Then there were three

Written By: - Date published: 11:19 am, October 9th, 2014 - 345 comments
Categories: labour, uncategorized - Tags: ,

Andrew Little has formally announced that he is also seeking the Labour Party leadership.

From the Herald:

Mr Little confirmed he would stand this morning after signalling he was thinking about it over the weekend.

In a statement he said his background as the head of the EPMU and former Labour Party president showed he had the required skills to drive through change and lift performance.

“There are three immediate issues to deal with: creating greater cohesion across the caucus, rebuilding the relationship between caucus and the Party and, most importantly getting the process under way to listen to the voters who have abandoned us.”

Mr Little’s union background could work in his favour with the affiliated unions getting 20 per cent of the vote.

Nominations for leadership candidates close next Tuesday October 14.  Rumours are that a fourth candidate may be throwing his hat into the ring as well.

345 comments on “Then there were three ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Al1en 1
    9 October 2014 at 11:29 am

    If DC’s member and union vote doesn’t migrate to AL, then it’s GR for the win by the back door.

    • Bill 1.1
      9 October 2014 at 11:45 am

      How do you think that comment makes any sense given that the leadership is subject to preferential voting?

      • The Al1en 1.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 12:05 pm

        So if I’ve made a mistake about labours voting system and got the numbers wrong, point it out, show how it couldn’t work out that way for obvious reasons and I’ll be educated, grateful as well as corrected.
        That’d be a lot more helpful than going a bit Rab C.

        So how do you see it playing out?
        I agree with below it’s the end for DC now, but I’ll wait for you to confirm.

        • Bill 1.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 12:13 pm

          The second preference from eliminated contenders, should be no overall winner come into play meaning there is no ‘split vote’.

          So, if Cunliffe or Little occupy a pile of second preferences (and they probably will), they then get counted and distributed from the papers of the eliminated candidate.

          In other words, Cunliffe and Little at #1 and #2 more or less guarantees either Cunliffe or Little being elected.

          edit. Sorry, I noticed too late that this comment wasn’t necessary.

          • The Al1en 1.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 12:15 pm

            Ta.

            “In other words, Cunliffe and Little at #1 and #2 more or less guarantees either Cunliffe or Little being elected.”

            Good.

          • wekarawshark 1.1.1.1.2
            9 October 2014 at 12:40 pm

            “edit. Sorry, I noticed too late that this comment wasn’t necessary.”

            Actually it was and is. I appreciated it. Lots of people don’t understand how preferential voting works.

    • wekarawshark 1.2
      9 October 2014 at 11:48 am

      I’m not sure that’s how it works. I think Labour use STV for the voting.

      • Bill 1.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 12:06 pm

        There is no ‘back door’ via a split vote.

      • The Al1en 1.2.2
        9 October 2014 at 12:09 pm

        Thankyou, I consider myself educated, grateful as well as corrected.

        Little could be a go’er for labour, but that caucus needs some work.

      • Jesse 1.2.3
        9 October 2014 at 12:15 pm

        I just checked the Labour Party constitution and they use Preferential Voting. That’s ok by me, means we can choose our favourite left leaning candidate in first preference and our next choice in second, and can push Robertson to the bottom.

        • boyonlaptop 1.2.3.1
          9 October 2014 at 2:13 pm

          What is the logic that Robertson is to the right of Little or Cunliffe for that matter?

          Little is proposing to scrap NZ Power and CGT, he’s without doubt the most right-leaning at least in terms of policy in the race.

          • phillip ure 1.2.3.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 2:59 pm

            @ jesse..

            “..he’s without doubt the most right-leaning at least in terms of policy in the race…”

            i was wondering about that..where does little stand on any left/right spectrum..?

            ..he has said what policies he wd scrap..what policies wd he want..?

            ..the fact that that rightwing-clown/lush-acolyte nash is all for him is a kiss of death..

            ..him and all those rightwing commentators etc who were previously saying it was sewn up for robertson..

            ..have now all switched to little..(!)..

            ..plus..the engineers union is perhaps the most rightwing union..

            ..it is time for little to nail his colours to the mast…

          • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 1.2.3.1.2
            9 October 2014 at 3:17 pm

            scrap NZ Power

            why is NZ Power such a terrible proposal?

