    So there’s what, exactly?

                    Explain the logic.

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:20 pm

                      I have no idea what on earth you want me to explain. The concept that unions are not exactly citadels of transparency? The idea that Cunliffe was trying to roll Shearer?

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:23 pm

                      So comrades, once we’ve purged the members, we must destroy the unions.

                      What a tool.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:27 pm

                      I have no idea what on earth you want me to explain

                      What your argument is.

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:32 pm

                      I have no idea what the fuck you’re on about. Let’s get back to the main point: the majority of commenters here really are loons.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:37 pm

                      Eh?

                      You have no idea what is meant by someone saying:

                      “explain that thing you just said”

                      And I was talking about how what you say, reveals what you think, so it’s exactly on topic.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:38 pm

                      “…the vote at conference was lost ..”

                      Loons who can scroll up to figure out what “logic” PB is questioning.

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:39 pm

                      I have no idea how you fail to understand: the r&f membership at conference voted against the motion, it only carried on the union block vote, therefore it is not accurate to use the outcome of that vote as a guide to the opinion of the r&f membership.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:47 pm

                      “…it only carried on the union block vote, and all the other people who voted ‘yes’” FIFY

                      A bit like the way Shearer was elected leader then. No, wait…

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 February 2013 at 12:50 pm

                      Let’s unpack this a bit shall we, seeing you clearly are having some difficulty.

                      Do you think it is legitiamate that unions play the role they play in the NZ Labour party?

                      When you think ‘broader party’ do you include the unions in that thought?

                      And on another note:

                      Do you think leadership challanges should be done through an open process, or should they be National party style coups? Or do you find the very notion of leadership challenges to be treasonous to the party good?

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 1:02 pm

                      Like all good leftwing Labour constituency members I think the union block vote is an oligarchical tool of the union careerist hierarchy. I welcome the involvement of union r&f in the party, but given that the unions often appear determined to prevent that happening it’s hardly me you should be quizzing.

                      I try not to think broader party, it’s an ugly phrase.

                      Like the majority of the party, I think leadership challenges should be handled openly, and restricted to certain times. Cunliffe, of course, failed both of those tests.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      4 February 2013 at 1:08 pm

                      “…often appear determined to prevent that happening…”

                      [citation needed]

                      A citation is also needed regarding Cunliffe, but that would ruin your whole narrative – because you can’t provide one. \

                      I suggest you take the wingnut approach of simply repeating the same lie over and over again. It suits you. Are you sure you’re in the right party?

                    • Anne …
                      4 February 2013 at 1:09 pm

                      : the r&f membership at conference voted against the motion, it only carried on the union block vote, therefore it is not accurate to use the outcome of that vote as a guide to the opinion of the r&f membership.

                      This nutter TFC is definitely on another planet! He/she also has eye-sight, hearing and general cognizance problems. Either that, or he/she wasn’t even at the conference and (as usual) is talking through one enormous hole in his/her head.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 February 2013 at 1:18 pm

                      “good leftwing Labour constituency ”

                      You done gone and spelled ‘university young labour careerist fuckwit’ wrong. Your massively long typo means something completely different.

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 1:23 pm

                      WTF you do know that the union block vote is traditionally hated by the constituency left? Because as a tool of the union bureaucracy it’s traditionally been used to shut down r&f desire for real left wing policy.

                      Again, you’re not defending the practice of the Affiliates deciding how they will exercise their members’ votes at conference in a smokey room on the Friday. (Word is that the EPMU executive were very unimpressed with the way their delegates voted. And apparently the Servos had a proper blow up later about the whole thing. Not exactly democratic, transparent good government is it?)

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      4 February 2013 at 1:25 pm

                      “traditionally”

                      “apparently”

                      We’ll just take your (weasel) words for that shall we?

                      On second thoughts…

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 February 2013 at 1:31 pm

                      Seems to me the ‘constituency left’ (now there is an ugly fucking phrase, funny how you find ‘broad’ to be awful, and that to be fine and dandy. Your language really is quite revealing), are pretty bloody hopeless to be honest.

                  • The Fan Club …
                    4 February 2013 at 1:41 pm

                    Uh, Pascal, you’re not exactly bearing news there. It’s a traditional lost cause, yes.

                    • vto …
                      4 February 2013 at 2:31 pm

                      Hey mrs fan club, if you knew you’re history you would realise that the so-called “loons” are where change in society stem from. From their ideas, their original (or you would say, loonie) thoughts, their activism. Those sticking with current orthodoxy and thinking get stuck in current orthodoxy and thinking. Pick a change, any change, and see what you find ….. You might like to try the vote for a start, or perhaps social welfare, or gay rights, on it goes. Or, in a non-political sphere, the property market – follow the hippies. Where they live is where the joe-average punter (especially the rich ones) end up further down the track when they realise the hippies were right e.g. Waiheke.

                      As far as I’m concerned the true loons are the ones who dismiss these people as loons.

                      Adios loonie

                  • David H …
                    4 February 2013 at 3:07 pm

                    No FC that nasty POS Gower insisted that Cunliffe was running a coup.

              • geoff …
                4 February 2013 at 2:57 pm

                It’s called humanity.

              • Dr Terry …
                4 February 2013 at 3:49 pm

                TFC – The vast number of Standard comments clearly indicate that these are genuinely “representative” of the bulk of the Labour Party, the same Party which was not given any say today.

  2. CV - Real Labour 2
    4 February 2013 at 10:34 am

    Congratulations go to David Shearer and Grant Robertson. Now let’s get some unflinching left wing policies out to the electorate ASAP and kick these bloody Tories out of power.

  3. Peter 3
    4 February 2013 at 10:39 am

    I’m very disappointed at this outcome, but we have to think of the future for the Left. I can’t see much future for Labour to be honest now. It’s historical mission may have reached its conclusion. A party cannot continue when there’s a such a giant split between it and its membership.

    The first thing that occurs to me are the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who joined the NZLP to have a vote on the leadership – specifically to vote Shearer out. This number will also include those people who have remained in Labour specifically to vote Shearer out. Where will these people go?

    Well, I think a fair proportion of them will now walk to the Greens, or just won’t contribute at all. Some may stay and rankle within Labour, or like, me occasionally vent their frustrations on forums such as this.

    But yeah, if there’s any democratic socialism left in this country now, it’ll be coming through a different vehicle.

    Thanks Caucus, for standing up for your hard working members. Now I know a bit how Anderton felt in 1987…

    • McFlock 3.1
      4 February 2013 at 12:22 pm

      Hundreds if not thousands joined labour in the past year? Really? To use a tried and true internet expression of scepticism and request for evidence to support an unlikely assertion: “dox, plox”.

      • CV - Real Labour 3.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 12:43 pm

        I’ve spoken to the people at head office who were flat out for a few weeks processing new member forms. I reckon they were putting through more than three a day.

        • McFlock 3.1.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 1:11 pm

          3 times 21 = 63.

          2012 Labour Party membership (meh, wikipedia): 56,741

          Shearer(/mallard/whomever today’s devil may be) isn’t exactly looking imperilled by the movement to join for change.

          • IrishBill 3.1.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 1:24 pm

            That’s counting affiliates, McFlock. If you take the unions out my estimation is that financial r&f membership is under 10,000 possibly as low as 5000.

            It’s my understanding that following conference several hundred new members signed up. Of course you are assuming that a large membership is sought by the parliamentary arm. I don’t believe that is always the case.

            • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 1:38 pm

              ah – I thought it sounded a bit high.

              So basically, the rush to join labour and get rid of Shearer resulted in a net change in direct party membership that might have entered the double digit percentages.

              I’m just suggesting that the membership groundswell against shearer seems to be a bit imprecise. At the moment it’s gone from “if not thousands” down to “three or more a day for a few weeks” back up to “several hundred”.

              And, of course, people who were members before the conference voted against today’s vote being a full-party vote.

              • IrishBill …
                4 February 2013 at 1:47 pm

                I don’t see why you’re seeing a surge in membership as a bad sign. I would have attributed a lot of it to the fact that the rules changed to give members greater say in the party and that attracted a lot of democratically minded people.

                • McFlock …
                  4 February 2013 at 1:55 pm

                  Peter’s statement was that hundreds if not thousands joined labour to vote shearer out.

                  I think that was more projection than reality.

                  • IrishBill …
                    4 February 2013 at 2:05 pm

                    It was hundreds. As you point out that’s heading toward a double digit percentage increase. I think that’s a good thing. Do you?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 4:15 pm

                      Membership up? Of course good, except for nact.

                      Assuming specific motives to each and every one of those members, simply because you agree with those motives?
                      Nope. Not useful.

                      Predicting electoral calamity based on exaggerated estimates of the number of new members about whom one assumes a very particular motive that one happens to personally agree with?
                      I suppose one could do worse for political analysis. Maybe an uncritical and absolute belief in everything Gower says? You’d have to work hard, though.

                    • IrishBill …
                      4 February 2013 at 4:19 pm

                      I don’t get the Gower comment. Can you elucidate?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 4:30 pm

                      I think that many of Gower’s stories are sensationalised guesswork (if not complete crap). Some of them fair guesses, but guesswork nonetheless.

                      At least wishful thinking based on the projected motives of a disillusioned Labour sympathiser has some tenuous link to the beliefs of the Labour membership. I don’t think Gower is that connected to Labour membership, or the caucus in general..

              • CV - Real Labour …
                4 February 2013 at 1:49 pm

                And, of course, people who were members before the conference voted against today’s vote being a full-party vote.

                That is correct, at Conference they opted to trust the good judgement of caucus.

                • McFlock …
                  4 February 2013 at 1:56 pm

                  they knew what it was when they voted for it.

                  • CV - Real Labour …
                    4 February 2013 at 2:00 pm

                    We’d probably voted on 20 or more items in that half-hour span McFlock. Some people were keeping up, some weren’t and some were thoroughly confused. But the way it is, is the way it is.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 4:06 pm

                      lol

                      And of course, if today’s vote had gone to the membership and affiliates and Shearer had been re-chosen as leader, you’d be using similar excuses to demonstrate why you are right and democracy is wrong.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  4 February 2013 at 6:32 pm

                  LOL, I hope they managed to find some. 🙂

    • Tom Gould 3.2
      4 February 2013 at 3:44 pm

      Indeed, it is troubling to reflect on why Anderton left and why he rejoined Clark when nothing meaningful actually changed from 1985. Wasn’t it Lange who described Clark as ‘so dry she’s combustible’?

  4. mickysavage 4
    4 February 2013 at 10:46 am

    Congratulations to Shearer.

    And I hope that steps are now taken to unite the party, ensure positions are held on merit, and improving the ability of Caucus to take it to the Government.

    • higherstandard 4.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:40 am

      Haha, positions held on merit ?

      That’s not the way political parties work, or most businesses come to that.

    • Matthew Whitehead 4.2
      4 February 2013 at 6:35 pm

      I’d settle for uniting the party and listening to the voices of members. Positions being held on merit has eluded Labour in the past. (obviously not as much as National, but still sometimes)

      As for improving the ability of Caucus to take it to the Government- that’s not what Labour needs, even National voters are getting sick of this Government. It needs to present itself as a credible alternative Government that can work constructively with its coalition partner(s) regardless of their disagreements.

  5. Santi 5
    4 February 2013 at 10:48 am

    Excellent and brilliant news.
    I’m extremely happy with the selection of this very articulate man to lead the Labour Party.

  6. Santi 6
    4 February 2013 at 10:51 am

    Go Shearer, go!

  7. IrishBill 7
    4 February 2013 at 10:54 am

    I was never in any doubt Shearer wouldn’t get the numbers. I was expecting 100% or close but if that was the case I’d have expected it to be announced as such. I’d love to know what they were but that’s just me being nosey.

    I would hope this means the end of the divisive tactics of the ABC and reciprocal goodwill from members and supporters.

    Anyway, congratulations David Shearer – it’s time to take it to National.

  8. VivaciousViper 8
    4 February 2013 at 10:56 am

    A caucus vote to confirm Shearer as leader doesn’t mean the tools we have will
    be put down,it means we look elsewhere to put our vote, Caucus dropped the
    ball on this one.

  9. The Fan Club 9
    4 February 2013 at 10:56 am

    Three cheers for Mr Shearer, and all that.

    Personally speaking, I would like Shearer to take steps, not to “unite the party”, but to make it clear that factional game playing won’t be rewarded in his team. A good way to start that might be by demoting those MPs who’ve wasted their time since the last election scheming. and rewarding those, like Hipkins, who’ve put their heads down and made the running on big issues like education.

    • IrishBill 9.1
      4 February 2013 at 10:57 am

      I agree, fanclub. This likes of Phil and Trevor need to be shown the door.

      • The Fan Club 9.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 11:02 am

        Actually, Irish, didn’t Phil run a pretty sweet operation around the MFAT changes? I seem to remember headline after headline about McCully’s incompetence.

        • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 11:40 am

          And yet somehow McCully is still the minister.

          • The Fan Club 9.1.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 11:45 am

            …

            …

            Are you actually an idiot? Like, do you know how Westminster democracies operate? Ministers don’t quit. They just get more and more shopworn until they retire or are reshuffled, absent serious personal misconduct.

            Given Parata’s still at education, the fact McCully hasn’t left MFAT doesn’t tell you much about anything.

            • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 11:52 am

              Strongly suspect you’re an idiot actually. Ministers resign when the cost of keeping them on is too high.

              That cost is extracted by the opposition.

              Though I have to say you are consistent.

              ‘Ministers go away through natural processes that just take time, just like governments.’

              • The Fan Club …
                4 February 2013 at 11:57 am

                Well yeah that’s basically an accurate model of how the vast bulk of ministerial careers work.

                Ministerial resignations follow major scandals, and in general personal scandals. The number of scalps taken by the Opposition for purely mismanaging operational matters, like the restructuring of a department, is basically nil. (I mean, I struggle to think of any in the past twenty years, unless there’s real complicating factors.)

                Getting headlines is pretty much the best any Opposition can hope for.

            • fatty 9.1.1.1.1.2
              4 February 2013 at 11:53 am

              Are you actually an idiot? Like, do you know how Westminster democracies operate? Ministers don’t quit.

              idiot

              Go get a coffee fanny, your stupidity and arrogance today is getting boring.

            • Foreign Waka 9.1.1.1.1.3
              4 February 2013 at 6:57 pm

              TFC – can you please refrain to address people who disagree with you as idiot or stupid? Since when is this a means of getting a point across? Or have you yet to leave your Kindergarten day’s behind?

      • One Tāne Huna 9.1.2
        4 February 2013 at 11:03 am

        +1, but it won’t happen, especially while the likes of Fan Boy are smearing other Labour supporters (not to mention Jane Clifton).

    • fatty 9.2
      4 February 2013 at 11:01 am

      hipkins will be rewarded…but not for keeping his head down

  10. The Fan Club 10
    4 February 2013 at 11:01 am

    See above.

    • IrishBill 10.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:04 am

      Actually, Irish, didn’t Phil run a pretty sweet operation around the MFAT changes?

      Yeah but he was also responsible for this: http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Why-does-Labour-hate-David-Cunliffe-so-much/tabid/1135/articleID/264472/Default.aspx

      That looks like factional scheming to me.

      • One Tāne Huna 10.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 11:08 am

        This is where Fan Boy starts to display right-wing tendencies: rejecting evidence, clinging to false narratives, etc.

      • The Fan Club 10.1.2
        4 February 2013 at 11:11 am

        So in fact Goff managed to do more to put National on the ropes than most of caucus? And he’s to be shown the door? Right… Likewise Hipkins; he made a lot of mileage on education (especially Novopay) and deserves to be given a promotion.

        I think supporting the leader against personality driven destabilisation is a good thing.

        • IrishBill 10.1.2.1
          4 February 2013 at 11:19 am

          So in fact Goff managed to do more to put National on the ropes than most of caucus?

          You know who drove that campaign, Fanclub, and you know Goff was largely carrying water.

          I’m assuming that, with this vote, many who have had issues with Shearer will now be willing to support him. His fans would do well to consider the wisdom of further antagonism.

          • The Fan Club 10.1.2.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 11:25 am

            There’s a group running a line that certain Cunliffe loyalists deserve to be promoted for their hardwork. There needs to be pushback on that one, because I think a lot of the names mentioned have been missing in action since Shearer’s election, and in many cases only got promoted as far as they did in a honourable but ultimately futile attempt at unifying the party.

            That didn’t work, so maybe this time around there needs to be consequences for disloyalty.

            [In particular, Irish, you know damn fine Cunliffe was flogging off front bench positions like there was no tomorrow. I have no time for people who lost a fight they started for nasty self-interested reasons calling for unity and making-up afterwards.]

            • One Tāne Huna 10.1.2.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 11:27 am

              “Consequences for disloyalty”

              This drongo thinks she’s in the army. Or perhaps North Korea.

            • IrishBill 10.1.2.1.1.2
              4 February 2013 at 11:31 am

              So you are a tory troll. I’ve got to take my hat off to you for your sophistication and dedication but if you think you’ll fuel more division you need to be more subtle.

              • Anne …
                4 February 2013 at 11:37 am

                Yes, a Tory troll.

                Gave him/her the benefit of the doubt last week and apologised for calling him/her a troll. Take it back with bells on!

                • Colonial Weka …
                  4 February 2013 at 11:53 am

                  Good call Irish and Anne. I’ve been feeling something is not quite right, but couldn’t put my finger on it.

                  • Tim …
                    4 February 2013 at 4:19 pm

                    I’ve a different theory or impression based on the same type of prejudices and judgemental behaviour that Fan Club seems comfortable with – but really it’s “just SOooooo uncool”. I realise he probably hasn’t read my response to his last effort to chastise me, because (last I looked), he hadn’t attempted to have the last word.

                    My theory is however that there are what I would describe as ABC celeb scene queens, with attitude (and altitude) that means they’re so far up their own arses that the hearing and ‘seeing’ qualities Anne was concerned are a physical impossibility.
                    Not only are they fans of insipid little Hipkisses, but also of the likes of Hughes, and of King. Indeed its their duty as scene queens to defend them with all their intellect – even if it means judging and applying any and all negativity to anyone that might have difficulty with grammar, or spelling, or who didn’t show the same scholastic genius as He. Oscar Wilde in His case would have be torn.

                    Like Anne (above), I too take back his feigned concern of (in my case – homophobia) – that is, if indeed he did read my response, because if he did and refrained from comment – apparently using the term Fag Hag is OK but ONLY if you’re part of the LGBTxxx commuity. Since, over the years I’ve had a couple of same-sex relationships, tho’ now very happy in a “str8” one, I’d have to identify with the “B” in Fanny’s world.
                    You’d have to admit, there’s a sense of a Paul Henry about the cnut and I’ll leave it to youse fellas to determine the reasons why.

                    What amuses though, is that this Hipkiss-like insipid little arsehole is he goes all quiet (although being a “Standard-on Air” adherent – and perhaps LPrent could check the hits) after quite obviously losing an argument logically played out (also see above).
                    The guy’s spectacular intellect, willingness to show interest in reasoned dialogue, his modesty, his compassion, if claim to ‘left-wing’ politics SURELY has to be a lesson to us all. I’m certainly in awe of this specimen
                    Alternatively – you guys could be correct and he’s simply another eeeeegotistical troll (he’d STILL have to be so far up his own arse – and I think it’s safe to say NOT others’ – because – as those prejudices would determine – a very willing ABC club “celeb bottom – pushed to be versatile at a pinch’) that he serves for nothing other than to reinforce a Waitakere-man view of the world.

                    I hope he’s got tickets to Mrdi-fucking-Gras, where hopefully he’ll get a Western Sydney bash.
                    Ooops – will that get me banned? AH well – so be it

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 5:44 pm

                      Yes I’m working for Grant & Trev, but on the side Steven Joyce is spinning me a few extra bucks to keep the flames going.

                      I also have a wee deal with Dunne, but that one’s not for public consumption…

                      (You guys love a good conspiracy, don’t you.)

              • Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour …
                4 February 2013 at 12:03 pm

                The Fan Club is NOT a Tory Troll. Look at the postings it made last night 03022013 between 10pm and midnight.
                The potty mouth is a very loyal Labour Activists in Wellington who gets very upset.
                Fan Club thinks that Labour coming third to the Nats and the Greens in Wellington Central is excuseable.
                Have a read.

                • Colonial Weka …
                  4 February 2013 at 12:06 pm

                  I don’t know if they’re a tory or not, but they definitely behave like a trool.

                  • One Tāne Huna …
                    4 February 2013 at 12:15 pm

                    I think it’s bunker mentality. We already know that Fan Boy thinks that Trevor Mallard is the messiah, as evidenced by an unhealthy fascination with who he’s “banging”. The brilliant campaign manager can’t possibly be responsible for the party’s dismal poll ratings, so it must be the party members at fault.

                    A sore loser, a worse winner, toxic in every respect.

                • Tim …
                  4 February 2013 at 4:37 pm

                  Oh I’m bloody SURE he gets VERY VERY upset. When he does though, perhaps you could remind him that he’s not the sage he’s so DESPERATE TO BE, and that humility is actually a good quality, not so bad – no matter how hard it is that you’re trying to defend those you hold dear….. aye “pet”!
                  Actually, that was a public service announcement that was probably better delivered by Trev, but he wasn’t available to have his cock sucked at this point in time, other than by Kethlik Guurl.

                  IT’s al academic anyway – Labour have deserted me so the likes of Mike Smiths, or Fan frikken Bois, or Turps (and btw – there goes a joke if ever there was), are for me..now entirely irrelevant.

                  If there was a Yellow card before, no doubt its now Red. So be it! However ….. “so” having said that, there’s probably about 20 votes that go too.
                  DS – you’re a nice enough bloke – just not what’s needed.
                  AK – you’re compassion and concern is admirable, its just that you’re idea of loyalty . v. enabling dysfunction has tended in the wrong direction – sad thing about your legacy aye, but there goes being a mutha-figure to absolute cnuts
                  ….etc
                  Let the prejudices roll. ABC might actually gleean something from them – so far they’ve really only EVER ASSUMED with a MOULDY Fran leading the charge.

          • Dr Terry 10.1.2.1.2
            4 February 2013 at 4:00 pm

            OK Irish -do I hear you saying you want Shearer in for better or worse, just get Labour in regardless of all?

        • One Tāne Huna 10.1.2.2
          4 February 2013 at 11:20 am

          You’ve already stated that you’d rather see further infighting – the epitome of “destabilisation” – than unity, just twenty minutes ago.

          To be magnanimous in victory is a virtue, but you have called for a vindictive purge. What a feeble hypocrite.

        • Yawn 10.1.2.3
          4 February 2013 at 11:25 am

          Yeah, well, when Mfat decides to leak to you, it’s pretty hard to stuff it up.

          Ultimately, the idea that embarrassing a minister over a ministerial restructure is some huge victory is part of the problem – it has nothing to do with New Zealanders’ lives, it says nothing to the people that used to vote Labour but have given up except ‘we’re more interested in the game then in you’

        • mickysavage 10.1.2.4
          4 February 2013 at 11:26 am

          Fan Club. You should learn the skill of shutting TFU and showing a bit of graciousness.

          • The Fan Club 10.1.2.4.1
            4 February 2013 at 11:37 am

            Hahaha am I actually being told to STFU by a guy that went on Morning Report and bitched about the Party? This is hilarious. We won, and you guys went off the reservation, and it’s going to have consequences, because we can’t let this shit keep on happening.

            • Olwyn 10.1.2.4.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 11:44 am

              You have seem to have a strange idea of unity, TFC; that it is only able to arise when everyone who disagrees with you has been purged. Well, I guess that is one sort of unity, but it doesn’t have much voter appeal. Those who practice it tend to be leaders of totalitarian states.

              • Anne …
                4 February 2013 at 11:51 am

                Yes, and I think the time is fast approaching when IB (or someone) can send TFC to a little metaphorical plot of arid land where she/he can be a totalitarian state of 1.

            • mickysavage 10.1.2.4.1.3
              4 February 2013 at 1:50 pm

              Consequences TFC?

              You really are being an idiot.

              What are you going to do? Take away from me the opportunity to deliver pamphlets, put up hoardings and give money and time?

          • Tim 10.1.2.4.2
            4 February 2013 at 10:13 pm

            ain’t that the truth! Still – he did own up to it all part way.

      • David H 10.1.3
        4 February 2013 at 12:19 pm

        Yeah but Garner and Gower Can’t call either of them Journo’s so they should go and work for fat boy at the Newly renamed Liar!

  11. Colonial Weka 11
    4 February 2013 at 11:02 am

    “The Labour Party has overwhelmingly re-elected David Shearer as its leader.” – Stuff

    Funny, I thought it was just caucus voting.

  12. bad12 12
    4 February 2013 at 11:06 am

    Yes Dave, bring on the policies and hopefully have the grace to have someone watching this space,(the Standard), so as the Labour Caucus can be fully aware of ANY and ALL perceived faults in proposed Labour Government policy…

  13. BillODrees 13
    4 February 2013 at 11:09 am

    Now is the time for Shearer to show his pedigree as a Peace Maker.

    Time to unite the Caucus by positioning the right people in the right positions on the basis of talent.

    Time to accept that the Party has changed irrevocably.

    Time to engage with all elements within the Caucus, the Membership and the Unions.

    That is the only way we will kick Key out.

  14. Olwyn 14
    4 February 2013 at 11:13 am

    I count myself as a Social Democrat who broadly accepts the guiding principles of the NZ Labour Party. In 2014 I will vote for the party that I see as upholding those principles. I would like that party to turn out to be Labour, but if it is not I will take my vote and my support elsewhere. I will not however, be persuaded by centre-right positioning in centre-left drag.

    • woodpecker 14.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:23 am

      +1

    • Red Rosa 14.2
      4 February 2013 at 11:38 am

      +1

    • rosy 14.3
      4 February 2013 at 11:46 am

      +1 I’m trying really hard not to see fan one as typical of the ABC club. It’s difficult.

    • Addison 14.4
      4 February 2013 at 12:44 pm

      Agreed, why are those who seek change considered traitors?

    • LynWiper 14.5
      4 February 2013 at 2:41 pm

      Me too O & others +1

    • Tim 14.6
      4 February 2013 at 10:25 pm

      See…there’s the problem Olwyn. Under the current regime, guiding principles are subservient to those who consider (usually due to longevity as poltishuns) that they’ve paid their dues, and as such have certain entitlements.
      They’ll be the very people whose legacy will be that they have been responsible for the destruction of NZ Labour. All those attempts by the likes of MALLARD (ffs), and others who claim a right to the likes of Norm Kirk’s mana are welcome to try (as they have). Basically they’re fucked units in the long term. It’s a shame that others (such as King et al) are tempted to try similar. Sadder still are the likes of the LP scene queens such as that fan boy (or should I say fan boI)

  15. Anne 15
    4 February 2013 at 11:14 am

    Anyone for a sweepstake:

    How long will it take Trevor Mallard to leak the result?

    I’ll start it: 3:45pm Monday 4th Feb.

  16. karol 16
    4 February 2013 at 11:24 am

    The best for the NZ left? My support is going strongly to the Green Party, plus support for the Mana policies, and for any Labour MP that up-holds truly left or Labour movement values & practices.

    • geoff 16.1
      4 February 2013 at 3:24 pm

      Yep absolutely, Karol. I also don’t agree with this idea that the Greens shouldn’t expand too quickly, that they don’t have the structures in place, that they’re not mature enough to handle the reins yet. Let them learn on the job, let the crappy politicians amongest them be identified. It can’t be much worse than this Labour party who have had more than enough chances and failed at every hurdle.

      • Dr Terry 16.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 4:08 pm

        karol again is spot on. To my mind the Greens are well in advance of Labour almost in every conceivable way.

  17. fenderviper 17
    4 February 2013 at 11:33 am

    Well that little charade is over, I for one never expected caucus to vote in the interests of anyone but themselves.
    Come general election time the best way to protest (if unhappy)this self-interest cabal is to give The Greens your party vote.
    If you are happy with this outcome get yourself a kneeling pad and join The Fan Club.

  18. pete 18
    4 February 2013 at 11:33 am

    Looks like Team Cunliffe are dead in the water. Backbench to nowhere…..

    Congratulations to David Shearer.

  19. ad 19
    4 February 2013 at 11:44 am

    It’s a little stunning that the careful constitutional changes put in place to enable democratic input were not able to be used. After countless posts on this and other sites, and the entire constitutional change consultation and confirmation process, the whole thing came down to … this. But that’s the measure of Labour’s current MPs and their own career security, rather than a reflection on the new constitution.

    Is there any other mechanism for actual Members to have a formal say in Labour – any more than they have had for oh since 1984? Shearer still needs to engage with Labour members better than he has. Otherwise there would be far less reason for The Standard to exist at all.

    I agree with TRP that there needs to be more compelling policy come out of Labour now. Shearer seems to have gone as far as he can with housing; National are well on the way to limiting and cancelling the political imapct of that debate.

    Shearer does need to use other MPs around him – he clearly has limits selling policy. Otherwise more good policy will be framed and weakened. Housing should have been a polling gamechanger. It had better not be his best shot.

    For the good of starting to reunify the party it is so important that the vote breakdown is not leaked, now or ever.

    For me the core test is simply whether Shearer – the leader who will take Labour into the 2014 election – will move the polls at all (of course he is not entirely responsible). Together with an effort to unify progressives into something resembling an alternative government – starting of course with his own party.

    No congratulations from me until either of those things occur.

    • Colonial Weka 19.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:57 am

      “I agree with TRP that there needs to be more compelling policy come out of Labour now.”

      Sure, but what makes you think this will actually happen?

      • ad 19.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 12:13 pm

        The housing policy came largely out of nowhere with little Policy Council input (and it’s showing now).
        So it can be done.

        • handle 19.1.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 12:18 pm

          Where did the housing policy come from then, and what does that say about the influence of Labour party members on other policies?

      • Te Reo Putake 19.1.2
        4 February 2013 at 12:15 pm

        “Sure, but what makes you think this will actually happen?”

        Because there is an election to win. Clearly, that election can’t be won on personality, nor should it be. We, on the left, are about making the lives of NZers better and that will take appropriate, acheivable and financially sound policy from the LP and the Greens. There are good signs in both party’s housing proposals that they can dovetail their thinking and the Manufacturing Enquiry shows they can work together well.

        I don’t much care whether readers here vote two ticks Labour or one tick Green, one tick red, but we have to move on to convincing our respective parties to put up policies that voters will care enough about to both get on the roll and then get down to the both on the day.

        If the left don’t win the next election, it won’t be Shearer’s fault, it’ll be ours.

        • One Tāne Huna 19.1.2.1
          4 February 2013 at 12:21 pm

          One-eyed to a fault, VoR.

          Who’s the campaign manager going to be in 2014? Do you think they might share some of the responsibility much?

          • David H 19.1.2.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 4:49 pm

            But they are going to be short people to help them put up hordings and stuff letterboxs and the other thousand one things the VOLUNTEERS do, and the volunteers don’t like being shat on by a dinosaur duck.

        • fatty 19.1.2.2
          4 February 2013 at 12:33 pm

          Clearly, that election can’t be won on personality, nor should it be.

          The last two have been (and arguably every election before that). Donkey’s current popularity is personality based.
          Personality is more important than policy.
          That doesn’t mean Labour needs a leader who will do the gangnam on the day of an important treasury report…it means the Labour leader’s personality must resonate with voters needs and wants.
          The current Labour leader’s personality must include these traits: decisive, coherent and confident. You are right that the election shouldn’t be based on personality, but you are wrong that it won’t be based on personality.

        • Colonial Weka 19.1.2.3
          4 February 2013 at 1:45 pm

          “I don’t much care whether readers here vote two ticks Labour or one tick Green, one tick red, but we have to move on to convincing our respective parties to put up policies that voters will care enough about to both get on the roll and then get down to the both on the day.”

          Sorry mate, but my party is already doing that. Yours isn’t. I sympathise, however my question isn’t what we should be doing, it’s why do some people think that anything is going to change within Labour at this point in time?

        • Mongoose 19.1.2.4
          4 February 2013 at 9:17 pm

          Wow TRP, that’s the most sensible opinion anyone has said on this (mostly laughable) thread today.
          Absolutely it will be our fault if we loose – there is too much rediculous, poisonous rubbish that most people spout off here about trolls and right wing/left wing he said/she said.

          Honestly, I only glance at this blog once in a while, and really it’s no wonder.

          David Shearer is the leader of The Labour Party. David Cunnliffe is not. Clearly there is a reason for that.

          Green/Red/Brown/yellow whatever. Let’s get on and help get rid of this awful awful government. OK?

      • Skinny 19.1.3
        4 February 2013 at 6:56 pm

        I concur decent policy will go a long way to outing National. Open source it among rank & file members for input before releasing the policy to the nation. This will give a inclusive bond and hopefully prevent rash roll outs that can be ripped to bits.

        btw TFC you are a legend in your own mind, fair bit of dribble on this thread by you fanny.  

    • pete 19.2
      4 February 2013 at 12:19 pm

      Shearer does not need Old Labour. That faction is a liability and Labour would be best served when this lot defect to Mana or The Greens.

      With more centerist pragmatism, Labour will return to being a major party, once again, and won’t be so beholden to The Greens.

      • Olwyn 19.2.1
        4 February 2013 at 2:02 pm

        “Centrist pragmatism” however, is not listed as a party value. If centrist pragmatists do not need old Labour, they still need their brand, which will rapidly disappear should they see fit purge themselves of old Labour. What then? An attempt to wrench the “sensible” label off of Dunne?

        • pete 19.2.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 2:52 pm

          The “brand” for a major party under MMP is to occupy the center. You then place a support party to the right of you, and one to the left of you. You can then play them off against each other, thus neutralising them.

          Your thinking is pre-MMP. Values are what minor parties have. The big parties are about one thing under MMP – occupying the center and therefore power.

          • Olwyn 19.2.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 3:17 pm

            This link is to the list of Labour Party Principles. One either subscribes to these principles or one does not, and if one does not, one should be representing a party whose principles one agrees with. http://www.labour.org.nz/about-us

            How do we get people to accept that these principles are the best guiding principles for governing NZ? is one question. Which principles must we drop or dilute so as to get elected on a centrist platform? is a very different question.

          • David H 19.2.1.1.2
            4 February 2013 at 4:51 pm

            Oh fuck Pete George has snuck back in.

          • GregJ 19.2.1.1.3
            4 February 2013 at 7:06 pm

            Hmmm – what you say may be true for MMP as practised in New Zealand but for most of the existence of MMP in Germany there have been large parties of the right and the left (although the left has fractured in more recent years) and a smaller centre party acting as the pivot (where Peter Dunne arguably has been trying to operate for the last 15 years). The tendency in Germany has been to operate from a base on one side and move the centre as opposed to trying to occupy the centre.

            However I think the 2011 election wasn’t about National occupying the Centre – I would say they mopped up the right wing vote and then provided an outlet for Maori Party aspirations and “used” the quirks of the Electoral system to install a puppet in Epsom and ensure the seat of the Hirsute One in Ohariu. I would say in 2008-2011 National moved the Centre rather than occupying it – forming a Right Government with small amount of centrist support.

            However I suspect what you are saying encapsulates much of the present LP caucus thinking – they want to take back the 6% they think the Greens “took” from them, mop up some of the Maori Party vote and then take the 6 % of National they think is “soft” by appealing to the middle-class and get to around 41% – if Winston is around they can go for a 2005 re-run with the Greens & Mana (perhaps with 2-3 seats) providing Confidence and Supply (I’m sure Dunne will also be happy continuing being a minister). In my view the present caucus would appear be happier with a Lab-NZF coalition than with a Lab-Green (especially as the Greens are now perceived as being more “left” than the supposed party of the left).

            Now it may be that this is the business-as-usual way to get into power (and remove this right wing government – a worthwhile short term objective) and then you move to the left while you are in power (arguably what National did on the right in 2008-2011). However I think many commentators here are doubtful that any such move would actually happen given the record of the 1999-2008 Labour led Governments (and how may MP’s from that Government would still be around) which halted the neo-liberal agenda but barely reversed it. Is there really any point to calling a temporary halt to the neo-liberal paradigm for one or two terms if they just pick up again in a few years time?

            I think there is also an argument that the Economic Depression we are in (let’s stop calling it a Global Financial Crisis and say what it really is) and the challenges of a world facing peak oil and disastrous climate change means BAU is not the way of the future – that the Labour Party should be seeking to lead a government of transformation – a government like the 1st Labour Government – that transforms our attitudes, economy and society and that they should be open and bold about it with the electorate.

            • fatty 19.2.1.1.3.1
              4 February 2013 at 7:30 pm

              nice comment GregJ…interesting

              Can you expand on this sentence from paragraph 2:
              I would say in 2008-2011 National moved the Centre rather than occupying it – forming a Right Government with small amount of centrist support.

              I never thought of it like that…do you think it was the nanny state issue that made this possible, or was it due to other factors?..also, can Labour do this in 2014 – move the centre, rather than occupy the centre.
              You also go on to mention the influence of the economic depression, which has in some ways limited, but also offered opportunities the Labour, yet they appear to be oblivious to the economic depression.

              I would say that Key’s ability to move the centre was because he was laid back when the people were sick of the (imagined) nanny state.
              …therefore, if Shearer is going to move the centre (instead of occupying it), how does he do it?
              I’m convinced that Labour have chosen a leader that would have been great at the end of Clark’s reign, but now those in the centre of the political spectrum are searching for a leader who personifies strength and coherence…Labour need a new Helen Clark, but they chose a another John Key.
              Attempting to shift the centre is surely impossible if the voters are asked to shift from a vague nice guy to another vague nice guy is.

              • GregJ …
                4 February 2013 at 8:45 pm

                Fatty

                I do think the “Nanny State” meme before the 2008 election was an attempt to move the centre. Once in power a number of things continued that approach – the wedge politics of an attack on beneficiaries and the (increasing) unemployed as being the “undeserving”, the “soft pedal” on partial asset sales ie. we can have our cake (retain majority ownership) and eat it (you can invest and get lots of profit to make your future secure), and even “national standards” in education and sticking it to those “pampered” teacher unions (asset sales are still unpopular but not enough to turn off people from voting for National in 2011 – the fight isn’t lost however!).

                I should note my view is a little from “outside” as I don’t currently live in NZ – but my observation from visiting in 2010, 2011, & 2012 was how much relatives, friends and acquaintances who were not inherently right in their views (and didn’t think of themselves as being “right”) had had “moved” their thinking in that direction.

                Can Labour reverse this in 2014 and move the centre (assuming they think they need too) – that I’m not so sure – possibly that sort of transformation within the party needed to occur before 2011 to build a bold enough long term vision. I can see why it didn’t from a purely short-term political angle – it would have meant that the party accepted that National was going to have 2 terms and that the Party focus was going to be about returning to power in 2014 – understandably unpalatable. However history would have shown that one term governments in NZ are rare beasts.

                Re the Leadership – I’m struggling to see how Shearer is really all that different from Goff – except Phil is more polished at public speaking and debating. In some ways Labour might as well have stuck with Phil and built on his campaign surge – or rather that Phil put the Leadership up for grabs but campaigned for it with some of the conviction he showed towards the end of the election. I think one of the issues for Shearer is that he is still not perceived as being his own man and a new broom bringing a fresh new Labour Party (ironic that his main “rival” in the last year is not actually even a “new” man!)