            • Lanthanide 1.2.3.1.2.1
              9 October 2014 at 3:37 pm

              Initially it seemed like a good idea to me, but the more I’ve read about it, it seems like a bad idea.

              Artificially reducing the price the gentailers can charge makes re-investment in new generation more difficult.

              Gareth Morgan has an alternative suggestion (which he presented to Labour/Greens after their announcement, sounds like it was too late for them to change track though) which is to charge the hydro-dams for the water they are using. This would give the government a direct revenue stream, which they could then put to multiple uses – investing in green energy for example, or they could return it to the public as a rebate on power prices. It’s more flexible, much simpler to implement and doesn’t affect the whole power industry, and could be managed to get effectively the same outcome as the single-buyer approach could have.

              http://garethsworld.com/blog/economics/worried-labour-greens-proposal/
              http://garethsworld.com/blog/economics/party-will-lower-power-bill/

              • boyonlaptop …
                9 October 2014 at 3:46 pm

                This would just create an incentive to use more non-hydro power which could well include burning more coal which would be a stupid idea.

    • Redbaiter 1.3
      9 October 2014 at 1:26 pm

      I hope Andrew Little wins.

      I have always thought he was a cut above most other contenders because he is not so badly infected with the progressive virus as most Labour politicians, and has more connections with the working class than the insufferably inbred Wellington beltway.

      If Little does win he should immediately expel Grant Robertson from the party. I think Roberston’s burning ambition for the leadership has been the major destabilising factor within the Labour party for some years.

      Robertson’s over reaching ambition for his own objectives above those of the party make him unfit to serve.

      • NeutObserver 1.3.1
        9 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

        I do not believe your prediction will come to pass, Mr Redbaiter.
        On the contrary, I think that Grant Robertson will become the next leader of the Labour Party. The unions may take a bit of convincing, but it will happen.

        • Redbaiter 1.3.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 2:39 pm

          Its not a prediction, I said “hope”.

          However electing Robertson to leader means Labour is just going down the same old road that has been so ruinous for it of late. It must break the power of the beltway elite and return the party to the working men who built it and funded it and grew it.

          That it was later hijacked by progressives and academics is the event that has in the end destroyed it.

          Working conservative Labour voters need to take the party back from the likes of the Robertson faction who I think are most behind the party’s decline.

          • ropata mako shark 1.3.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 7:07 pm

            Has the Earth tilted on its axis? I agree with Redbaiter … eek 😯

          • boyonlaptop 1.3.1.1.2
            9 October 2014 at 7:23 pm

            “It must break the power of the beltway elite and return the party to the working men who built it and funded it and grew it.”

            Because the former BCG worker, 15 years in the house MP, living in a multi-millionaire Herne Bay mansion and getting just 25% of the vote is clearly in touch with the working man.

            Delusional.

        • Skinny 1.3.1.2
          9 October 2014 at 8:54 pm

          Wrong, the only real support comes from the caucus, and they will turn on him like a pack of dogs. They will choose Little and try and protect their own self interest hides. Fools like Cosgrove are history when the broom comes out, Robertson will play it smart and try get agreement for minimal retirements.

      • Lanthanide 1.3.2
        9 October 2014 at 1:49 pm

        “If Little does win he should immediately expel Grant Robertson from the party. I think Roberston’s burning ambition for the leadership has been the major destabilising factor within the Labour party for some years.”

        Yes, to an outside observer such as myself, Robertson’s constant presence in the background seems to have been a problem for Shearer and Cunliffe, at least since 2011.

        Expelling him is probably quite difficult, and would not do well to curry favour from his supporters in caucus.

        • Tracey 1.3.2.1
          9 October 2014 at 2:28 pm

          Drop him down the list… Cosgrove and shearer too… They will either go hard for party vote or leave to a nice corporate job.

          • boyonlaptop 1.3.2.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 2:29 pm

            You do know Shearer is an electorate MP right?

            Totally agree about Cosgrove though.

            • Tracey 1.3.2.1.1.1
              9 October 2014 at 2:34 pm

              Yes, i do. It is possible to have him announce he is not standing for mt albert next time and seek party list only.

              • boyonlaptop …
                9 October 2014 at 2:42 pm

                And that’s going to happen? Shearer is a good electorate MP and will make a great minister of foreign affairs he shouldn’t step down.

                • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark …
                  9 October 2014 at 3:03 pm

                  Often when Shearer speaks, he conveys an uncanny sense of being quite foreign to his own tongue.