            • mickysavage 19.2.1.1.3.2
              4 February 2013 at 7:36 pm

              Amen to that Greg, particularly the transformative stuff. My own personal take is that Labour needs a leader of conviction, which means that he does not play according to the beltway rules of the game but actually seeks to make a difference. If that is Shearer then let him do this.

              • GregJ …
                4 February 2013 at 8:57 pm

                Yes Mickey – if there is one thing I really think David is missing is a perception of passion and conviction – he may well be a very reasonable guy (I suspect he probably is – sensible, compassionate and thoughtful) and over time that can work to his advantage but there has to be a bit of fire or steel as well – and unfortunately in this day and age this means being able to convey it in the media in compelling and convincing sound bites (both on TV and in the House). Had he been the leader after 2008 I could see his style working as a long term approach to re-building the party for Government in 2014 (as above while accepting 2 terms of National) – I’m just not convinced as to wether he can pull it off in this amount of time for 2014 – I hope I’m wrong.

            • Scintilla 19.2.1.1.3.3
              4 February 2013 at 8:15 pm

              +1 Absolutely. The Nats pretended to be centreish, but were firmly rooted in Actland and manipulated any opportunity they got to their advantage.

              I especially like: …”the Labour Party should be seeking to lead a government of transformation – a government like the 1st Labour Government – that transforms our attitudes, economy and society and that they should be open and bold about it with the electorate.”
              I wish.

              I think a lot of our MPs are underestimating the appetite for change out here in the Real World. Where people are heartily sick of free market BAU, whoever has control of the House.

              Bold – how I’d love to see Bold! My current fantasy is for Cunliffe to join the Greens, and any other underused talent out there – how about this guy?
              http://www.bryangould.net/id254.html

              • pete …
                5 February 2013 at 8:43 am

                They won’t. The center is not about transformation. Transformation is what idealists want.

                Most voters aren’t idealists. Most voters want business as usual with a fresh face every two or three terms.

            • Colonial Weka 19.2.1.1.3.4
              4 February 2013 at 8:35 pm

              I also liked your comment GregJ, esp the transformative bit. My problem is that I just don’t see the current Labour Party as capable of that. I think the challenge for the membership is to take the medium and long view and look at who is up and coming in the party (at all levels) and find concrete ways to support them. The ABCs/neoliberals won’t last forever, and when they eventually leave/are pushed out, there needs to be good people and good systems in place ready to step up.

              • GregJ …
                4 February 2013 at 9:03 pm

                I’m going to break a (personal) reply rule and +1 you!

              • benghazi …
                5 February 2013 at 12:58 am

                Unfortunately CW it will need to be a very long term view.

                The up and comers are being carefully selected by Robertson. His system is slick. Take for instance David Clark in Dunedin – he married Robertson and is one of his. Megan Woods in Chch – she has critical LEC members who are part of Robertsons inner network, so she becomes one of his.

                Couple this with Robertson’s (and Mallard/King) control of the new rules for MP selection where power is being centralised not devolved as most on the TS believe, then its going to be MANY years before we see the last of the ABCs/neoliberals.

                That’s too long for me to wait around helping the Labour Party. I don’t plan to join another political party but I certainly won’t volunteer for the LP anymore nor vote for it either.

            • pete 19.2.1.1.3.5
              5 February 2013 at 8:39 am

              National is occupying the center. National will always look right to Labour supporters. Some of their policies are right of center, but the orientation, in totality, is center.

              Labour caucus not only doesn’t need grass roots far left, it will *want* them to move to Mana & The Greens. Why? Because it means those parties can’t position closer to the center because their idealist left base won’t let them. That way, Labour can cast them as extremists and steal back some of their vote.

              The middle is not decided on the ground. It is decided using soundbites, mass media and cult of personality of the leader (in this case, it’s leader by default – people will get tired of Key, but Shearer is a bit like Key in terms of personality, so won’t scare the horses). In short, Labour does not need far left troops out on the street in order to win.

              Peak oil is dead. The world is awash with gas and oil. The GFC will not be the catastrophe many make out. It’s will be a slow, sideways move for a few more years, then a cyclic rise – same as it ever was. AGW is now becoming a far left issue as teh center has grown bored of it.

              Caucus have read it right. The left of the party are on the wrong side of history. The sooner they leave New Labour, the better.

        • Tim 19.2.1.2
          4 February 2013 at 10:48 pm

          Quaint as it may seem, but I sure as hell am not going to be voting for a “brand”. The idea makes me want to puke.
          And I’m tired of voting for the least worst option based on who is most likely to win.
          It’ll be for a set of principles. Though Robertson might get a look in (at a real pinch), Labour isn;t going to figure in a party vote unless they begin offering some commitments that are closer to their ‘founding principles’.

          • pete 19.2.1.2.1
            5 February 2013 at 8:51 am

            No problem. They want you to move to Mana and The Greens.

            MMP, for major parties, is about pragmatism. They must occupy the center in order to gain power. The people they need to vote for them don’t vote for ideals and principles. They vote for people and policies.

            • One Tāne Huna 19.2.1.2.1.1
              5 February 2013 at 8:55 am

              The people they need to vote for them don’t vote on ideals and principles. They vote for people and policies.

              Says who?

              Ideas, principles, people and policies; I’d say all four of those qualities get a look in, and all of them are subject to other factors such as passion, conviction and delivery.

              • pete …
                5 February 2013 at 1:07 pm

                Says the big fat middle.

                If you’re posting on here, you’re not the middle. You’re likely a beltway idealist.

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  5 February 2013 at 1:26 pm

                  In your dream, you speak for more people than your little self.

                  Pay attention: this is not your dream.

                  You have less than no idea about who or what I am, but there’s a big fat clue in my handle. That said, the fact that you think my identity is somehow relevant to the argument suggests that you may need to brush up your basic logic skills.

                  Can you provide a credible source for your assertion or not? Can you argue the point without introducing irrelevancies? Go on, surprise me.

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  5 February 2013 at 2:04 pm

                  PS: since you’re laying claim to “the middle”, let’s examine that. Labour always does a better job of running the economy than National does: more GDP, better wages and conditions, etc. They do a better job of education: no loony wingnut excuses for profit-based schools, etc. They do a better job by every single measure; unless you are one of the National Party’s clients, and even they only get ahead by bludging off their servants.

                  So what is it about “the middle” you find so compelling? Do you want things to be a little bit shit? Or are you more concerned with personalities than policies, ideas or principles?

                  By the way: saying “I don’t agree” without saying why counts as a fail.

      • CV - Real Labour 19.2.2
        4 February 2013 at 2:09 pm

        I actually think that pete is correct in the strategy here. The membership is seen as generally too left wing for where caucus perceives the electorate as being, and it would save caucus a lot of trouble if people just walked, New Labour style. The provocations are fairly deliberate.

        • pete 19.2.2.1
          4 February 2013 at 2:49 pm

          CV gets it.

          • JK 19.2.2.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 3:38 pm

            And with the walk – so go the people who get out on the streets delivering pamphlets, going to meetings, setting up cake stalls and so on. The Caucus will struggle to get activists out, but obviously they’re continuing to follow the other line that they’re “walking to victory” so they don’t need activists.

            • fatty 19.2.2.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 6:57 pm

              Good point JK

              Although I agree with Pete’s analysis that a move to the centre can be beneficial, the way Labour have done it has left them with no plan and no strengths.
              Expanding on JK’s point…move to the left and your activist base gets stronger, move to the centre and your activist base becomes less necessary.
              The problem with this is that if you choose the latter and move to the centre, you must depend on the image, popularity and charisma of your leader as the vote grabber – this is why disenfranchising your activist base with Shearer as leader appears to be a bad move.
              How will the voters be seduced?

              Charismatic leader? – nope
              A motivated activist base? – nope
              Internet? – nope
              Policy? – nope

              Basically, Labour have decided to continue with their plan of waiting for people to start hating Key…I can’t see any other method to their madness.

              Occupying the middle ground is not new. Helen Clark did this with her antipodean version of the third-way.
              Bryce Edwards looked at the move to the middle of our politics years ago.
              John Key got in by bringing National to the left. From 2008-2011, National were a very third-way government then…then the moved towards a David Cameron Big Society type image, but they are shifting further to the right every week

              • Tim …
                4 February 2013 at 10:53 pm

                you’re a bit of a smart cookie incha fatty!
                +1.
                Except that Key and the Nats just outright lied from the very start – they were never actually ‘brought to the left’ – they just bulsshitted like a used car salesman does trying to sell a lemon, and unfortunately lots of people buy lemons

        • Scintilla 19.2.2.2
          4 February 2013 at 3:01 pm

          Yet when I look at the top lot of Labour MPs likely to be Ministers in govt., I’m not inspired. There’s a few “okays” – Robinson, Ardern, King, O’Connor, maybe Hipkins – but not enough to generate confidence.

          I agree with Fatty: “You are right that the election shouldn’t be based on personality, but you are wrong that it won’t be based on personality.”

          Take Key away from National and what have you got? Would NZ really vote back in a party full of has-beens like English, McCully, Williamson, Brownlee? Led by who – Collins or Joyce??

          And what – people think Shearer will look statesmanlike next to one of those two? And has-been Labour will look better than has-been Nats?

          The duopoly have got their fingers in their ears – the bell has tolled.

          • GregJ 19.2.2.2.1
            4 February 2013 at 7:54 pm

            Hey Scintilla – may I respectfully point out it is Robertson not Robinson. Actually as there are 2 Robertsons in the Labour caucus you probably need to specify which one! 🙂

            I know it is easy to make a mistake when you are shooting off a reply (and it is an name that is easy to get wrong) but we should try to get the names of the MPs correct as much as possible to avoid confusion.

          • Rhinocrates 19.2.2.2.2
            4 February 2013 at 11:22 pm

            Robinson, Ardern, King, O’Connor, maybe Hipkins

            Robertson (correction noted) is a dullard, but given direction (God help us if he’s in charge) could perform a subordinate ministerial role well. Ardern… well, nice teeth, but do teeth make a CV? My fingers are not only crossed, but exploring non-Euclidean dimensions considering her real performance. Maybe in time she’ll prove to be competent. O’Connor? An unmitigated arsehole. Right, leaving that aside, supposing that an arsehole has a role in a “broad church” ( with lots of teeth-grinding.) and maybe he’s capable and maybe he’ll attract voters (certainly the slick but otherwise dull apparatchik Robertson won’t).

            Hipkins? An utter prick, a Mini-Me and a scumbag. Maybe as a subordinate to someone, he might be effective. As someone with a real goal, then he might be useful until his fast-approaching sell-by date. Use him for now, but never promote the little shit. He reminds me of Goff in the 80s or a younger Mallard, but with less talent.

            King? Shit, no. She’s another faded Bride of Douglas, Mallard with a sex change and a little more tact, but never any talent or integrity. So now she’s just a sad parody and a symptom of parliamentary Labour at its worst, but suddenly she’s found a vestige of a memory of what she pretended to tell people that she believed in and thinks that will work to convince the sceptics. Fine, good luck with that. If she puts in the hard yards in, then maybe – we’ll see what happens – but she should remember that it takes hard yards.

            I remember that when I was an undergrad and King was my electorate MP that she sent me a very patronising letter about how she, like Paula Bennet now, had to pull the ladder up after herself.

            Do not think that the electorate does not forget.

            So Annette, establish your credibility in those rooms with darkened curtains and on those roofs… and see if you can take your leader Shearer along with you.

            • Scintilla 19.2.2.2.2.1
              5 February 2013 at 3:09 pm

              Bride of Douglas… snort! You do a great catchy phrase, Rhino.

              I can’t even raise the enthusiasm to defend any of those I put forward as “okay” – it was a tepid assertion made as the consequences of the leadership confirmation sank in. I just read that Shearer wants us all to go round saying “Happy Waitangi Day”. He’s probably sending out e-cards to the faithful as I write. Can he be any more unctuous?

              In reality I’ve been “off” Labour for the last two elections. It seemed remarkably clear that Labour were never going to look after the interests of the working class (whether in work or not) even when they had the massive opportunity of three terms in power and posting surpluses.

  20. felixviper 20
    4 February 2013 at 11:47 am

    Best thing for the left? Easy: Labour and the Greens work together and present a unified govt-in-waiting to the electorate.

    Anyone got a problem with that?

    • rosy 20.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:50 am

      no problem with that. Lets see how it pans out.

    • Colonial Weka 20.3
      4 February 2013 at 11:58 am

      felix, why would that happen now when it wasn’t happening before?

      • felixviper 20.3.1
        4 February 2013 at 12:04 pm

        I never said it was the most likely thing for the left in the circumstances, just the best.

        • Colonial Weka 20.3.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 1:48 pm

          ah, so this is the thread of wishful thinking….

          • felixviper 20.3.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 2:54 pm

            I guess so. If you want to know what I think will actually happen, it’s more like this:

            Shearer continues to pretend that Labour doesn’t need the Greens and he continues to support and even promote MPs who publicly attack them. His supporters insist that it means nothing because he hasn’t actually said out loud that he encourages attacking the Labour party’s only friend and only hope of electoral success.

            He makes no impact whatsoever on the electorate apart from inspiring a few more Labour supporters to jump to the Green camp. Eventually the power clique in Labour realise he doesn’t have a shit’s show of winning an election and they roll him in an embarrassing and graceless ambush, but it’s far too late and Labour is stuck with it’s third-in-a-row lame duck leader.

            The Greens carry on as usual and pick up a couple of points and National win 2014.

    • Dr Terry 20.4
      4 February 2013 at 4:14 pm

      Why would the Greens want to work with the current Labour lot?

    • QoT 20.5
      5 February 2013 at 2:00 pm

      Anyone got a problem with that?

      Only the leadership of the Labour Party …

  21. Antony Cotton 21
    4 February 2013 at 12:16 pm

    Well Done Mr Shearer All the Best Mate I am looking becoming a Member of the Labour Party Because Labour Have some Lovely People in there Caucus ie Maryan Street and Damien O Connor to name a few Damien is Top Bloke and would love him to Promoted to Frontbench. I would like to see Megan Woods Louisa Wall Andrew Little David Clark Moana Mackey Clare Curran and Sue Moroney all Promoted go for Mr Shearer.

  22. Rich 22
    4 February 2013 at 12:27 pm

    Overwhelming = more than 50% ?

    I assume the reason the result is suppressed is that it’s nowhere near the unanimity the party machine wanted.

  23. red+green=brown 23
    4 February 2013 at 12:42 pm

    so nothings changed. my predictions are labour < 30%, greens in high teens in 2014

  24. KhandallaViper 24
    4 February 2013 at 1:13 pm

    The fact that Shearer wants to keep the vote SECRET is a clear indicator that the result was uncomfortably close. No surprise there. It is a wake-up call.

    The issues have NOT gone away. Most of the Members will tell you that!

    Shearer can win if he UNITES the Party (ignore King and Mallard).

    CUNLIFFE must now be brought back onto the Front Bench in role that uses his proven skills (ignore King and Mallard).

    Then, when the UNITING BEHAVIOURS are clearly displayed the membership and Unions will row-in behind a united Caucus.

    • Matthew Hooton 24.1
      4 February 2013 at 4:28 pm

      I don’t think that putting Cunliffe back on the front bench will help unite Labour. In my view, all that would happen, if Shearer did that, is that Camp Cunliffe would then use the olive branch and the status of a front bench post to continue undermining the leadership.

      My advice to Shearer – as I outline at http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/cunliffes-throat-must-now-be-cut-ck-135370 – is to try to get Cunliffe to resign from parliament, the way Key did with Brash in 2006.

      As happened in National, that would unite the party because all those who seem to so fanatically support Cunliffe will then have to give up their fantasy that he will one day be leader and prime minister, and have no option but to either unite behind the leader or get involved in Mana or the Greens.

      Either would be good for Labour’s electoral prospects rather than allowing Camp Cunliffe to keep pissing on the current leadership from within.

      • One Tāne Huna 24.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 4:35 pm

        🙄

      • Olwyn 24.1.2
        4 February 2013 at 4:41 pm

        Matthew, there will not be unity in Labour so long as you do your darnedest to turn it into a centre right party, at odds with its own guiding principles, and anyone in Labour continues to listen to you. And that throat cutting expression is just vile.

      • asd 24.1.3
        4 February 2013 at 4:41 pm

        But Cunliffe is STRONGER than Shearer. Brash was WEAKER than Key. 2 are leaders and 2 are plainly not. This is how the two situations are similar. The secondary issue for Labour is about repositioning itself back to the left thus purging the neo-liberal element out, from within. Arguably National also did something similar by expunging the extreme right out from within whilst letting go a of a weak, low polling leader.

      • Pascal's bookie 24.1.4
        4 February 2013 at 4:42 pm

        lol.

        ‘Hooten confirms Key was Hager’s source, engineered Key’s resignation in disgrace’

      • gobsmacked 24.1.5
        4 February 2013 at 4:47 pm

        Hi Matthew

        You do realize Brash was a list MP, and Cunliffe isn’t? Do you seriously think Labour want a by-election, with an angry local party having a candidate foisted on them? It would be open war.

        Unless it’s a multi-layered Machiavellian ploy to help the Greens win an electorate, I don’t think Labour want to lose New Lynn.

        • One Tāne Huna 24.1.5.1
          4 February 2013 at 4:50 pm

          Why are you attempting to engage with this mendacious mouth-for-hire? You think his word is worth something? You want to give him oxygen?

          Really, I’m curious.

          • Tim 24.1.5.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 11:05 pm

            Becaue OTH, if he doesn’t, the illustrious Hilda Hooten will throw another hissy fit and justafiably be able to cast nasturshiums about those crackpots on “TS”. Worse still, Kathlic Guurl (now struggling since they ablolished the confessional) won’t be able to cope, knowing full well that a “from the left….[insert Josie Pagani or Mike Williams]” is becoming a bit of a stretch. Worse still, that very very very very nice man Jim Mora in the afternoon might see an opportunity that not even a Slack or an Edwards could counter.

        • Matthew Hooton 24.1.5.2
          4 February 2013 at 6:42 pm

          As I outline in my NBR comment piece, I think by-elections are usually good for oppositions, so a New Lynn by-election with a strong but loyal new candidate would be good publicity for Labour. Certainly better publicity than allowing Camp Cunliffe to continue undermining the party on the hope their man can become leader (which he can’t).

      • Anne 24.1.6
        4 February 2013 at 4:49 pm

        You’re a liar and vindictive spinner Hooton.

        Comparing Cunliffe to Brash? Who do you think is going to fall for that piece of unadulterated garbage. And coming from one of the original Hollow-Men too…

        You Nat stooges really are scared stiff of Cunliffe. All the more reason to ensure he stays!

      • ad 24.1.7
        4 February 2013 at 4:53 pm

        The problem with political analysis paid by the opposing Party, is that there is nothing but a rationale for blood, blood, and more blood. You could wash The Terrace and the whole of parliament’s steps with political blood and you would still not be sated.

        Because it is precisely in blood being spilled is where the story and the sensation of victory and conquest resides.

        Because there too is the route to the weakening of the Labour Party; a perpetual spill, in which, as it has been doing, the Labour caucus shrinks and shrinks until it is simply a barely living carcass.

        Most on this site want precisely the opposite politics from you; it’s where you build up a caucus, and a party, and a country. Stone by stone. Relationship by relationship. Deal by deal. Until good policy is delivered. Where there is no blood, only simple cooperation and trust.

        You and Garner and the rest who feast on the knife-metaphors, the garrotting and hands-in-viscera moments, you represent a true parasitical evil in this country.

        As for your point about who is responsible for Labour’s defeat last time: it’s the leader of the party. The leader sells the policy. The campaing manager sets up the sale. In order, for 2011’s election, that’s Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard.

        It may well be that you have to write like this to ensure that Shearer and crew will still hire you when November 2014 comes around. Unfortunately everyone knows how neck-deep in Tory filth you really are. Count the months to November 2014 Mr Hooten, because there your own future turns.

      • The Fan Club 24.1.8
        4 February 2013 at 5:48 pm

        Much as I hate Hooton for it, it is hard to disagree with his analysis, and I suspect it’s not falling on deaf ears. If Cunliffe wants a future in the party he’s going to have show that Hooton’s wrong somehow.

        • blue leopard 24.1.8.1
          4 February 2013 at 5:57 pm

          It is easy to disagree with Hooton’s analysis. It is all spin and reads like a five-year old has written it for other five-year olds; which is about the where its at, really. Note the short paragraphs (for those with an attention span of a gnat).

        • Olwyn 24.1.8.2
          4 February 2013 at 6:00 pm

          What a surprise TFC. You seem quite impervious to the idea that people such as your good self may be more part of the problem than its solution.

        • mickysavage 24.1.8.3
          4 February 2013 at 6:02 pm

          Much as I hate Hooton for it, it is hard to disagree with his analysis

          This unholy alliance between Hooton and ABC will be the death of the party …

        • CV - Real Labour 24.1.8.4
          4 February 2013 at 6:05 pm

          TFC likes Matthew Hooten’s analysis? Say it ain’t so!

          • The Al1en 24.1.8.4.1
            4 February 2013 at 6:07 pm

            I thought they were the same person.

          • emergency mike 24.1.8.4.2
            4 February 2013 at 7:45 pm

            But CV, he began his comment with “Much as I hate Hooton for it,…” I mean shit, that’s some persuasive stuff right there… 100% proof positive that TFC isn’t just a blatant Hooten sockpuppet.

        • Tim 24.1.8.5
          4 February 2013 at 11:18 pm

          Awwwe come on TFC – much as I hate Hooten for it?
          Nah,,, ya love him even though he’s on the other team. You’re so very adult about these things after all.
          Actually now I think about it – you remind me of those war stories where a couple of brothers end up being on opposite sides.
          Same ‘mo[u]ld’, that sharp wit, that superior intellect, that total respect for the individual regardless of status that has me in such awe.

      • David H 24.1.9
        4 February 2013 at 5:56 pm

        Why don’t you just admit that you and your lot are scared shitless that Cunliffe will be brought back to the front bench and start asking some searching questions that Shonky does not want or Cant answer!.

        And I see that the nbr must be lacking readership if you have to keep on link whoring your own crap.

        • Matthew Hooton 24.1.9.1
          4 February 2013 at 6:35 pm

          Cunliffe had three years as finance spokesman to ask Key and English questions they couldn’t answer. He never did once. Nor, in the year he was economic development spokesman, did he ask ever once ask Joyce a question he couldn’t answer. So I really don’t think anyone who supports the right or centre-right is “scared shitless” of one of the laziest pretenders to a major party’s leadership that NZ has ever known.

          • CV - Real Labour 24.1.9.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 6:43 pm

            LOL

            Key, English and Joyce may have provided ‘replies’ to Cunliffe’s questions, but providing actual “answers” was often well beyond them.

        • blue leopard 24.1.9.2
          4 February 2013 at 6:41 pm

          Oh! Well done David H, it appears your comment got Hooton’s back up and rushing back here to try and paint over the veracity of it.
          Truth hurts only for those who wish to live amongst smoke and mirrors.

          Um, Mr Hooton, I recall the Q&A with Mr Cunliffe and English with fond memories, but then again, I’m no right-winger.
          He demolished Mr English.

          • Matthew Hooton 24.1.9.2.1
            4 February 2013 at 6:44 pm

            I don’t think anyone has my back up, whatever that means. David H made some comments and I responded. That’s what happens on blogs.

            • blue leopard 24.1.9.2.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 6:54 pm

              bit of a sore point for you there Mr Hooton?

              Was it the bit about being scared shitless, or the bit about your writing (if it can be referred to that) is crap?
              Hmm I wonder?

              (Don’t worry, I’m sure many readers won’t have noticed….)

            • One Tāne Huna 24.1.9.2.1.2
              4 February 2013 at 11:23 pm

              Hooten. Did you just out John Key as the source of Nicky Hagar’s book or what?

              We already knew what he is, but how does your verbal incontinence reflect on you, gobshite?

        • RedBaronCV 24.1.9.3
          4 February 2013 at 8:32 pm

          Totally agree DH. Whenever Mattie & the boys appear to diss Cunliffe you know that NACT are really scared of his appeal. Wouldn’t mind betting that the focus groups show that Cunliffe is popular with a lot of the local business crowd for his straight talking around manufacturing etc.
          NACT see these people as “theirs” as of right although I imagine that they have been copping an earful from some when they aren’t being ridiculed. Saw in paper the other day an unidentified fund manager describing the latest Reserve bank governor’s statement as “open mouth operations”. LOL not what right wing governments need.

      • mickysavage 24.1.10
        4 February 2013 at 6:01 pm

        Thanks Matthew. You have just confirmed to me what should happen.

        Don’t you think the concern stuff is a bit too transparent?

      • BM 24.1.11
        4 February 2013 at 6:43 pm

        You speak the truth.
        Hopefully Cunliffe realises the political chapter of his career is over and moves on.
        Sooner he goes the better.

        • Matthew Hooton 24.1.11.1
          4 February 2013 at 6:46 pm

          Yes, I think that would be best for Labour and for David Cunliffe and his family.

          • IrishBill 24.1.11.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 6:53 pm

            His family, Mathew? You fucking creep.

            • Anne 24.1.11.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 7:36 pm

              ….. the lowest of low common denominators!

              On the strength of that comment should he not be permanently banned?

            • Tim 24.1.11.1.1.2
              4 February 2013 at 11:26 pm

              Oops says Mathew…. I “mis-spoke”.
              Thankfully we all recognise that anything that comes out of Hilda’s mouth is mis-speak

            • Blue 24.1.11.1.1.3
              10 February 2013 at 7:36 pm

              Calm down Bill, he didn’t say he was going to stalk them. Why get hysterical about something thats not there?

          • ad 24.1.11.1.2
            4 February 2013 at 6:55 pm

            Other than simply replying to yourself, how many handles do you operate on this site?

            Invoking his family is low. Don’t invite us to start invoking yours. An easy sport for professional stalkers like yourself, but it’s quite a principle to be ruled by.

            Time you moved on yourself. Nothing to see here.

          • Scintilla 24.1.11.1.3
            4 February 2013 at 7:08 pm

            Dream on.

          • VivaciousViper 24.1.11.1.4
            4 February 2013 at 7:18 pm

            Or Cunliffe could start another party,he would get alot of support,just what
            are the right wing afraid of ?

          • mickysavage 24.1.11.1.5
            4 February 2013 at 7:38 pm

            And for the National Party. And for every rich white boy in the country.

            Wanker.

          • emergency mike 24.1.11.1.6
            4 February 2013 at 8:06 pm

            And his family?!

            You fucking arrogant creep.

            Hey Matthew, do ever feel even the smallest twinge of shame or embarrassment while you’re blogging your transparent concern tr0ll crap here? Does it bother you in the slightest that you that many consider you to be one of the most repulsive bottom-feeding leeches upon society? Or do you have more of a ‘master manipulator, playa in da game, and damn I’m looking good in this shiny shirt’ kind of a self-perception?

          • 4wardthinking 24.1.11.1.7
            4 February 2013 at 10:30 pm

            How many of the comments on this thread are yours Mr Hooten? Seems to be a few pseudonyms creeping in. That’s a dangerous game you play.

          • David H 24.1.11.1.8
            4 February 2013 at 11:22 pm

            Oh FFS just piss off Hooton, you just write drivel and then have the temerity to try, try, and try unsuccessfully to defend it.

      • xtasy 24.1.12
        4 February 2013 at 6:58 pm

        Hey Hootoff –

        Is your readership in the NBR falling, or why do you now so frequently turn up here at TS and desperately attempt to “advertise” your madly spun, idiotic, right-wing opinion pieces in that publication on here?

        Maybe get a “real” job, hands-on builders are needed in Christchurch, I hear.

        • IrishBill 24.1.12.1
          4 February 2013 at 7:01 pm

          Mathew couldn’t hammer a nail straight.

          • xtasy 24.1.12.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 7:40 pm

            He can carry bricks and blocks, and I am sure some will be happy to show him how that is done, so he can learn some “real” and “useful” skills, rather than pollute certain media with nonsensical speculations, conspiracy theories and with ideology that should belong six feet under the historic scrap heap.

            • fenderviper 24.1.12.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 9:06 pm

              Oh that would be great except the public would get pretty upset having a looney throwing bricks at passing traffic. It may be best he sticks to fiction writing.

      • kenny 24.1.13
        4 February 2013 at 9:07 pm

        Matthew, Cunliffe STILL frightens the shit out of you doesn’t he!

        You won’t feel safe (you and your RWNJs) until what you suggests happens. I think you will find that David Cunliffe is NOT going away and is playing the long waiting game; after all if he had won this round he would have to contend with the issue of dealing with the ABCer’s, which would really cause disunity in the party.

        This way he lets the electorate do the job for him in 2014.

  25. gobsmacked 25
    4 February 2013 at 1:18 pm

    You can vote people into a position.

    You can’t vote them into a skill.

    David Shearer is who he is, and that cannot change, even if every Labour member dutifully worships him and all critics are silent, from now till election day.

    It is the people who decide. Unlike most of us, they have no axes to grind. No vested interests, except in putting a tick on the ballot paper. And in 2014 they will say: “This guy? Prime Minister? Seriously?”

    But as I’ve said consistently, the Labour caucus won’t let it get that far. Self-preservation and ambition will win out. After the tenth or twentieth Shearer cock-up, Robertson will (“reluctantly”) step up. Now we just have to wait. It’s a sad and stupid waste of time, but events will take their course.

    • JK 25.1
      4 February 2013 at 1:32 pm

      Gobsmacked – do you really think NZers will support a gay leader ? IMO we’re still a very conservative country.

  26. Michael 26
    4 February 2013 at 1:33 pm

    I agree with gobsmacked: Shearer will be rolled by the caucus once they calculate they cannot win with him at its head. Whether that realisation occurs before or after the next general election is probably the only matter worth discussing now.

  27. 4wardthinking 27
    4 February 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Why isn’t the vote count being made public? I agree with CW – the only thing that has changed from yesterday is that Shearer has been confirmed leader. The obvious need for a change in policy development and addressing the division in the caucus, and between the party and the political leadership haven’t been addressed at all. To get both of these a generational change needs to happy in the senior leadership – away from the old tuskers like Mallard, Goff and King.

  28. Pete 28
    4 February 2013 at 2:16 pm

    *Headdesk*

  29. Annette King 29
    4 February 2013 at 2:28 pm

    The vote of Caucus has always been a secret ballot as long as anyone can remember and not announced. It’s not a conspiracy, cover up or even a cock up !!

    • blue leopard 29.1
      4 February 2013 at 2:42 pm

      @ Annette King,
      Thanks again, for posting here. My requests to the Labour caucus:

      Please reinstate Mr Cunliffe, he comes across as extremely knowledgable, passionate, articulate and thus competent. You need these qualities to make a strong opposition to this sham of a Government and demoting one with such qualities is a very bad look for Labour.

      More passionate opposition required from Labour.

      If you improve the level of opposition I predict you will receive more media attention and that there will be far less criticism from people on this site. (Seeing as most of it is simply based on wanting Labour to be effective) The lack of strong opposition is leading to a mistrust as to where you stand. Nail the opposition and we will all be away laughing.

    • Bill 29.2
      4 February 2013 at 2:57 pm

      No. It is a cock up Annette. A cock up of quite momentus proportions, well….unless that is, it’s viewed from the perspective of the troughers and those hanging on for grim death who are, doubtless, viewing matters as a battle won and a vindication of their arrogant and detached poltical perspectives.

      So Labour will continue to have its supporters for sure. But the numbers of those supporters…especially those engaged and giving up their time to electioneer on behalf of Labour just took a nose dive today.

      But congratulations…well done.

    • Anne 29.3
      4 February 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Delighted to see you here Annette. I’ve been around the Labour Party both within the inner circles – and in latter years nearer the fringes – since the 1970s. Some of the events in recent months have been upsetting to witness. I speak in particular of the leadership reaction (plural) to some of the constitutional changes that were made at Conference. It seems to me that a number of caucus members badly misread the delegate thinking behind those changes. There were no personalities involved, simply a desire by delegates to have more say in both leadership and other aspects of the party management.

      As a Conference delegate who was able to observe first hand what was going on, I believe it was very unfair to blame David Cunliffe for some of the outcomes. I saw the way the media pack hounded and harassed David throughout the weekend. It was tantamount to a serious case of invasive intimidation. He couldn’t even blink an eyelid without some arrogant little cameraman sticking a camera into his face.

      I hope the leadership will heed blue leopard’s request and re-instate David Cunliffe to the front bench where he belongs.

      sincerely yours…

    • geoff 29.4
      4 February 2013 at 3:40 pm

      Hey Annette, now that the leadership has been settled, is the Labour caucus interested in establishing a stronger relationship with The Standard?

      • McFlock 29.4.1
        4 February 2013 at 5:16 pm

        Like what?
        Maybe a weekly email-style update on what the leader and caucus are up to?

        Oh, wait – that already gets shat on from a great height.

        • CV - Real Labour 29.4.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 5:25 pm

          Funny, I didn’t think that Shearer’s Labour membership and supporter emails were written for Standardistas.

          Do you know different?

          • McFlock 29.4.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 5:37 pm

            Well, someone take the time to forward “Shearer says” to the server each week. I don’t recall similar posts on behalf of Greens or Mana, for example.

            Or does “stronger relationship with The Standard” mean hugging the server each night?

            Or maybe it simply means “make a futile attempt to please every commenter who takes the time to write ‘Captain Mumblefuck’ on teh interwebz”.
            sarc>
            It would probably involve a statement like “Labour completely endorses an immediate ban on fossil fuel mining and hydrocarbon imports, and will make the miners build low rent houses for beneficiaries on a UBI who have the option of planting trees to combat global warming which is a result of CIA involvement in 9/11“. That will help Labour get 45% in the 2014 election, because we all know how well lightbulbs and WFF-for-beneficiaries went. /sarc>

        • gobsmacked 29.4.1.2
          4 February 2013 at 6:01 pm

          a weekly email-style update on what the leader and caucus are up to?

          But it isn’t. It should be, then it might not get “shat on”. Instead it’s a parody of platitudes, devoid of content.

          It is an illustration of Labour’s problem … “We’ll churn out any old shit because the plebs don’t matter.” So it’s not surprising that contempt breeds contempt.

          David Shearer was on Newstalk ZB with Larry Williams half an hour ago. He said (again) that he doesn’t read blogs, because they aren’t “real New Zealanders”.

          (feel free to check the interview out online but … advance warning: Shearer is as incoherent as ever. Don’t listen if you want to keep believing that his critics are the real problem).

          • CV - Real Labour 29.4.1.2.1
            4 February 2013 at 6:08 pm

            But it isn’t. It should be, then it might not get “shat on”. Instead it’s a parody of platitudes, devoid of content.

            It is an illustration of Labour’s problem … “We’ll churn out any old shit because the plebs don’t matter.” So it’s not surprising that contempt breeds contempt.

            No, please hold back gobsmacked. McFlock thinks that the Shearer Says emails are good evidence of Labour trying its best to connect to readers of The Standard. He’s no doubt quite right.

            • McFlock 29.4.1.2.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 6:18 pm

              Any other party of the left do as much?

              What the fuck do you expect? Policy shaped by pseudonymous commenters, many of whom are probably not party members and some of whom are almost certainly delusional? Maybe a weekly confessional, where the labour caucus ritually declares its sins for not being “left” enough? A revolutionary policy announcement every single week for three years?

              Yes, they are simple. Even pro forma. But they are slowly evolving to contain links (so people can examine a point or speech more closely before comparing Shearer to Stalin or just abusing the shit out of him), and simply say what he’s done, where he’ll be, and one or two minor policy points. Seriously, what more do you want from a weekly update? A coupon for a blowjob from your LEC chair?

              • CV - Real Labour …
                4 February 2013 at 7:53 pm

                Sometimes its the only way to stay awake, to tell you the truth.

              • Colonial Weka …
                4 February 2013 at 8:08 pm

                Why the hostility McFlock?

                Comparing the emails I get from the GP as a member (that comes from the co-conveners and the co-leaders), to the email that Shearer writes for the LP membership*, I would have to say the biggest difference is that the GP talk about what they are already doing, and they talk in specifics. Shearer talks about the future (“Labour will…, Labour is ready to…”), and in very vague generalities. The GP routinely give the members clear directions on how to get involved, including how to take part in policy development (yes, that’s right, the GP want people to get involved in policy development). Maybe the LP has other ways of doing this, but it’s not via Shearer’s email.

                I can’t tell what the point of Shearer’s emails are, because they are largely devoid of useful content. All the say to me is what Shearer wants me to hear. They’re not telling me anything useful that I might want to hear. I don’t see them evolving (just went back and looked at the last 4 or 5), I see them as a sop to effective membership communication, and they look like they come from someone who wants to consolidate power not share it.

                Listening to the LP members here, past all the rudeness and slamming of Shearer, what I hear is that the members want a party that values them. It’s pretty obvious to me that the LP could be using ts as a way of engaging with the membership that spends time here, and making good use of them. You’ve been wholly negative about that opportunity, which surprises me. Yes, the LP would have a hard road to hoe at first, given that Shearer has often said that the LP members here aren’t real and aren’t voters etc. But I see Annette King fronting up here today and while the comments to her are not without criticism, I also see people expressing respect and thanks to her for making an effort. I would guess that if the LP machine did this more, it would build more respect, and the criticisms here would become more constructive. We might even see the policy development idea progress.

                *you get that Shearer Says isn’t written for the Standard, and it’s just one of the ts authors who is a LP member who puts it here, not someone from the LP organisation?

                • McFlock …
                  4 February 2013 at 8:57 pm

                  See, that’s actually slightly more constructive criticism than “We’ll churn out any old shit because the plebs don’t matter”.

                  I do get that it’s forwarded. I also get that the Green emails you speak so highly of aren’t. I also get that when they first started, there were no links. Then people here bitched that there were no links, and links subsequently appeared. Correlation!=causation, but what the hey. Maybe they could include cliff-notes of the speeches and activities the email links to, fair enough.

                  “not without criticism”.
                  lol – AK has gotten off relatively lightly. She’s merely been accused of being a trougher and bene-basher.

                  Shearer can’t even email “happy new year” without abuse and nitpicking.
                  That’s why the moderate exasperation. People are keen to write that the emails are vacuous or vague or whatever, but then do the same thing if they even bother to say what they actually want. Most attempts at engagement by caucus members result in some instance of outright abuse. And then I wander what sort of “engagement with TS” people actually expect? And whether it’s actually worthwhile for any political party to do so? And given many of the other comments about Labour that the “engagement” demanders make, it seems to me that the “engagement” they require is ‘do exactly what I say, oh and by the way make the guy I like the leader'”.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    4 February 2013 at 9:56 pm

                    I agree with you that it would be hard for any MP to spend time here given the amount of slagging off that goes on (not impossible though). But you seem to think that that is the only thing that happens, and it’s not. Do you even see the comments to Annette today that are appreciative? The ones that are critical of policy but not abusive?