              • alwyn …
                9 October 2014 at 2:48 pm

                Pray tell us just how ” It is possible to have him announce he is not standing for mt albert next time and seek party list only.” if he doesn’t want to?
                The only way you can shift him out of his electorate nomination is for the party to make someone else the nominee for that electorate instead. Very few parties find that an easy thing to mange if the person doesn’t want to go and pays close attention to his electorate.
                As for having him go voluntarily that is extremely unlikely if you have, as you say just above this “Drop him down the list”.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  9 October 2014 at 2:53 pm

                  The Labour Party’s NZ Council can rule candidates out from standing in an electorate. Not usually done though, but the power is there in the constitution.

                  • alwyn …
                    9 October 2014 at 3:16 pm

                    Do you actually have any examples. I imagine it would have been down, if necessary, with Field or Carter but I don’t know whether it actually was. They were actually kicked out the party weren’t they?

                  • boyonlaptop …
                    9 October 2014 at 3:48 pm

                    Also, what has Shearer actually done to justify this at all? Cunliffe doesn’t like the look of him?

                    • Tracey …
                      9 October 2014 at 3:59 pm

                      Dropped his party vote in his parachuted safe seat…
                      Undermined his Leader
                      Shown if he isnt happy he will take his ball and join the leaky gang…

                    • boyonlaptop …
                      9 October 2014 at 4:03 pm

                      How on earth did he undermine Cunliffe? I’m not a big Shearer fan and supported Cunliffe over him but this seems far fetched.

                      I think the voters of Mt. Albert almost certainly punished Labour for dropping their popular local MP as leader. I don’t see any evidence to suggest that Shearer ran a candidate-vote only campaign unlike the likes of Cosgrove(who really should go).

                  • Skinny …
                    9 October 2014 at 8:58 pm

                    The problem is the council need a major refresh too, clean some of them out too I say.

                • Tracey …
                  9 October 2014 at 4:01 pm

                  Someone asked how you could get rid of them. I offered a possibility. That is all.

              • Ron …
                9 October 2014 at 7:12 pm

                As far as I am concerned Shearer was parachuted into a nice safe Labour seat and can be parachuted out just as easily.
                It was stupid to expect him to become leader then and even more so now

                Yes, i do. It is possible to have him announce he is not standing for mt albert next time and seek party list only.

          • Lanthanide 1.3.2.1.2
            9 October 2014 at 3:40 pm

            “They will either go hard for party vote or leave to a nice corporate job.”

            Very strange thing to say. Most likely they would go hard for the electorate vote and ignore the party vote.

            • Tracey 1.3.2.1.2.1
              9 October 2014 at 3:41 pm

              How do they go hard for the electorate vote when they are only on the List? I meant to convey that they should not be stood in an electorate AND moved down tge List.

              Hopefully not so strange now.

      • boyonlaptop 1.3.3
        9 October 2014 at 2:21 pm

        Riiiiight, which is why Shearer voted for GR (as his second preference) over DC right?

        Do you have a shred of evidence to suggest that Robertson did anything to personally roll Shearer?

        • Colonial Rawshark 1.3.3.1
          9 October 2014 at 3:18 pm

          Riiiiight, which is why Shearer voted for GR (as his second preference) over DC right?

          Do you have a shred of evidence of this?

          You can play word games all you like, but a number of us were pretty clear on what the day by day plays were over that particular week. GR (and his supporters) saw it as his time to be leader of the Labour Party – and they still do.

  2. Marksman33 2
    9 October 2014 at 11:29 am

    Are we looking at another Bob Hawke?

    • bearded rawshark 2.1
      9 October 2014 at 12:13 pm

      I reckon they should parachute in Robert Reid

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 3:03 pm

        + 1…

        ..i’d support reid for labour party leader..

        ..and in fact..i’m sure reid wouldn’t mind being used as a benchmark against which others can be measured..

        ..their major plus being adjudged as ‘nearest to reid’.

        • finbar 2.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 5:48 pm

          You have to be having a laugh.Last time i heard Reid talk to a substantial crowd of workers,some years back now.His valorous cry to the crowd, this is the start of the revolution.

          Some sport ground meeting in Auckland.

          .

          • phillip ure 2.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 5:57 pm

            i am judging reid on his appearances on the wknd political chatshows..