                    If you have some neighbours who’ve been at war with each other for a couple of years, and mistakes have been made on both sides, and wrongs have gone unaddressed and then allowed to build up resentments on both sides…. then you have to find ways of peacemaking. On the one hand, when you finally get everyone down the pub, you can’t expect one side to stay if they immediately get presented with a list of everything they’ve done wrong and demands to make amends. On the other hand, pretending that there aren’t amends to be made isn’t going to work either. And having one of your team outside telling the local paper that the people inside aren’t real and don’t matter is just a quick way of undermining any attempt at peacemaking.

                    I think r0b is on to it – ideally the Standard mods need a protocol for dealing with conversations where MPs (from any party) are engaging with the commentariat here. I don’t know if this is possible, given the anarchic and volunteer structure of ts admin/mods, but the other option is that people like Annette take the time, over time, to engage, and in the first instance just suck it up. Eventually things will settle down, and I think you will find that many people here will tell others to pull their heads, but only if they see something constructive coming from Labour MPs. We already have ways that the community self moderates.

                    Another option is for some of the ts authors to run the posts on policy development, with specific moderation policy for those threads. Or they could run threads for individual MPs to turn up and answer questions. Then the MPs can feel like it’s worth their while turning up. I see this from purely a pragmatic point of view – most MPs aren’t going to have the time to deal with lengthy engagements that go off track, so tighter moderation is needed. Allen seems to get the balance right here –

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/shearer-confirmed/#comment-584093

                    However, if you want to look at how it can be done, check out this thread that QoT posted the other day. Gareth Hughes, going reddit for the first time with an Ask Me Anything –

                    http://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ih09x/im_a_green_mp_ama_selfredditcom/?sort=old

                    There’s a learning curve to be had for all sides.

                    • blue leopard …
                      4 February 2013 at 10:12 pm

                      @ Colonial Weka (&R0b)
                      I also like the approach of some respect when addressing MP’s although I see the paradox in this approach

                      (a) if MPs are not being respectful of the people
                      (b) Just lookat how they behave in parliament!!!!

                      Clearly they are not little lambs….

                      It makes me ponder…if they are prepared to be shouting across the parliament in the way that they do, then perhaps they are robust enough for a little of the same here?

                      Anyway, despite this consideration, (and I’m sure there is a double-standard involved too: “its o.k to shout amongst peers, yet the “rabble” should be respectful”), I like your & R0bs suggestions.
                      Just seems that it is more likely to lead to constructive interactions/effects if some level of courtesy was shown.
                      Good idea re specific moderation for certain threads. Then if an MP felt like staying “safe” that is where they could do it!

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 10:42 pm

                      R0b’s idea is good, but the thing is that commenters at TS aren’t all one group – there will always be someone to throw abuse at them, and really that has to be balanced against whether there’s any benefit to actively “engage” here (especially as any level of “engagement” will be too little for some and too much for others). And what was with all the “deleted” things on that reddit link?

                      What I do see are a number of Labour caucus members reaching out, and so on. How many greens/mana/whomever “engage” with TS even that much? There seem to be as many of their supporters here as labour, some days. And it’s never those parties abused for failing to “engage with the Standard”.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:10 pm

                      The big difference is that you don’t have hoards of GP members shouting for year for the party to be more democratic. That’s because the GP already operates in ways that satisfy their members.

                      Labour aren’t being lambasted for failing to engage with the Standard. They’re being lambasted for failing to engage with their own members. Honestly McFlock, you are intelligent enough to understand this, so what’s with the strawpeople?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:34 pm

                      A few labour members are pissed their man didn’t win.

                      And I refer you to comment 28.4 in this thread.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:39 pm

                      Thanks for minimising the fuckloads of party members and affiliates who voted for the 60% +1 threshold McFlock.

                      You’re not even a Labour Party member so what have you got to say about us you prick.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:49 pm

                      Hmm.
                      Didn’t they also vote to NOT automatically put shearer’s leadership to the new election system?

                      Oh, I forgot, the delegates got all confused for THAT vote. The silent majority done fucked up that one.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:55 pm

                      You’re a real smartass McFlock. Hope that’s going well for you.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:58 pm

                      yep.

                      Didn’t do cunliffe too much good, though.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 February 2013 at 12:02 am

                      Caucus decided not to give the membership and the affiliates a voice McFlock. Not that you give a fuck about that small point.

                      But what do you care? You’re not a member and you rarely ever vote Labour, being more aligned to the Alliance.

                      However, you will rhetorically back the centrist/right rump of the Labour Party every chance you get?

                      Nice one, a real winning approach.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 February 2013 at 12:40 pm

                      Caucus decided not to give the membership and the affiliates a voice McFlock. Not that you give a fuck about that small point.

                      The voice that the membership turned down at conference. Caucus merely said they had confidence in Shearer as leader. The conference only wanted the election if caucus didn’t have confidence.

                      See, where you get me wrong is not that I particularly support Shearer, in fact I’m generally bemused as to why I end up being the one to say he’s not the devil.

                      What I do believe is that the broader left will get nowhere if it insists on validating chicken littles and paranoiacs. All they have to support their claims about what the wider membership want is anecdata and projection. Excuse me if I don’t take as gospel the statements of some folks who took 25 or 30 years to realise that Labour is highly unlikely to appropriate the means of production into the control of the working classes.

                      There are disillusioned people here, I freely admit, but how much is actual membership going down by? Not including the thousands that joined to vote shearer out, of course.

                      I want Lab+(mana-MP)+green to be on 55% in 2014. That is my objective. And if people think a labour govt under shearer will not be light years ahead of the present regime, they are fucking insane.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    4 February 2013 at 9:59 pm

                    btw, when you get the chance, can you please link me to the best of Shearer’s emails, from your pov? I’d like to understand if I’ve missed something, or if we really do have radically different ideas on what constitutes useful content or what is appropriate from the leader of a political party.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 10:45 pm

                      it’s funny, but they’re all pretty bog standard. But they do seem to be evolving, and they’re better than the newletters that come with my phone or power bills.

                      Can you post one of the Green ones?

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:33 pm

                      Not sure how the formatting will survive…. I’ve had three emails from the GP this week. One is the regular update from the co-conveners about what’s happening nationally within the party. The second is about the Asset Sales Campaign. The third is Greenweek, an email update from the MPs. I’ll post that one (have edited some of the URLS because they go to my member page I think. Yes, the GP have member access on their website. I’ve put in direct links where I can)

                      Greenweek – Email news from the Green MPs
                      —————————–

                      Kia ora

                      2013 has started with our eyes fixed firmly on building a good, green New Zealand.

                      We’ve announced our plans for good quality affordable housing through a progressive ownership scheme, secure tenancy, and a warrant of fitness for rentals.

                      And we are building a movement of New Zealanders who share our vision for a better future. We would love for you to join us; are you in for the future?

                      Find out more and sign up now:
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/iminforthefuture

                      Metiria Turei

                      Green Party Co-leader

                      Read more about our housing plan:
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/housing
                      ________________________________

                      View this issue online: http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/newsletters/greenweek-310113-web.html

                      View on the Green Party website: http://www.greens.org.nz/newsletters/greenweek/greenweek-are-you

                      Weekly too often? Switch to Greenweek Monthly Digest:
                      http://my.greens.org.nz [edit]

                      You’re receiving the plain text version of Greenweek. To receive Greenweek with images and interesting snippets of green news, choose ‘HTML’ under ‘Preferred e-mail format’ on your subscription page: [edit]
                      ________________________________

                      In this issue

                      1. Take action: Video
                      2. Events
                      3. News
                      4. Blog
                      5. Share this newsletter

                      1. Take action: Video
                      ———–

                      National Park or national disgrace?

                      Middle Earth or Mordor? Join the opposition to the plans to dig a bus tunnel through two national parks. This short video shows some of the beautiful areas we stand to lose if this tunnel goes ahead.

                      Please watch and share the video:http://www.greens.org.nz/video/national-park-or-national-disgrace

                      2. Events
                      ———–

                      World Wetland Day Celebrate with Eugenie Sage and Friends of the Waitara
                      Sat 2nd Feb 4-10pm,
                      Waitara, Taranaki
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/events/celebrate-world-wetland-day-eugenie-sage-and-friends-waitara

                      3. News
                      ———–

                      So much for Kiwis at the front of the queue for shares
                      Press release, 29 January 2013

                      A visit by Mighty River Power CEO Doug Heffernan to talk to Australian hedge fund managers undermines John Key’s promise that New Zealanders would be at the front of the queue for shares in our publicly-owned assets, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/so-much-kiwis-front-queue-shares

                      Manufacturing exports fall further in real world
                      Press release, 29 January 2013

                      Manufactured exports continue to fall under the National Government providing further evidence of a growing crisis in manufacturing, the Green Party said today.
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/manufacturing-exports-fall-further-real-world

                      Customers want 100% pure milk
                      Press release, 28 January 2013

                      Zero is the right level for a new chemical found in our milk, and the National Government shouldn’t settle for less, the Green Party said today.
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/customers-want-100-pure-milk

                      National’s economic approach incoherent
                      Press release, 28 January 2013

                      The Government’s economic approach is becoming increasingly incoherent given its confusion over whether it’s a ‘hands-on’ or ‘hands-off’ Government, the Green Party said today.
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-s-economic-approach-incoherent

                      View all news
                      http://www.greens.org.nz/news

                      4. Blog
                      ———–

                      Metiria Turei’s speech in reply to the Prime Minister – blog post by Metiria Turei

                      There is nothing in today’s speech that offers tangible solutions to the big issues facing everyday New Zealanders.

                      http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=26548

                      We shouldn’t need to sponsor kids in NZ – blog post by Holly Walker

                      It’s good that Variety, KidsCan, and others have stepped in to fill the yawning chasm of child poverty that too many of our kids are falling into.

                      http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=26545

                      Back To school – blog post by Catherine Delahunty

                      Despite the Novopay chaos and the depressing Government commitment to undermining public education, school starts today and can be a great place.

                      The Green Party is keen to support students and teachers to stay positive and keep working together.

                      http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=26539

                      The fracking boom is here – blog post by Gareth Hughes

                      BusinessDesk said today, “Onshore Taranaki oil explorer TAG Oil is planning more than 130 new onshore wells, with 13 to be drilled in 2013 and consents sought for platforms from which another 120 could eventually be drilled.”
                      Not all wells will necessarily be fracked, but you can be certain that fracking technology has made the building of these wells economically viable.
                      This is why the Green Party has continued our call for a moratorium on fracking.

                      http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=26506

                      View all blog posts
                      http://blog.greens.org.nz/

                      5. Share this newsletter
                      ———–

                      Share on Facebook:
                      [edit]

                      Share on Twitter:
                      [edit]

                      Share on Google+:
                      [edit]
                      ———————
                      Send us your feedback
                      ———————

                      We’d love to hear your views. Simply reply to this email and let us know your thoughts.
                      ———————

                      Unsubscribe from this email newsletter:
                      [edit]
                      Change subscriptions and contact details
                      [edit]

                      Opt out of this and all future emails from us:
                      [edit]
                      —

                      Blog:
                      [edit]

                      Follow us on Twitter:
                      [edit]

                      Like us on Facebook:
                      [edit]

                      Vimeo channel:
                      [edit]

                      Youtube channel:
                      [edit]

                      Green Party website:
                      [edit]

                      Published by the Greens’ Parliamentary Office,
                      Bowen House, Parliament, Wellington, New Zealand

                      Ph (04) 817 6700, Fax (04) 472 6003, green.party@parliament.govt.nz

                      [edit]

                      Authorised by Metiria Turei and Russel Norman, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:39 pm

                      So basically it’s like labour but with a digest of press releases and blogposts from the green website, and some more activism (personaly I would like more strike coverage from labour, but what the hey).

                      Fair nuff. A bit better than labour, but I’d probably want to mix the chatty style of labour with the pr digest of the greens.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:43 pm

                      The reason I’ve posted the whole of the email is because I want you to see what is possible. If people just want the gist of what is going on, they read the top of the email. If they want more in depth they read down, and follow the links. The tools for subscribing options are in every/any email, making it easy for managing membership. The links for social networking are there, again making it easy for members.

                      They make it clear that if you want to talk with the GP about the email, you can just reply to the email (never tried that so no idea how well it is managed at the other end).

                      In emails that come out about specific campaigns, you get the contact details for the GP member.

                      In other words, they just make it easy for people to engage if they want to.

                      Maybe Labour sends out more detailed emails than the one we get to see here, but if that is the case, why bother with Shearer Says?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:53 pm

                      When the labour one was first posted here, there were no links at all. Looked like a straight copy of a banal newsletter, but it was still something.

                      They now have links to the labour website, but could improve. The other difference of course is that it’s a “personal” email from shearer, not an actual roundup, but that’s easily tweakable if needs be. I’d probably like to keep the personal format, but incorporate some of the wider stuff.

                • The Fan Club …
                  4 February 2013 at 10:09 pm

                  You realise that the Labour Party has infrastructure for getting information about things like policy development from the centre out, and it’s structured around branches and physical addresses? Paper based, old fashioned, needs to be replaced, but also deeply entrenched in the party and seen as important to internal democracy. Shearer Says is not a device for talking about the party’s organisational matters. (Apart from anything else, that’s a job for Coatsworth/Barnett, and it’d be improper for Shearer to usurp that role.)

                  I mean, ffs, if you want to get involved in policy development in the NZLP it’s really fucking easy. But at the same time, the NZLP has to respect the democratic views of members who range from Douglas-ite to Trostky-ite. (It also has to produce a coherent fully costed manifesto, which the Greens never do.) It’s a lot harder than just saying: oh let’s have some links in some emails guyzzz.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    4 February 2013 at 10:13 pm

                    So what is the actual point of Shearer Says?

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 10:19 pm

                      To communicate with the majority of Labour members, supporters and sympathisers who aren’t activists, and just want to know that Shearer’s out there, doing the Party’s work?

                      I would assume that most members are also on branch and electorate level loops that handle the heavy lifting as far as organisational stuff goes, and Coatsworth sends out regular enough begging letters.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:48 pm

                      Does the question mark at the end of your first sentence mean you don’t know and are guessing?

                      You are probably right. Shearer Says doesn’t tell the members anything, other than that he’s gone to the trouble of letting them know that he Does Stuff (for me, personally, I would assume that it was a given that the leader of the Labour party was Doing Stuff). We don’t know what that Stuff is exactly, nor why he is doing it, nor how it furthers the aims and values of the Labour party.

          • blue leopard 29.4.1.2.2
            4 February 2013 at 6:21 pm

            re Gobsmacked 28.4.1.2 comment

            Yeah, it seems to be a real no-brainer to connect with “interneters” (whoops! whats the term?)…being that it is a large part of culture for the youth of today…as well as older people. Sigh

            (Do Labour actually want to remain in opposition?)

        • felixviper 29.4.1.3
          4 February 2013 at 7:55 pm

          Gets shat out from a great height more like.

        • David H 29.4.1.4
          5 February 2013 at 12:28 am

          Well, what do you expect for such condescending shit. I mean, go and read them. A 7 year old could have written them!

      • xtasy 29.4.2
        4 February 2013 at 7:07 pm

        geoff: Yeah, great idea: “The Caucus Sings” or along those lines. A new piece every week. Singing “hail thee, hallelujah, we love our great and knowledgeable leader, whom we will follow until the very end”.

    • Pascal's bookie 29.5
      4 February 2013 at 3:55 pm

      Annette, that’s all well and good, and like others I appreciate that you don’t have to say anything here, so thanks.

      However, you may be aware that there have been a number of comments, both by journalists and others, along the lines that the vote would be unanimous. Journalists didn’t get that insight out of the ether.

      That to me is an example of what many are finding frustrating about Labour’s performance.
      Already, on twitter, opinion formers like Marcus Lush and Colin Espiner are saying the result numbers should be made public. The reason for that is that by saying it would be unanimous an expectation was raised. The narrative those comments made demands closure.

      I’m guessing the result is not going to be released and the narrative would be resolved anyway through speculation media about the result, partially fed by leaks. Which is not really what anyone should want to be happening. Another comms mistake.

      • bad12 29.5.1
        4 February 2013 at 5:20 pm

        You mean that Lush and Espiner want the secret vote to be public property so that THEY can continue to shit-stir about the leadership issue,

        Did the Labour Party Conference vote for a public vote from the Caucus, well no they didn’t,

        Anybody that allows either Lush or ‘Spinner’ to form their opinions must be lacking something, i would suggest intellect…

        • Pascal's bookie 29.5.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 6:16 pm

          Thanks for engaging with what I actually said. Oh, what’s that, you didn’t?

          Shocked.

          Just keep cheering for people who clearly don’t understand modern media and comms then. See how it works out for you. (Hint: 2011 election campaign).

          You can’t just pretend that media don’t operate to narratives. That stories don’t have an arc. That each event will be reported sans the context of the previous story ion that arc. Themes persevere, they might not be in every story, but unless you force them to change, they will not.

          When you prime a story arc (unanimous!) you do so at a risk. Politicians need to be aware of this. Accidents don’t just happen. the narratives aren’t made up out of whole cloth. They are shped by what the subjects say and do. Bring aware of that stuff is a big part of a political party leadership team’s job. If you fuck it up, it will mean you lose.

          The media is what it is. You need to understand it for what it is, not what you imagine it to be, or even worse, what you want it to be..

          Pretending otherwise is like trying to fight a war while pretending that artillery hasn’t been around for centuries, you’ll get your arse kicked.

          • The Fan Club 29.5.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 6:18 pm

            Hey ho, meet the nutters’ club Pascal.

            • Pascal's bookie 29.5.1.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 6:37 pm

              Ok wiseguy.

              Your idea is that Shearer should follow this up with a big old purge of suspected Cunliffe supporters in his reshuffle, which is the next big scheduled event in the narrative.

              Just saw Gower (like him or not he’s tv3s political editor so what he says matters) saying he thinks the Q of the reshuffle is whether or not Shearer will show ‘guts’ by getting rid of some dead wood.

              So ‘guts’ is defined as getting rid of ‘dead wood’. The leadership thing is potentially off the radar.

              How do you sell punishing Cunliffe and co, after Shearer won today as ‘guts’ and ‘getting rid of dead wood?’

              Go.

              • The Fan Club …
                4 February 2013 at 8:05 pm

                How do you sell punishing Cunliffe & co? Well, to start with there’s no point attacking Cunliffe openly right now. Privately, I’d be inviting him to consider his future, and making it very clear there’s no room for him in a future Shearer cabinet absent some pretty massive contrition and behaviour shifts. (One point I’d be making is he might want to have words with his LEC about appropriate online behaviour.)

                I don’t particularly want a purge. But there seems to be this perception that the party works like the ALP on some kind of factional power sharing scheme, and that’s just not true. There’s no reason for Shearer to promote people who don’t deserve it in an attempt to “unify” the party.

                So there’s nothing there to sell.

                • rolling in clover …
                  4 February 2013 at 8:31 pm

                  You big fibber. You’d love a purge. It gets your little heart racing just to think about it. Finally you could be the big swinging dick you’ve always rated yourself as.

                  But you’ve realised that you need power to purge. And your guys don’t have power because you’ve burned the unions, the left of the membership, the biggest labour-affiliated forum in the country, and I’m betting a big chunk of the caucus too.

                  Which leaves you where, exactly? C’mon big player, tell us where.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  4 February 2013 at 8:41 pm

                  Yeah, your ideas about how ‘power’ should work in a party that isn’t in fact a hive mind are pretty clear.

                  • The Fan Club …
                    4 February 2013 at 9:15 pm

                    I don’t think you quite get it Pascal. I want to move power from caucus to the membership. I don’t want to spend my time worrying about personality-driven leadership fights amongst caucus. If caucus can’t put the party first, they need to be reminded who put them there.

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      4 February 2013 at 9:19 pm

                      lol whatever

                    • rolling in clover …
                      4 February 2013 at 9:24 pm

                      Fuck me, you’ve change your tune you greasy little wretch. Crawl! TFC! Crawl!

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      Dude, you’re a banking obsessed political crackpot. That’s cool, I quite like crackpot economic theories but also man you really shouldn’t be going around going lol whatever.

                      Also micky, let’s be clear, you guys are forever threatening to purge the party of all those nasty neo-liberals. (Which appears to mean anyone that disagrees with the mob this week.) So you can fuck right off with the ooh-purge bullshit.

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      4 February 2013 at 9:39 pm

                      Wow, a shill for the vampire squid banksters as well, Fan Club. You really are in with TPTB.

                    • rolling in clover …
                      4 February 2013 at 9:42 pm

                      Playing The Victim? Really, TFC? That’s all you’ve got left? Fuck mate I think you should go back to arguing about utilitarianism or whatever you young-labour-vic-pols-grads-want-to-be-a-big-fucking-political-dick types do nowadays, because you’ve got no fucking fight in you, you back-crawling little prick.

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 9:47 pm

                      By the way, if any actual Young Labour Vic pols grads are reading this, I’m sorry for giving you guys all a bad name around here.

                      I’m not playing the victim, I’m just saying that you can’t call for purges of the neo-liberals in the party and then act all butthurt when the “neo-liberals” turn around and play the same game.

                    • Olwyn …
                      4 February 2013 at 10:03 pm

                      @TFC: I have never suggested a purge, but there is a difference in kind in wanting to purge neo-liberals from the Labour Party and wanting to purge outspoken lefties from the Labour Party. The Labour Party is a social-democratic party. It has a set of principles. Those principles do not include neo-liberalism, but they do include social justice. Hence you are justified in calling someone a hijacker of the Labour Party if he tries to pull the party to the neo-liberal right, while it would be silly to call someone a hijacker of the same party for publicly standing up for the oppressed.

                    • The Fan Club …
                      4 February 2013 at 10:15 pm

                      Except I’m pretty sure y’all think I’m a neo-liberal. Now, I’m not. But I can’t be fucked convincing y’all of that, ’cause to be blunt you’re a mob that wants a hate figure. And it’s not just me; there’s a bunch of other people in the party that are solid Left that you guys have in the neo-liberal right-wing deviationist bucket. So I’m pretty sure I don’t care if you’re claiming to be after the neo-liberals.

                      (Also, Olywn, the NZLP principles don’t include social democracy, and we’re not explicitly a social democratic party. The constitution talks about democratic socialism; are you a right-wing sell out for not holding to the socialist flame? Because I, personally, think you are.)

                • mickysavage …
                  4 February 2013 at 8:48 pm

                  I was trying to draft something cutting and witty to say but ric and pb did it very well.

                  I agree that there should be no reason to promote someone only because they are part of the other faction. But to actively suppress them even though they have talent to burn seems to be a major waste.

                  Over to you and yours TFC.

                  EDIT: Ooh just saw the comment about his LEC. Please detail the problem. If you wish to suppress what individuals wish to say an explanation would help.

                  • rolling in clover …
                    4 February 2013 at 9:01 pm

                    You won’t hear from TFC anymore. He’s belatedly realised how his favoured strategy has fucked him and his mates and he’s off with his tail between his legs.

                    There’s a reason Annette’s turned up here being all nicy-nice today and it’s not ‘cos she likes the company of the left.

                • The Al1en …
                  4 February 2013 at 9:41 pm

                  “I don’t particularly want a purge. But”

                  Everyone has their price.
                  Your’s appears to be a sniff at the arse of failed opposition politicians.
                  Go for it, tiger.
                  Grrr. 😆

            • Pascal's bookie 29.5.1.1.1.2
              4 February 2013 at 6:39 pm

              And I’ll just note here the irony of you mocking people’s grammar and spelling when you don’t seem to be able to work out what the apostrophe in my fucking handle means.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                4 February 2013 at 8:56 pm

                I’m picking Fanny’s still scratching his head (arse?) trying to work that one out, bookie.

    • Tim 29.6
      4 February 2013 at 5:10 pm

      Just as an aside Anne(tte)….does the Boss know you’re deigning to comment on such irrelevant media as “TS”?
      I worry for your legacy – it hasn’t all been bad I know but unfortunately you’ve shown a distinct ineptitude for judging character. But never mind – probably most battered wives could lay claim to the same.

      Maybe a change of scene? That Miramar Penninsular and environs – it was bound to cause a conflict aye!
      Waitakere Man’s view is probablt going to be one of Annie Get Your Gun…..it’s “SOooooo Uncool aye”

    • The Al1en 29.7
      4 February 2013 at 5:47 pm

      “or even a cock up !!”

      Like 31.5% after four years of a woeful government is.

      Shame on you.

    • 4wardthinking 29.8
      4 February 2013 at 10:47 pm

      Wasnt it a late decision not to make it public though? Indicates there is a level of knowledge that all is not well at mill.

    • rosy 29.9
      5 February 2013 at 12:43 am

      “The vote of Caucus has always been a secret ballot as long as anyone can remember “

      And yet, Paddy Gower with microphone went chasing DC and feverishly tried to get how DC would vote in the Feb meeting. And no-one supported DC with a “The vote of Caucus has always been a secret ballot as long as anyone can remember. It’s not a conspiracy etc, etc”.

      Even if you believed DC was conspiring for a leadership challenge it would have done an awful lot of good, to publicly support him in this. What went on privately about apparent leadership challenges would then have been up to caucus.

      • Colonial Viper 29.9.1
        5 February 2013 at 12:49 am

        After the 2011 elections, the Shearer/Cunliffe leadership “secret” ballot got leaked to the media right away.

        http://www.3news.co.nz/Shearer-routs-Cunliffe-for-Labour-leadership/tabid/419/articleID/236418/Default.aspx

        • benghazi 29.9.1.1
          5 February 2013 at 1:28 am

          Yes but the leak was all lies spun by Mallard and King. There were two votes in it in December 2011 – yes just 2!

          As for today…… The reason the MSM want the numbers is they were promised them last week when briefed by King/Mallard about today’s process.

          However, it was only today that Mallard/King got a bit worried that the vote might not actually be ‘overwhelming’ and changed things back to (the usual practice of) keeping the numbers secret.

          So Annette your post was not telling the whole truth was it?! Yes caucus ballots like these are usually secret, but that is not the rules of the game you put in place last week and you changed them at the 11th hour.

      • blue leopard 29.9.2
        5 February 2013 at 1:04 am

        Well said, Rosy

  30. Afewknowthetruth 30
    4 February 2013 at 2:31 pm

    I am underwhelmed.

  31. Rhinocrates 31
    4 February 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Not a Pyhrric Victory yet, but the ABC club and Fanboy do need to remember this quote from Plutarch:

    Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward

    And before anyone says “but he does have friends – Phil, and Trev and Annette and cute little Chippy”, yes-men aren’t friends, puppeteers aren’t and neither are tapeworms (take your pick).

    • Te Reo Putake 31.1
      4 February 2013 at 6:46 pm

      Always a great quote to whip out, Rhinocrates. Dya reckon in the current situation Standardistas could be seen as the Italian confederates?

  32. Annette King 32
    4 February 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Thank you Blue Leopard for your comment. The Caucus has made it’s decision including David Cunliffe. What we need to do now is to be the strongest Opposition possible, opposing the raft of anti worker, anti women and anti democratic policies of the Govt while proposing alternative policies that reflect our principles.

    • dancerwaitakere 32.1
      4 February 2013 at 3:12 pm

      Your principles like bashing beneficiaries etc etc.

      Give up Annette.

      • r0b 32.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 3:20 pm

        I think that remark is completely unfair.

        • bad12 32.1.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 3:28 pm

          Yeah same here, this place is a constant hot bed of wah wah wah the Labour Caucus are not listening to us,

          Why would they engage when all they receive is a flood of hostility…

          • Dr Terry 32.1.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 4:22 pm

            This is exactly why they damn well SHOULD ENGAGE!

            • bad12 32.1.1.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 4:58 pm

              That’s really f**king bizaare if you don’t mind me saying Doktor, tell me something do you abuse your employees,

              Annette King should come on the Standard regularly to receive a dose of child like anger from all and sundry because She is a member of a Caucus that just had a vote as required by the rules of the Party on confidence in the leadership of that Party,

              Seems to me that the mass baying for blood is here barking up the wrong tree, if the members of the Party at Conference were wide awake they would have voted for a system where the trigger for such confidence votes was held by those attending that Conference along with a ranking system for MP’s,

              The fact that the Conference did not vote for such rules says way more than all the massed voices here at the Standard yelling at the same time can…

              • McFlock …
                4 February 2013 at 5:24 pm

                agreed, b12

                • bad12 …
                  4 February 2013 at 5:40 pm

                  LOLZ with which bit, just joking, it is tho bizaare, we as a group of mostly leftists/leftishes want the political party’s to hear what we say but then begin baying for blood should one (a politician) dare to enter the halls of the Standard to comment,

                  One of the more obscure MP’s came on one night a week or so ago and immediately got hit with a comment about how hard it was to drag Her-self away from the trough,

                  On one level this was amusing as that MP called for a moderator to step in, but, on another hardly amusing if anyone here wants to try and build an ongoing dialogue with MP’s,

                  Of course we are only going to get from any MP party policy as their part of the discussion, all MP’s are bound by such party policy and it is when we can put up reasoned argument for or against party policy while promoting logical alternatives that changes of mind may just occur…

                  • McFlock …
                    4 February 2013 at 5:59 pm

                    yeah, the alternating demands for “engagement” and vitriol are counterproductive to the point of absurdity..

                    What I will note is that while Shearer might not take too much notice of the blogs, a few caucus members obviously either lurk or have someone tell them what’s going on. So some assistant in wgtn probably takes note of the occasional gems and discards the “horse apples”. And the “Shearer says” are forwarded here each issue, largely as sacrificial lambs but it’s more regular engagement that from the greens or whomever.

                    • gobsmacked …
                      4 February 2013 at 6:40 pm

                      McFlock, just get the history right.

                      1) Standard starts up. Years of posts and comments follow. Standard accused of being slavishly Labour, in time of Clark, then Goff. The only people getting “vitriol” are right-wing trolls. And Pete George .. 😉

                      2) After … how many years? Five? … things start to change. Gradually, there is more and more criticism of Labour’s leadership. So – in traditional playground style – who started it?

                      Think about it. Last year wasn’t the year of the Standard’s birth. Read (if you care to) the many, many regular commenters who constantly stood up for Labour as the party of the left, as “our” party. They have changed because … 1) a Mind Controller told them to OR 2) because finally, after years of patience and loyalty, a whole lot of people have got well and truly pissed off.

                      Chickens, home, roost. Put the blame where it belongs.

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      4 February 2013 at 7:55 pm

                      gs, maybe if we just stay loyal and hardworking for Labour for another few years, the party will finally find its pre-1984 soul again?

                      Or is 30 years long enough to wait?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:44 pm

                      Who started it?

                      People who can’t move on. Maybe in caucus, definitely here.

                      How difficult is it to just say “and that’s why I now vote [green / mana / whomever] – I like [green/mana/whomever], they have policies XYZ, and their caucus seem more active and specific than Labour”? Rather than whining every time someone from labour dares to open their gob, and then complaining when they don’t.

                      If they’re losers, let them wither on the vine.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:49 pm

                      “And the “Shearer says” are forwarded here each issue”

                      [citation needed]

                      It looks more to me like one of the ts authors gets the email because they are a member, and they then put it up as a post. If I am wrong please provide some evidence that Shearer’s office makes this happen.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 10:58 pm

                      It looks more to me like one of the ts authors gets the email because they are a member, and they then put it up as a post. If I am wrong please provide some evidence that Shearer’s office makes this happen.

                      Don’t need to.

                      Go to the front page of The Standard website. Scroll down to a “Shearer Says” post. You’ll see “We’re happy to post similar newsletters from other opposition leaders – our email is on our contact page.”

                      And yet none of the Green supporters here kicked that invitation to Green HQ. Or if they did, nothing happened. And that’s assuming no current author is a member. Basically, Labour seems to be better at “engaging with The Standard” than the greens.

                      edit: oooo had tag issue and got all shouty, sorry 🙂

                    • r0b []
                      4 February 2013 at 11:02 pm

                      It looks more to me like one of the ts authors gets the email because they are a member, and they then put it up as a post. If I am wrong please provide some evidence that Shearer’s office makes this happen.

                      I receive Shearer Says as an ordinary member and sometimes I put it up. But I didn’t start the process, someone else did, possibly because it was sent to The Standard email address (I dunno because I don’t read that email).

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:04 pm

                      Ah, so you don’t differentiate between a member, and someone in the leader’s office. Interesting.

                      The GP don’t need to post here, they’re already engaged with their membership in useful and productive ways.

                    • geoff …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:24 pm

                      How difficult is it to just say “and that’s why I now vote [green / mana / whomever] – I like [green/mana/whomever], they have policies XYZ, and their caucus seem more active and specific than Labour”?

                      If they’re losers, let them wither on the vine.

                      Why the fuck should Labour members let their party wither on the vine!?
                      If they believe that current Labour leadership is not politically aligned with the historical roots of the party AND that their present trajectory is endangering a left victory at the next election then good on them for loudly complaining!
                      These people are fighting for their party, and you’d have them just give up.
                      Scratch that, you want them to give up.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:28 pm

                      If they’re losers, let them wither on the vine.

                      The minor complication is that the country will fail along side them.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:28 pm

                      Hang on, the question is whether Labour should actively try to come here and get pilloried (sorry, “engage with The Standard readership”), not whether it should send emails to its members or simply work through branches

                      My point is that even if the Shearer Says emails come from authors who are members, then if there was any reason for the Greens to regularly “engage” with a broad left blog site then the invitation has been open for months.

                      Labour seem to engage with their membership. They had a conference and everything. Send weekly emails. Some members seem to be pissed off, fair call. But is TS the appropriate medium to engage with those people? I don’t give a shit, I’m not in Labour. I just think it would be cool to have weekly emails here from every left wing party, with MPs occasionally engaging, too.

                      Just as I’d like to see 38:11:7 Lab:green:mana in 2014.

                    • felixviper …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:33 pm

                      I don’t see Green members complaining that their caucus ignores them or that their leaders don’t communicate with them openly.

                      Do you?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:45 pm

                      I don’t see Green members complaining that their caucus ignores them or that their leaders don’t communicate with them openly.

                      Do you?

                      Nor do I see frontbenchers take months to say whether they’ll contest the leadership. Horses for courses, I guess.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:51 pm

                      that’s probably because the Green co-leaders have the skills and management ability to lead their caucus together without knifing colleagues in the back.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 11:56 pm

                      Maybe they’re just lucky that they don’t have to get the blades out.

                    • felixviper …
                      5 February 2013 at 12:03 am

                      I’m confused McF.

                      I thought you were saying the Greens aren’t as good as Labour at engaging with their members.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 February 2013 at 12:18 pm

                      no, “engaging with The Standard”. Which was the original comment at 28.4.
                      Why would I worry about how a party that I’m not a member of engages with its members (unless their dirty laundry gets thrown around here, of course)?

                    • felixviper …
                      5 February 2013 at 12:29 pm

                      Because without them succeeding at least to some degree the coalition of parties which broadly represent your interests and philosophies will fail to reach the necessary threshold to form a government? 😉

                      But yes, point taken.

        • dancerwaitakere 32.1.1.2
          4 February 2013 at 3:52 pm

          Is it? Is it really unfair?

          Because last time I checked, the caucus seems to be running all of these lines about “principles” while only paying lip service to may of them.

          • bad12 32.1.1.2.1
            4 February 2013 at 3:56 pm

            Yes UNFAIR, can you point out where Annette King has ever directly attacked a beneficiary???…

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 32.1.1.2.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 5:28 pm

              If you want senior members of the Labour Party to contribute to debate here, being civil to them might be a bare minimum.

              • dancerwaitakere …
                4 February 2013 at 6:46 pm

                I never said anything uncivil. I never post anything that is uncivil on The Standard.

            • CV - Real Labour 32.1.1.2.1.2
              4 February 2013 at 5:29 pm

              Better yet, any time in the last year that any Labour front bencher has come forward and said that benefits are too low and need to be raised.

              • CV - Real Labour …
                4 February 2013 at 7:58 pm

                OK, let’s make this easier, any time in the last year that a Labour front bencher suggested that political parties attacking or bashing beneficiaries was a dirty low tactic targetting the vulnerable.

                • CV - Real Labour …
                  4 February 2013 at 10:53 pm

                  I’m going to have to go out on a limb here I see. Anytime in the last year that a Labour front bencher suggested that it was important to reduce barriers stopping beneficiaries from accessing the payments that they are entitled to.

      • Bill 32.1.2
        4 February 2013 at 3:20 pm

        Oh, you kind of gazzumped me there ‘dancerwaitakere’. I really do want to know what ths ‘our principles’ refers to. Is it the self serving ‘no time for losers’ principles of those who control caucus? Or traditional Labour Party principles that understand poverty is a justice issue and not one of personal responsibility/choice?

        Sadly, I suspect the former. And further than that, suspect the crucial and vast difference between the former and latter position results in nought but puzzled frowns appearing on the faces of those dear caucus members.

      • Mary 32.1.3
        4 February 2013 at 3:24 pm

        Yes, King’s omission of attacks on the poorest of the poor couldn’t make things clearer. Don’t expect a response from her on Labour’s policy on beneficiaries. We already know the National/Labour tag-team are still in business. Labour makes me sick.

        • r0b 32.1.3.1
          4 February 2013 at 3:30 pm

          Mary, Annette King spearheaded Labour’s policy at the last election to put the wellbeing of children at the the center of Labour’s policy platform – a move which would have very much put the focus on the issue of poverty and how to alleviate it.

          Do you really believe that there is no difference between National and Labour?

          • bad12 32.1.3.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 4:01 pm

            yes Annette at one point in the 2011 election campaign stated that Labour would include beneficiary dependent children in the Working For Families tax credits scheme,

            Unfortunately, and as a result of what i believe were ‘internal machinations’ this was later stated to be a policy that would take effect ‘in time’…

            • Mary 32.1.3.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 4:41 pm

              Yes, precisely bad12. And while I do think there is a difference between Labour and National, that difference is pretty much how Willie Jackson put it about National stabbing you in the front and Labour in the back. There are countless positive promises Labour has made about social security that they’ve reneged on. The first was reinstating basic benefit levels to pre-1991 levels, which was flip-fopped on as quickly as the WFF promise to beneficiary families. There has also been vehement criticisms of National government policies which Labour have then turned around and done themselves, only ten times worse. Abolishing the special benefit was one of them, after criticising National’s failed attempt to place all supplementary benefits into regulations. Another was continuing with policies on the National-led government’s introduction of the idea of income-status being relevant for tax purposes. In fact the whole WFF policy relies on this – a concept foreign to our tax system until Bill Birch’s tax cuts in 1996 which excluded beneficiaries by lowering the gross rate of benefits to leave the net rate unchanged. Susan St John was the first to point this out – the concept of “those significantly dependent on the state” getting hammered under out tax laws because of things other than income. Charming.

              To answer r0b’s question, it all comes down to Labour’s track record. They’ve not kept one positive promise that I can think of when it comes to beneficiaries, and instead have introduced policies akin to what you’d expect from an ACT/National government. Add to this Labour’s reluctance to be open on its current plans for social security and you’re left with the conclusion that, yes, Labour is no better than National, and because they stab you in the back they’re probably even worse.