            ..there he has impressed..

            ..and not only for his resolute/reasoned challenges to the neo-lib paradigm that has blighted our country for all these yrs..

            ..and has got us to the sorry state we are now..

            (..see 16.1.2. below..)

          • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.2
            9 October 2014 at 6:18 pm

            @ finbar
            What sort of workers? They vary one from the other and in groups – they are not a bunch of clones. And in what sort of condition at what sportsground meeting? Very vague opinion.
            Reid seems a sincere, well-informed man and hasn’t struck me as not able. Have you only heard him this once?

  3. NeutObserver 3
    9 October 2014 at 11:30 am

    Most of the union votes should go Andre Little’s way, whose move sends David Cunliffe candidacy to the bottom of the sea.

  4. Enough is Enough 4
    9 October 2014 at 11:33 am

    Born Leader.

    He has leadership skills, general respect in the caucus, and a reputation of being able to build relationships between workers and business.

    I am not sure how he is on the campaign trail but he does not have the baggage and controversy which the other two candidates seemed bogged down with.

    • BM 4.1
      9 October 2014 at 11:35 am

      I am not sure how he is on the campaign trail but he does not have the baggage and controversy which the other two candidates seemed bogged down with.

      That’s his biggest asset, starting with a clean slate.

    • whateva next? 4.2
      9 October 2014 at 8:35 pm

      aye, and enough is enough

  5. wekarawshark 5
    9 October 2014 at 11:34 am

    ‘Greater cohesion’ sounds way better than fake unity, but I’m still sceptical. What will be done about the left/neoliberal split within caucus and the wider party?

  6. Ovid 6
    9 October 2014 at 11:40 am

    If a former head of the EPMU isn’t left enough for the membership, I don’t know who would be. That said, good union leaders know about the business side too and how to negotiate between competing expectations. He’s a welcome addition to the race.

  7. Bill 7
    9 October 2014 at 11:42 am

    Personal preference.

    Cunliffe to withdraw, but not yet. When he does, endorse Little and settle for the role of Finance. Polynesian or Moari woman from caucus as deputy.

    Wonder who the ABC’s will be throwing up in lieu of lead balloon Shearer. (I don’t really, it’s kinda depressingly and laughably obvious)

    • adam 7.1
      9 October 2014 at 12:21 pm

      One candidate has done a good job winning a new electorate and working with all people across the left. And the fact she represents some of the poorest areas in auckland helps as well. She also worked her but off to get back in parliament and has support by the people on the ground. But, nah labour have too many hacks and professional politicians to promote before they’d promoted the member from Kelston.

      • Lanthanide 7.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 12:23 pm

        She’s also only been in parliament for 2 minutes.

        Labour need to get over this obsession of promoting people to the top jobs before they’re ready. Yes, Little hasn’t been an MP very long either, but he’s been heavily involved in the party and leading organisations in the past, so his organisational credentials are sufficient, and the fact he doesn’t have a whole lot of baggage like the others do is a strong point in his favour.

        • Ergo Robertina 7.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 12:39 pm

          Carmel was also an MP from 2008-2011.
          She seems tougher than the rest of the new breed of Labour MPs, and hopefully she’ll go up against Bennett in the House.

          • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 12:59 pm

            Yes, and I’m very impressed with her myself, but she’s not ready for leadership. Deputy? Maaybe, but would still probably be a mistake.

            • mickysavage 7.1.1.1.1.1
              9 October 2014 at 4:26 pm

              I have had involvement in her past two campaigns and Carmel is phenomenally good. She is passionate and hard working and dedicated. She also builds up teams behind her. She will have a very good future in the party if there is any fairness in this game.

              • Lanthanide …
                9 October 2014 at 4:28 pm

                If she’d been in parliament from 2011 to 2014 I’d likely be saying something very different. But unfortunately she wasn’t.

              • Skinny …
                9 October 2014 at 9:07 pm

                Sounds like your tossing up on a wish list of who you would like to be Dave’s deputy. When there was a choice Mahuta was a bit of a joke to some, however Labour needs a Maori MP to inspire them to at least actually turn up to vote.

          • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 7.1.1.1.2
            9 October 2014 at 1:49 pm

            And Carmel didn’t need the like of Simon Lusk to write her strategy papers. Nor did she need the companionship of Hooton and Farrar! Carmel has values, good sense and decency: something that FW Nash is totally devoid of.