              • bad12 …
                4 February 2013 at 5:05 pm

                MMP gives you the ‘freedom’ to join and/or vote for anyone you choose…

                • Mary …
                  4 February 2013 at 5:32 pm

                  So did FFP. Annette King’s talking about open and constructive discussion on policy, excluding, of course, Labour’s welfare policy, that is. I’m talking about trying to find out what Labour’s policy on benefits is now so that we can have a discussion about that, now. I’ll bet you everything in my Kiwisaver she won’t be interested in that one tiny bit. no surprises there, though. It’s because she knows it’s worse than National’s therefore any “discussion” about it won’t be “constructive”. How’s that for open and constructive debate, Annette?

                  • bad12 …
                    4 February 2013 at 6:30 pm

                    Exactly where is Annette King talking about open and constructive discussion on policy which excludes Labour’s welfare policy,

                    Since when does Annette King make up the labour Party’s welfare policy, here was me thinking that Labour has committees which put up such policy,

                    Your last paragraph is totally non-sensical and goes part way to my education into why some attach certain names to us lot that comment here…

                    • Mary …
                      4 February 2013 at 6:46 pm

                      King said: “What we need to do now is to be the strongest Opposition possible, opposing the raft of anti worker, anti women and anti democratic policies of the Govt while proposing alternative policies that reflect our principles.”

                      Where’s reference to National’s anti-beneficiary attacks on the poor? Conspicuous by its absence.

                      “Since when does Annette King make up the labour Party’s welfare policy, here was me thinking that Labour has committees which put up such policy,”

                      When Annette King was welfare spokesperson it was the same old story. She was also minister at the time of much of the destruction of the Social Security Act Labour was responsible for from 1999. Importantly though, the point is that if Labour had a clear and coherent policy on beneficiaries any Labour MP could talk about it, especially Annette King given her previous positions and seniority in the party. But no, welfare’s still a no go zone, just like it was when King was opposition spokesperson and now with Ardern.

                      “Your last paragraph is totally non-sensical and goes part way to my education into why some attach certain names to us lot that comment here…”

                      Are you talking about my comment at 4.41? If so, all I can say is that you need to do some research.

                    • bad12 …
                      4 February 2013 at 7:01 pm

                      Shucks i am really soooo sorry, Annette you are soooo naughty,how dare you enter the halls of the Standard without first typing out a 20 pager touching upon all Labour Party policies,(even the ones what aint yet wrote),…

                    • Mary …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:24 pm

                      You slay me.

                • CV - Real Labour …
                  4 February 2013 at 5:59 pm

                  MMP gives you the ‘freedom’ to join and/or vote for anyone you choose…

                  Great. The neolib “free choice” meme.

                  • bad12 …
                    4 February 2013 at 6:20 pm

                    Whats Neo-Lib about it???, freedom as a concept and a reality are hardly Neo- Liberal dogma,

                    We are free to join any political party we choose, what’s neo-liberal about that,

                    Perhaps having vented your spleen already today you are unable to construct a comment of intelligence in reply so you just reach for the neo-liberal meme…

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      4 February 2013 at 6:40 pm

                      Whats Neo-Lib about it???, freedom as a concept and a reality are hardly Neo- Liberal dogma,

                      Sure it is. “Free markets” “free choice” those PR memes have been used to construct the basis of neolib ideology. Used to make people believe that we have real choices when in fact we have fuck all. Find me the political party which isn’t pushing for economic growth, for instance.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 6:49 pm

                      Neolib “freedom” is based on “freedom – if you have the money”.

                      Democratic freedom is “everyone gets one vote, and can use it how they wish”. Practically communi5t.

                      Surprised you confuse the two.

                    • bad12 …
                      4 February 2013 at 6:55 pm

                      Mac’s just pointed out the obvious to you,

                      And,

                      The freedom extends to you being free to start a political party that promises a no growth economy…

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      4 February 2013 at 7:59 pm

                      Just like I have the freedom to start my own bank, mobile phone company, community co-op or train system? Because it’s a free market and i should just put my money where my mouth is?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:04 pm

                      Nope.
                      Your vote.
                      Your doorknocking skills.
                      And spare time you have to spread your message to either start a new party or change an old one.

                      Some people are given much more money than others, but everyone has 24 hours a day and a single vote.

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:07 pm

                      I think I’m going to take your suggestions to heart, McFlock. Cheers.

                    • The Al1en …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:23 pm

                      Don’t know where this will come out in the conversation (I’ve seen some cool forums that are a lot easier to navigate), but…

                      “Just like I have the freedom to start my own bank, mobile phone company, community co-op or train system? Because it’s a free market and i should just put my money where my mouth is?”

                      Dear Santa, where do I start? 😆

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:26 pm

                      CV-RL
                      well, while I don’t agree with much of what you say, this place is good for hammering out a coherent perspective. You’ve got one, but this ain’t the place for distribution as such – most people in the country probably haven’t even heard of TS, let alone read it, and them that do often have cast-iron opinions anyway. Pick your dissemination strategy and run with it.

                      Everyone should find their niche, I reckon.

                      I’m a bit of a dick who doesn’t suffer the rest of the planet gladly, so the publicly-visible option is out (unless I go doorknocking for the nats, but I’ve called too many of them “smarmy fuckheads” to maintain a plausible cover 🙂 ). But I’ve got my own little way of making the real world a minutely better place.

                    • bad12 …
                      4 February 2013 at 8:45 pm

                      CV, as far as i am aware we were discussing ‘freedom’ in terms of politics where you are free to join and vote for any Party you so choose and if the choices do not suit you free to start a political party of your own,

                      The fact that you choose to be essentially stupid in attempting to drag such a topic off into other pursuits in which you could not be said to be totally free to ‘start’ something simply devalues what are mostly insightful comments you usually make…

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    4 February 2013 at 6:56 pm

                    It’s not neo lib, CV, it’s capitalist boiler plate. The concept goes back centuries. I’d argue that neo liberalism is actually opposed to choice in the sense that the winner dominates (think Betamax (loser) and Microsoft (winner)) Both good technologies, but only one still exists.

                    The difference between MMP and FPP is that, generally, both votes are effective and therefore right can’t gerrymander elections under MMP as they used to in NZ.

                • Mary …
                  4 February 2013 at 6:51 pm

                  Yeah, and FPP doesn’t?

    • bad12 32.2
      4 February 2013 at 3:16 pm

      Good to see you here at the Standard again Annette, plus nice move to have Fletcher Building on the TV1 News telling the nation that of course we can build 300 thousand dollar houses,

      the simpering reply to that from Slippery the Prime Minister was a gem…

    • blue leopard 32.3
      4 February 2013 at 3:27 pm

      Mr Key should not be allowed to do those spiels he does, condemning opposition parties at the end of each answer at question-time. Labour needs to ensure this is stopped.

      • McFlock 32.3.1
        4 February 2013 at 5:26 pm

        how?

        • blue leopard 32.3.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 5:32 pm

          By doing Points of Order like Winston Peters does; By being on the Speaker’s case.

          • McFlock 32.3.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 5:41 pm

            Does it work for Winston?

            Will the speaker do a damned thing about it?

            • blue leopard 32.3.1.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 5:53 pm

              Winston got it to the point where the mics are turned off quicker (by persisting with the Speaker). Brilliant when that happens, Key’s smug little face, with his mouth moving and no sound, then suddenly he looks down with a look of child-like despondency/embarrassment, as he realises noone can hear the [free] spin he is imparting. Very enjoyable. Haven’t you seen it?

              • CV - Real Labour …
                4 February 2013 at 6:00 pm

                Winston knows the rules inside out. The young ones could learn a thing or two from him.

              • McFlock …
                4 February 2013 at 6:02 pm

                nah. But sounds good.

                Maybe I’m just too cynical about this government (including their speaker) actually sticking to any rules whatsoever.

                • blue leopard …
                  4 February 2013 at 6:08 pm

                  …yeah it took perseverance…and I really wonder why Labour doesn’t take part in that type of perseverance. Its worth it!

                  (To be fair they do sometimes work together with NZF & Greens when there has been a noticeable infraction by the Nats, yet I would like to see the Nats mics turned off more often; they get away with far too much)

    • Olwyn 32.4
      4 February 2013 at 3:31 pm

      Thanks Annette, for joining the conversation. Let us all hope that a strong opposition of the sort you envisage emerges from this. In common with others on this site, I would like to see less of the low paid worker versus beneficiary wedge at work than I have seen in the past. At a primary school near where I live, 700 people recently applied for a part-time, low ranked administrative position, some of them highly educated with strong work histories. When this is the state of play, what chance do the least qualified, least employable people actually have? It does not seem fair to rub salt into their wounds, even indirectly, by omission. They too should be able to have confidence that a Labour government would improve things for them.

    • ianmac 32.5
      4 February 2013 at 3:33 pm

      Annette. I know you have the wisdom to be unimpressed by some commentators on the Standard. Some like dancerwaitakere and Bill just scream out unsubstantiated wild accusations that are somehow meant to impress you and Caucus. Just rubbish.
      Many of us have faith in the Caucus and back you all the way.

      • geoff 32.5.1
        4 February 2013 at 7:05 pm

        Obsequious, ignorant dross. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you…… ianmac!

        • mac1 32.5.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 10:45 pm

          Better include me on your list, geoff, ‘cos I stand alongside my brother ianmac especially when it’s to stand in opposition to comments like yours.

          • geoff 32.5.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 11:52 pm

            You enjoy that sense of loyalty while the country goes up in flames.

            • Colonial Viper 32.5.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2013 at 12:00 am

              As well as the tatters of what’s left of Labour’s Red Flag.

              • mac1 …
                5 February 2013 at 5:04 pm

                ‘Tatters’ mean you’ve been in a scrap, CV, and not just kept the colours in a glass case away from light and dust.

            • mac1 32.5.1.1.1.2
              5 February 2013 at 5:01 pm

              ianmac mentioned “unsubstantiated wild accusations.” Your comment is both wild and unsubstantiated, geoff- “the country goes up in flames,” indeed.

              And yes I do enjoy loyalty, solidarity, a belief in debate and exchange of ideas in preference to unmerited criticism and name calling- core left wing values, really.

              • geoff …
                5 February 2013 at 6:29 pm

                unsubstantiated wild accusations eh.

                Like housing being completely unaffordable, unemployment at 7% and rising, 200,000+ kiwi kids living in poverty, the list goes on and on.
                How is that not ‘the country going up in flames’?

                I have a go at your brother because he consistently defends this crew leading labour who are just cronies. The dog whistle politics, the Curran situation, the manufacturing of a supposed coup at conference, undermining the Greens, this list goes on and on as well.
                I’ve zero faith in their ability to lead our country out of this quagmire with their Blairite
                third-way centrism.

                The question you need to ask yourself is, why am I defending them?

      • Chris 32.5.2
        5 February 2013 at 9:36 am

        What you said ianmac.Totally!

    • The Woodpecker 32.6
      4 February 2013 at 3:34 pm

      Just to be clear, is that a yes or no re. Cunliffe? Because it sounds like a no to me.

      • blue leopard 32.6.1
        4 February 2013 at 3:45 pm

        lol, you are asking a politician for a yes or no answer?
        Hopefully they will see sense and reinstate him, it is entirely silly not to 🙂

      • bad12 32.6.2
        4 February 2013 at 5:25 pm

        Comprehension fail- what Annette is saying is that by secret vote every MP had their say today on whether or not they have confidence in David shearer as the Leader, this vote was held in accordance with the Labour Party rules,

        David Cunliffe also had His say in this secret vote…

    • VivaciousViper 32.7
      4 February 2013 at 3:36 pm

      Annette, How can you possibly think that the party can unite when democracy has been
      trashed ?
      If the opinion of commenters and posters here is only a sample of the feeling of being
      cheated by the caucus installing their favourite, then the wider voting public are also reflecting
      the thoughts of many here, re: the stagnation in the polls.
      Principles of the current labour caucus have so far reflected a strong lean towards
      the neo-lib path of 30yrs ago, it’s all very well to self promote democratic policies
      when the reality is exactly the opposite.
      Remember the membership vote for leader that was won hands down by Cunliffe,
      who trashed that democratic vote ? it surely wasn’t the members etc, democracy has
      no home in the Labour Party of today,sadly.
      Labour will continue to bleed votes unless there is a democratic process,once again,
      which includes members and affiliates and the result respected by caucus.
      It is good to see you interacting with people on this site.

    • beatie 32.8
      4 February 2013 at 4:09 pm

      Annette, if Labour is re-elected will they reverse the welfare reforms. A yes or no would suffice.

      • woodpecker 32.8.1
        4 February 2013 at 10:48 pm

        Not allowed yes or no questions, blue leopard thinks they are silly.

        • blue leopard 32.8.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 11:09 pm

          Yes, well said Woodpecker.
          Pollies would rather, …well,… drink cheap white wine* than answer “yes” or “no” to anything….

          (*and they just don’t do that…sacrilege…)

    • xtasy 32.9
      4 February 2013 at 4:58 pm

      Dear Annette –

      What is your comment to this kind of range of topics?

      http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/speech-medical-professionals

      http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/01/11/new-zealand-british-style-work-tests-concern-tests-were-developed-by-disability-expert-prof-sir-mansel-aylward/

      http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/new-zealand-%E2%80%98britishstyle-work-tests-concern%E2%80%99-tests-were-developed-by-disability-%E2%80%98expert%E2%80%99-prof-sir-mansel-aylward_1833

      And Dr David Bratt, appointed as Principal Health Advisor for MSD and WINZ under your last government:

      http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf

      http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/2012/Fri_DaVinci_1400_Bratt_Medical%20Certificates%20are%20Clinical%20Instruments%20too%20-%20June%202012.pdf

      Him comparing benefit dependence with drug dependence, and him having trained and mentored Regional Health Advisors and Regional Disability Advisors within WINZ, same as GPs as their selected “designated doctors” to make the decisions that MSD and WINZ “expect” them to make, is that what Labour supports?

      I suppose that you will meet with Jacinda Ardern, and also Green MPs Metiria Turei and Jan Logie to perhaps discuss this and come to some understanding of where a “Left” Labour-Green force may take welfare in NZ. Some feedback would be appreciated. Thanks for that, if it ever comes.

    • The Al1en 32.10
      4 February 2013 at 5:49 pm

      “What we need to do now is to be the strongest Opposition possible, opposing the raft of anti worker, anti women and anti democratic policies of the Govt while proposing alternative policies that reflect our principles.”

      And you couldn’t do that between 08 and now because?

    • Naki nark 32.11
      4 February 2013 at 6:57 pm

      Mrs King. Thank you for coming on.

      I have been opposing anti democratic policies. I have been proposing an alternative. The conference wanted democracy. The caucus did not.

      [Personal question deleted – hey moderators – we need to have a discussion about what is ok and what is out of bounds re interacting with MPs. r0b]

      • McFlock 32.11.1
        4 February 2013 at 7:03 pm

        lol
        So when the conference voted in favour of the new leadership election format, it “wanted democracy”.
        When it voted against replacing the caucus confidence vote in 2013 in favour of the new election format, it … well, I guess conference only wanted a member+affiliates election if Shearer didn’t have the confidence of caucus.

        • Naki nark 32.11.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 7:15 pm

          The conference vote got messy. Members wanted democracy. MPs like Chris Hipkins intimidated people. Today MPs could have made healing but they did not.

          I am not trying to be rude rOb. I feel today like Mrs King does not stand for what I think Labour membership means. What is in the constitution.

          • McFlock 32.11.1.1.1
            4 February 2013 at 7:18 pm

            So the vote you agree with is valid, but the vote you disagree with was the result of intimidation?

            • Naki nark 32.11.1.1.1.1
              4 February 2013 at 7:28 pm

              I disagree with the same group of MPs making the only votes that count over and over. I think members should count in Labour too.

              I have not posted many comments before McFlock and ROb. I will think about what you say.

          • r0b 32.11.1.1.2
            4 February 2013 at 7:36 pm

            I am not trying to be rude rOb.

            Pleased to hear it Naki nark. Express your opinion all you like, but I still don’t think that your question was relevant to the discussion, or appropriate.

      • The Al1en 32.11.2
        4 February 2013 at 7:24 pm

        “hey moderators – we need to have a discussion about what is ok and what is out of bounds re interacting with MPs”

        With no desire to step on toes or egos, I’m okay with coming down hard on the ‘you’re drunk’ nastiness, but if it’s about not being able to say the polls suck, you’ve done a bad thing, then I’d be happier walking away than fending off an attack from the bold letter monster.

        Seriously, they are not gods. Just people with better salaries and careers.
        I respect the interaction, but I don’t do one way conversations with anyone.

        Thanks for the fish.

        • r0b 32.11.2.1
          4 February 2013 at 7:39 pm

          I suspect that your position on this would be widely shared Al1en. Don’t worry – I’m not proposing that we wrap them in cotton wool – this is a political blog after all.

    • Saarbo 32.12
      4 February 2013 at 9:18 pm

      Thanks for commenting Annette, as a Labour member I have been surprised and disappointed by the attitude of many in the Labour caucus towards blogs (particularly after Nov conference), social media, Labours website etc. So it good to see Labour caucus members using TS to help explain/account for their decisions.

      Up to this point we have had some condescending messages from apparent advisor’s…which has had the affect of putting me and many others right off the Labour Party. So good to have your comments on here. Is DC allowed to speak freely again?

  33. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 33
    4 February 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Labour will go down like the Titanic if it follows the same pattern. Complacency and sticking with a system that has a shonky design. It isn’t sufficient to say It looks okay, it suits me, don’t make changes to meet current needs.

    • Rhinocrates 33.1
      5 February 2013 at 4:01 pm

      Yes, but Robertson, Goff, King and Mallard will have the very best-placed deck chairs, so they win!

  34. AmaKiwi 34
    4 February 2013 at 4:05 pm

    Personalities win elections.

    Examples:
    – John Key, the smiling assassin.
    – David Lange. His memory still makes me chuckle. “I can smell the uranium on your breath.”
    – Sarah Palin. She didn’t win but millions adored her.
    – Ronald Reagen. In 1984, the entire White House press corps knew Reagen had Alzheimer’s but he was re-elected in a landslide.
    – Adolf Hitler. Mein Kamp is incoherent but millions worshiped him.

    Personalities win elections. David Shearer needs a personality transplant or Labour is dead in 2014.

    To those who say the caucus vote was close: We know Shearer got at least 21 votes (62%). 62% to 38% is NOT a close election.

    The Labour caucus has made their bed. Now they have to sleep in it. I am not going to bring them breakfast in bed.

    • Pascal's bookie 34.1
      4 February 2013 at 4:17 pm

      JFK, GWB, Thatcher, Obama, Bob Hawke, John Howard, Clinton, Clark, .. it’s not actually a list that ends.

      • Pete 34.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 4:29 pm

        John Major had no personality (that’s why the Edwina Currie thing was such a surprise) and managed to win in 1992, but he had the advantage of being the incumbent. He won in a squeaker, with 41.9% of the vote, the rest split between Labour, the Lib Dems and minor parties in a FPP system.

        • Pete 34.1.1.1
          4 February 2013 at 4:41 pm

          Also Jimmy Carter. Who is without doubt a good man and benefited from the first election since Watergate, but just couldn’t lead or inspire.

          So that’s where I would place Shearer. In the ranks of Carter and Major.

      • Olwyn 34.1.2
        4 February 2013 at 4:30 pm

        Some of these people; Kennedy and Hawke, for example, were charismatic to begin with. Howard was not, he acquired his charisma on the job, and so did Helen. Both of these last two seem to me, retrospectively, to have had a core of strength that provided a base for acquiring charisma, but I cannot tell if I am reading that into them from the perspective of knowing what they became.

        • Pascal's bookie 34.1.2.1
          4 February 2013 at 5:22 pm

          I’d agree with all the points you and Pete have made.

          Seems to me Clark and Howard started to resonate after being elected. Aunty Helen and Battler respectively.

          So the Q is how did they win without resonating, and it wasn’t policy IMV. Clark won because Shipley’s govt was hated by then and she couldn’t resonate either.

          Unless labour can take Key out of the picture, ( and I can’t see that happening) they won’t win without a leader who resonates before winning.

  35. JonL 35
    4 February 2013 at 4:35 pm

    “David Shearer is who he is, and that cannot change, even if every Labour member dutifully worships him and all critics are silent, from now till election day. ”

    My apolitical relatives see him as a bumbling, incoherent who can barely string 2 sentences together. Vote for him (and, by inference – Labour) – are you mad!…
    Public perceptions are the name of the game, and I’m afraid DS hasn’t got what it takes! Which means, that aforementioned rellies will probably vote Nats again….then bitch for the next 3 yrs……..

  36. xtasy 36
    4 February 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Congratulations David Shearer – and to the Caucus of Labour, for pulling this one off, once again!

    You have thus far got away with it, so nothing has changed, and the agenda with little policy, with little tit for tat stings against Key and National (inside and outside the House) will continue, like it did last year.

    Consistency of sorts, one may say, but “decisive action”, determination, clarity and vision??? Do not ask me, please, I do not wish to ruin your day.

    Labour is now set firmly to achieve a decisive victory in 2020. On the battle goes, Shearer as the modern day “Don Quijote de La Mancha”. He and his loyal servant(s) are ready to storm, ready to battle, those large political windmills, and he will conquer NZ’s mainstream, to throw out the Nats after another 2 terms, after the rot within the right has set in so big, that even a 31.5 percent vote will mean that Labour will again be the largest party in NZ.

    Best of luck and best wishes.

    I will focus on other allies and parties.

  37. xtasy 37
    4 February 2013 at 4:44 pm

    While reference was made to that stuff.co article at the top, and while “overwhelming” was mentioned in regards to Shearer’s support within caucus today, perhaps look at the poll result beneath the article.

    That online open public vote gives Shearer 49 per cent support by readers as “best” or right leader for Labour, while 51 percent (now at 04:40 pm, 04.04.) think otherwise.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8257869/Shearer-confirmed-as-Labour-leader

    Now how “overwhelming” is that when it comes to the public? And against what possible competition will that need to be seen?

    • AmaKiwi 37.1
      4 February 2013 at 4:57 pm

      The same pathetic caucus that would not replace Goff when for 2 yrs. prior to the election everyone knew he would lose.

  38. KhandallaViper 38
    4 February 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Hooton’s disgusting article on the NBR is a reminder to all of us that Hooton is the enemy of the Labour Party.

    Hooton has been stirring sh*t in these pages under various disguises. Do not bother to engage with stirrers. It only encourages them.

    Hooton and his ilk would love to see more in-fighting. That is why he is advising a purge.

    David Shearer has won the vote. He is now viewed as a strong Leader. He now has the mana to ignore bad advisors like Hooton.

    The Labour Party wants to unite itself. Nats like Hooton want to divide us.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 38.1
      4 February 2013 at 5:33 pm

      a reminder to all of us that Hooton is the enemy of the Labour Party

      Where has he ever claimed to be anything else?

      • George D 38.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 6:20 pm

        On the other hand, Josie Pagani…

      • Rhinocrates 38.1.2
        5 February 2013 at 3:51 pm

        He’s often claimed to support the current Labour caucus and its direction, so…

        More seriously, tho’, I don’t think that Hooton is very Machiavellian – he’s not very smart after all, he just thinks he is.

        He believes what the current Shearer-figureheaded caucus believes: that there is a natural cycle to politics and in 2014, it will be Labour’s turn. He’s got his red light out, it’s very bright and he’s shining it directly at who he thinks his next batch of clients will be, people who don’t scare him too much because people who have principles are scary and incomprehensible to him.

        Sorry, that could disparaging to sex workers. I’m sure that no prostitute would ever want to be compared to Matthew Hooton.

  39. BillODrees 39
    4 February 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Where has he [Hooton] ever claimed to be anything else?

    Unfortunately some of our comrades involved in “Strategy” have thought it advantageous to play footsie with Hooton. There are some who have listened to his advice.

  40. Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 40
    4 February 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Had the Leadership been confident of the numbers they would not have gone for secrecy on the vote.

    Had they lost by about 50/50 then Shearers position would have been untenable.
    If they were confident they would have asked the room to give a unanimous endorsement and avoid a vote. But they were afraid. Diddums!!

    They must have worked out that at least a third was willing to say FU to Trevor, Grant and Annette.

    That is a serious shot across Shearers bow. He must realise he has to unite the caucus very quickly or he and everyone else will be absolutely exhausted by Easter.

    • ad 40.1
      4 February 2013 at 6:19 pm

      So he’s not willing to let us in on uniting together constitutionally.

      His only other option is to produce such stunning policy that everything is forgiven, and the country loves him, and the polls rise as a result.

      His only path to unity now is to produce results.

  41. Molly Polly 41
    4 February 2013 at 6:28 pm

    “The Labour Century Fund is our automatic contribution scheme,
    raising money for our campaigns for Labour values and principles.”

    I no longer know what those values and principles are.

    Therefore, my regular once a month contribution to the Labour Century Fund has ended today after 10 years. Previous to that I paid a yearly membership fee.

    Phew! No more making excuses to my extended whanau for the lack of leadership in the Party.
    No more delivering pamphlets, door knocking, telephone canvassing and organising fundraisers.

    What can I say except – Go the Greens!

  42. Skinny 42
    4 February 2013 at 7:50 pm

    I will be off to my new LEC for a look see, can just imagine it now no one there under 50, average age 65 all 6 of them bless their souls. That’s the problem most activists have been beaten over too many times & moved on further left. 
    Anyway I like to mix it up so my reward is when the nobs from caucus come visit I put them on the spot. Lol.

  43. dan1 43
    4 February 2013 at 8:27 pm

    I am not too much into omens, but the TV3 News tonight provided one tonight. The Labour leadership meeting was at St Michaels in Henderson, where my Mum and Dad got married in 1948! If I remember, it used to be on the other side of the road, up the road from the Corban’s entrance. The last time I saw it it was in drastic need of redemption (another omen perhaps!) The church was about a mile away from my grandparents place in John St. You won’t find John St anymore; it is buried under the mall/pub carpark off Station Rd. Poppa Arthur was formerly a Ministry of Works foreman who told stories of the Depression, where doctors and lawyers were forced to accept any job going, and worked for him labouring on bridges north of Auckland. Nanny was a homemaker. They were close to many in the migrant community, who were Lebanese or Dalmatian. They were not overtly political people but they gave Michael Savage a saintly aura because he believed in the importance of community rather than individual. They would never have voted for anyone but Labour.
    I hope the omen means the Labour Party will get its act together. I have met the two Davids briefly. They are both talented and keen to do the best for NZ. There is too much preoccupation with the leader; it is the substance of the policies that count. I want policies that work for the disadvantaged and disaffected. I want policies that encourage non-voters to vote. I want policies that are not just NAct light. I want policies that will inspire NZ to believe in itself. I don’t want NZ to limply follow US or IMF directed policies that favour the wealthy.
    It was pleasing to see Annette commenting tonight. That is another omen that Head office and caucus are listening. Cunliffe should be reinstated and given a prominent role. The disaffected need to find another party; I have had enough of their negativity.
    Omen…. maybe! Amen… hopefully not!

  44. RedBaronCV 44
    4 February 2013 at 8:59 pm

    While I thank Annette for coming on here, unfortunately, to me, the statement below reads like a “dog whistle” to the demographics that vote for it.

    “King said: “What we need to do now is to be the strongest Opposition possible, opposing the raft of anti worker, anti women and anti democratic policies of the Govt while proposing alternative policies that reflect our principles.””

    If this is what the Labour Party believes it then, without even going near the beneficiary arguments – not that they aren’t valid, why do they vote for and propose policies that are acheiving exactly the opposite!

  45. RedBaronCV 45
    4 February 2013 at 9:05 pm

    Doesn’t David Shearer need to ask himself two hard questions:

    Is the Labour Party going to get more or less votes with Cunliffe in highly visible position?

    If the answer to the first question is “more votes” then he needs to ask himself:

    Am I so self focused that I would rather have fewer votes and no fear of being challenged or am I big enough and confident enough to run a more inclusive party for the benefit of New Zealand?

  46. AmaKiwi 46
    4 February 2013 at 9:51 pm

    I sat near Annette King at conference. She was apoplectic when the conference voted for a 50% membership trigger. When we voted the 40% trigger she nearly went into orbit.

    Democracy: “Rule of the people” . . . NOT representatives. Rule by the people themselves.

    It’s nauseating to read TS readers sucking up a leader of the anti-democracy gang in caucus.

    Today the caucus voted “no confidence” in the members and affiliates.

    Annette King, the feeling is mutual. I vote “no confidence” in you and your anti-democratic caucus majority.

    P.S. This ain’t going to heal with sweet talk about everyone uniting. You don’t let me vote on the leadership, you don’t get my help for the next election.

    • Colonial Weka 46.1
      4 February 2013 at 10:04 pm

      Fair enough Ama. But I’d like to know how you see any of the ABCs commenting here, if regulars don’t make them feel welcome. Do you think they should stay away?

    • Anne 46.2
      4 February 2013 at 10:30 pm

      When we voted the 40% trigger she nearly went into orbit.

      Lols. You gotta see the funny side sometimes. I didn’t see that, but I was watching a large cluster of MPs standing at the back when the result was being announced. They appeared to be smiling sweetly which I mistook for acceptance. It wasn’t. They were so stunned their facial muscles had frozen solid.

      • CV - Real Labour 46.2.1
        4 February 2013 at 10:47 pm

        Yeah that’s right…there was also a noticeable rise in facial blood pressure from a couple of the MPs.

    • blue leopard 46.3
      5 February 2013 at 1:11 am

      @ AmaKiwi,
      Your comments (45, 47 & especially 46.1) are very poignant and thought provoking.

  47. Anne 47
    4 February 2013 at 10:17 pm

    Also Ama, it’s not sucking up when a TS commenter is polite and ‘welcomes’ a senior Labour MP here. At least it gives us the opportunity to speak to them directly about our concerns in the hope it might eventually go some way to resolving them. Call it a counseling session if you like, but it’s not going to do any harm and just may do a lot of good.

    • AmaKiwi 47.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:23 pm

      Labour MP’s all read The Standard or get summaries of it.

      Today they proved they ignore us.

      • Colonial Viper 47.1.1
        4 February 2013 at 11:45 pm

        because they still can, for the moment. Looks like we’ll have to get louder. It’s time the membership step up democratisation of the party another notch, and especially of Labour Party selection procedures.

  48. AmaKiwi 48
    4 February 2013 at 11:42 pm

    Darien Fenton was also nearby. When the 40% trigger was voted she said, “This is madness!”

    Some Labour party leaders talk about democracy the way a whore talks about virtue.

    • Colonial Viper 48.1
      4 February 2013 at 11:44 pm

      You should stop impugning the good reputation of whores like this.

    • PoliticallyCorrected 48.2
      5 February 2013 at 2:49 am

      a whore talks about virtue? Could you possibly get your point across without disparaging women. Ta muchly.

      • xtasy 48.2.1
        5 February 2013 at 8:30 am

        Well, try the word “prostitute” then, which I in all fairness would attribute equally to male and female ones, as there are such of either gender. Will that solve the issue for you?

        • PoliticallyCorrected 48.2.1.1
          5 February 2013 at 3:18 pm

          No it wouldn’t – had thought we’d long moved beyond chastity and virtuousness as been the pinnacle for measuring human morality or the way we score points of each other. So wtg Amakiwi… tell me, did you support the Left’s move to legalise prostitution or did you just pay lip service to the principals of self determination and basic legal rights for sex workers; meanwhile happy to perpetuate and parrot the prostutitute is a whore.

          On Topic : congratulations Labour, Shearer talks of been bold, GregJ up there @ 18.2.1.1.3 talked of needing a party of transformation; stay bold Shearer and all Labour MPs and potential MPs of the future.

          • xtasy 48.2.1.1.1
            5 February 2013 at 7:46 pm

            I am opposed to prostitution. If people feel they wish to have a promiscuous sex life, then they should be able to and do it without getting paid for it.

            Prostitution is to me not what I would equate with “work” as such, although of course such activity by either gender is done for “pay” and thus considered as a kind of “work”.

            No, I am opposed to paid sex, and having travelled far and seen a lot, it is a first step to endless more problems, that are hard to contain, in any society, NZ included.

            I am also opposed to any work that is slave like and prostitution like, as I consider any constructive work activity should be well rewarded, respected and paid.

            So I have some principles of sorts in that regard, and I do not give a damned shit what others think about that.

    • Tom Gould 48.3
      5 February 2013 at 8:59 am

      An apology would be appropriate, in my view. Regardless of the semantics, your linkage is clear, and just plain nasty. Your comment also illustrates how ‘phoney’ all this talk of democracy is. Rather than accepting her right to express a deeply felt view on the 40% trigger, you chose to liken her and those sharing her view to whores, which speaks volumes about the angry left.

    • Anne 48.4
      5 February 2013 at 9:42 am

      That is an indication therefore just how brainwashed some of those MPs have become. Their ignorance would seem rather profound considering Britain, Canada, Australia and I believe some European countries have triggers that are around 40% – and in some cases less!

  49. VivaciousViper 49
    5 February 2013 at 8:18 am

    Ignorance is bliss, it seems in the labour caucus.
    They can’t see the wood for the trees, so it seems.
    We fought the good fight,on behalf of all NZ’ers,we did our best, we lost.
    But, we shall remember,come 2014.

  50. AmaKiwi 50
    5 February 2013 at 9:54 am

    “We shall remember, come 2014”

    My Labour Party membership renewal form just went through the paper shredder.

  51. geoff 51
    5 February 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Surely we can push this post past the 500 comment threshold

    • woodpecker 51.1
      5 February 2013 at 4:38 pm

      If you think about it geoff and add up all the posts on this subject you would probably hit around 5000 comments. ( +1 more)

      • geoff 51.1.1
        5 February 2013 at 5:46 pm

        Absolutely, it’s been thoroughly discussed. But what does it all mean? (your turn)

        • blue leopard 51.1.1.1
          5 February 2013 at 6:12 pm

          Pretty extensive discussion on this subject. Its a great relief having a thread like this to come and read when something occurs which is really on the disappointing side.

          From reading this site I would have thought it better that caucus simply vote in order to allow the members a say. It may well be that Mr Shearer got endorsed and then all cause for doubt would have been removed.

          Its brilliant to be able to read people’s considered thoughts on the matter.

          Cheers Standardistas! (+1 more heh)

          • McFlock 51.1.1.1.1
            5 February 2013 at 6:24 pm

            “From reading this site I would have thought it better that caucus simply vote in order to allow the members a say. It may well be that Mr Shearer got endorsed and then all cause for doubt would have been removed.”

            That would probably have been the ideal path to take, I agree.
            Another missed opportunity. C’est la vie.

  52. Scintilla 52
    5 February 2013 at 6:04 pm

    It means the Labour strategy of occupying the middle like a big, fat Mallardian toad, whilst shooing anyone of slightly Left sensibilities over to Greens/Mana, is doomed.

    • blue leopard 52.1
      5 February 2013 at 6:19 pm

      @Scintilla
      I’m interested in a thread about this topic. I’m in two minds on the matter. It seems sensible to target the middle ground voters, if they are such a big bunch of people (as we are all “told”) yet the downside could end up meaning that some less “middle ground” matters (that middle ground voters don’t want to know about) go on unaddressed. And they need to be addressed.

      If Labour caught these middle-ground voters, and lost those more to the left, and the Greens and Mana picked up substantially more of the left including the non-voters (who are assumed to be a lot of left-wingers, which I tend to believe too) it could work.

      Yet would this happen or will more people simply not vote out of a belief that the “two main” parties are much the same? Hmm

      • Anne 52.1.1
        5 February 2013 at 7:01 pm

        Yet would this happen or will more people simply not vote out of a belief that the “two main” parties are much the same? Hmm

        That is exactly what is happening and it will only get worse.

        It beggars belief those with the power in the Labour Caucus can’t – or is it won’t – see it. If they really want to be the government in order to implement policies that were just and fair to all NZers, then they would not be trying to shut down those on the left of the political spectrum. In reality most of the commenters here could be categorised as centre left too. Most are not hard left as some are trying to have people believe.

        Surely it would be so much easier for Labour to attract back the 800,000 non-voters they lost over time by pursuing right of centre policies. In my view I think that is why the likes of Hooton and co. are so relentlessly trying to demonise the left of the Labour Party. They know if Labour moves to recapture that non-vote in earnest, then the NAct govt. would be history.

        • blue leopard 52.1.1.1
          5 February 2013 at 7:23 pm

          Ahh interesting, Anne, especially re the demonisation of the left.

          I have just realized there isa thread fairly well on this subject (I didn’t check the new threads before reading this one!), so I’m going to read up on what people have to say.

          I will say, however, that “the two main parties are the same” is a comment I hear a lot by people who don’t intend to vote. It seems that people haven’t shifted from a FPP mentality because there seemed a good range of parties to vote for on the left. Perhaps a left-wing, with no environment or maori focus might be required?

      • Scintilla 52.1.2
        5 February 2013 at 7:40 pm

        BL: “If Labour caught these middle-ground voters, and lost those more to the left, and the Greens and Mana picked up substantially more of the left including the non-voters (who are assumed to be a lot of left-wingers, which I tend to believe too) it could work. ”

        IMO it could – if a) we trust Labour to meaningfully accommodate more Leftist views and b) the middle & swing voters see Labour as the best option over Nact. They still need some convincing reasons to do so – who has the better team, who can manage the economy to NZ’s advantage. If voters are really thinking about getting the best MMP option, they’ll be watching how strong the Greens are and who can form the most effective coalition.

        But, I tend to think we’ve gone past that stage since the GFC. All the outright job losses, casualisations, financial losses through finance companies and the ever-growing overseas exodus have created a whole different climate. A lot of people are hurting, right across the spectrum. And alot of eyes have been opened to the bankster bullshit and associated perversion of sovereignty.

        I also think a lot of kiwis, like me, waited in vain for the Clark govt to deliver on social equity – they had the best chance in 20 years and blew it. Trust is a big issue.

        • blue leopard 52.1.2.1
          6 February 2013 at 12:22 am

          Thanks Scintilla

          “But, I tend to think we’ve gone past that stage since the GFC. All the outright job losses, casualisations, financial losses through finance companies and the ever-growing overseas exodus have created a whole different climate. A lot of people are hurting, right across the spectrum. And alot of eyes have been opened to the bankster bullshit and associated perversion of sovereignty.”~Scintilla

          I would hope this is what is occurring; that people’s eyes were opening. I’m not convinced that it is; (note the reaction to Occupy Wall Street) yet I sincerely hope it is.

          Your (& Anne’s) comments are food for thought for me, the jury is very much out for me on this subject. I would hope that the political parties of the left are actually researching people’s opinions, and reactions and working out what it is that they are wanting, (& why 100s of 1000s aren’t voting), however, I have a nasty feeling they aren’t. A certain silence over the matter of the non-voters assists this feeling….and dog whistles….and polls not shifting…

  54. xtasy 54
    5 February 2013 at 7:40 pm

    A “http://nz.yahoo.com/” online survey (up to date at 07.35 pm, Tue., 05.02.13) on Shearer as Labour leader:

    Would David Shearer make a good Prime Minister?

    Yes, he’d lead New Zealand well 27% (2589)

    No, he doesn’t have what it takes 52% (5012)

    Maybe, but I won’t be voting for him 16% (1525)

    I don’t know 5% (502)