      • wekarawshark 7.1.2
        9 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

        Who are you talking about?

        Can I make a request? There are lots of people reading this who are interested. Please don’t leave us guessing who you are talking about. It looks like some kind of ‘in’ club and exclusive for those who aren’t part of it. Given how important the whole Labour thing is, it’d be good if we could discuss things in a way that makes them accessible to a wide range of people.

        (not just you adam, others are doing it too).

      • Ron 7.1.3
        9 October 2014 at 7:28 pm

        Yes!! I would endorse that

        One candidate has done a good job winning a new electorate

      • Darien Fenton 7.1.4
        10 October 2014 at 10:26 am

        She’s already been promoted to Junior Whip.

    • Lanthanide 7.2
      9 October 2014 at 12:21 pm

      “Cunliffe to withdraw, but not yet. When he does, endorse Little and settle for the role of Finance. Polynesian or Moari woman from caucus as deputy.”

      Yes, yes, no.

      I firmly believe it was Cunliffe trying to take the high road and run a double-ticket with Nania Mahuta as his deputy, when none of the other candidates had deputies (and it is up to the caucus to decide who the deputy is) that scuttled his bid in 2011, and I think that loss has haunted him ever since.

      While it would be good to have a Maori and/or woman as the deputy, I’m not really sure any of them are up to it.

      Also I’m not sure how tenable Cunliffe taking over finance will be, as David Parker has done a pretty good job in it, unless he was given another plum job like shadow leader of the house or something.

      • wekarawshark 7.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 12:35 pm

        except for that little matter of the retirement age.

        • Ergo Robertina 7.2.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 12:41 pm

          True, but it should be remembered the retirement age hike was also Labour policy in the 2011 election, at which time Cunliffe was finance spokesman.

        • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 7.2.1.2
          9 October 2014 at 12:43 pm

          it is not a small matter but symptomatic of his [Parker’s] tin ears

        • Lanthanide 7.2.1.3
          9 October 2014 at 1:02 pm

          The retirement age *is* going to be increased, sooner or later.

          Would you prefer sooner, so everyone knows what to expect and can plan for it, or later, so we’re forced into the position National took in 1991 when they increased the age from 60 to 61 in the budget, and increased it by 6 months per year for the 8 years after that?

          Labour’s plan, which amounted to 2 months every year for 12 years, was very generous.

          • wekarawshark 7.2.1.3.1
            9 October 2014 at 1:19 pm

            I think Labour should drop it as a policy now. Once they are in govt they should do a whole lot of consultation of their members and the public and open up the debate. This should include education about the issues and the various options.

            We don’t *have* to do anything. Irrespective of the arguments for raising the age, it’s a discriminatory policy.

            • Lanthanide 7.2.1.3.1.1
              9 October 2014 at 1:52 pm

              “Irrespective of the arguments for raising the age, it’s a discriminatory policy.”

              It’s discriminatory against the younger generation, such as myself, who are expected to keep paying and paying through the nose for current (and near-term) retirees, when we ourselves are going to be living in a shitty future, thanks to those very same people we are paying taxes to support (see Bill’s comment below).

              • wekarawshark …
                9 October 2014 at 2:34 pm

                That argument only works if you believe that raising super is the ony way to finance government spending. Or increasing income tax on low and middle income earners. Do you believe that those are the only two choices?

                But it actually falls down ethically and philosophically because it assumes that our personal taxes should be for the good of our own selves. Fuck that. You sound like the people who resent me my benefit because they have the privilege of working for a living.

                Anyone who voted in the last election has a responsibility for our shitty future. Or didn’t vote. Or drives a car. Or uses electronics. Or gets income from investments. Or flies on airplanes. Or eats food out of season. Or whatever. It’s a pretty long list that basically includes everyone who isn’t a child. Lumping the blame on people who will retire in the next 20 years is weird. Why not blame the people already retired, given it was the decisions made when they were young that set us up for the shitty future?

                • Tracey …
                  9 October 2014 at 2:37 pm

                  Agree, and those near retirees and retirees paid taxes so that lanth only had to pay for some uni education, not all, has roads, infrastructure, opportunity etc etc…

                  I had “free” university ed but then muldoon stole my parents super so it probably evened out.

                  • wekarawshark …
                    9 October 2014 at 3:01 pm

                    lolz, that’s the problem when we think ‘my’ taxes pay for other people’s things. Better to look at running a system that does the best for us all. Having policies that discriminate against labourers and Polynesians is just fucked.

                  • alwyn …
                    9 October 2014 at 3:03 pm

                    If you are talking about National Super, which I am assuming, then you are living in a world on the other side of the looking glass.
                    Muldoon introduced the scheme with an age of 60 and a level based on 80% of the average wage.
                    It stayed that way until a Labour Government, in 1985, introduced the tax surcharge for people on high incomes. This may be what you mean by “stole” but it was the Labour party, not Muldoon who did it.
                    If you mean something else by “stealing their super” then you will, of course be able to ignore this statement of history as it really happened.

                    • Tracey …
                      9 October 2014 at 3:09 pm

                      Actually he abolished the compulsory superannuation scheme in 1976 and took the 36 million fo other things…

                    • alwyn …
                      9 October 2014 at 3:27 pm

                      I think you need to review you history Tracey.
                      ” took the 36 million for other things…”
                      Your parents were paid out, completely, their share of the fund. It wasn’t spent on other things at all.
                      He also introduced the enormously more generous National Superannuation scheme to which they would become entitled.
                      The compulsory Super scheme brought in by Roger Douglas in the 1972-1975 term would never have really lasted. Later Governments would never have been able to keep their grubby little paws off it. Look at what the Greens want to do with the Cullen fund, or individuals Kiwisaver. They want, after seeing how much dosh is there, to rule on where it is to be invested, and bugger the returns from the investment. All parties are they same.

                • Lanthanide …
                  9 October 2014 at 3:47 pm

                  “That argument only works if you believe that raising super is the ony way to finance government spending. Or increasing income tax on low and middle income earners. Do you believe that those are the only two choices?”

                  No, clearly they are not “the only two choices”, and funnily enough I’m not suggesting abolition of superannuation, or raising the age to 95, as your strawman argument would suggest that I am.

                  Raising the superannuation age to 67, which is a very modest increase spread over 12 years, is *part* of how to balance government expenditure against revenue for the future.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    9 October 2014 at 4:03 pm

                    Let’s cut to the chase. The government needs to deficit spend into the economy, and it needs to do so at a higher rate and slightly differently than it is now.

                    Overall, there is no need to balance government expenditure against revenue in the way you are describing. And even if you buy into that model of government finance you completely avoid the issue that raising the retirement age is actually an entirely political decision. There are many other ways of “balancing government expenditure against revenue for the future” and not all of them attack older, poorer citizens.

                    Regardless, the changes you are talking about will eventually act to remove billions of dollars a year of spending out of local and regional economies. You may see that as a good thing in a future of economic stagnation, but its an appalling move and one which Labour deserved to lose a lot of votes over.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 October 2014 at 4:24 pm

                      So if superannuation is such a panacea for the economy and government debt is as meaningless as you claim, why not lower the retirement age to 64 or 63?

                      Now, truly what I think we need is a UBI, and if the predicted economic maelstrom comes our way, in conjunction with more and more jobs being done by robots in the future, then it seems almost inevitable.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      9 October 2014 at 4:29 pm

                      UBI with what retirement age?

                  • wekarawshark …
                    9 October 2014 at 4:28 pm

                    “No, clearly they are not “the only two choices”, and funnily enough I’m not suggesting abolition of superannuation, or raising the age to 95, as your strawman argument would suggest that I am.”

                    No, you’re simply not listening to what I am saying. I don’t think that at all and you’ve just invented a strawman and plonked it on my side of the fence.

                    I just find it interesting that you’re concerned about your own taxes and future, but not willing to even concede to the disriminatory nature of the policy.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      10 October 2014 at 8:20 am

                      You’re refusing to concede that any choice is discriminating between one set of people who deserve money, and another who don’t.

                      Changing the basis for how the discrimination is delineated in itself is not discriminating.

            • boldsirbrian 7.2.1.3.1.2
              9 October 2014 at 2:40 pm

              .
              @ weka-rawshark (7.2.1.3.1)

              I think raising the age for super is a really good policy. It makes sense on a number of levels, primarily redistributing that money to areas that I think have a greater priority … (living wage; health, etc). The fact is for the majority of people 70 relates (health and longevity) to where 65 used to be. Most people want to work longer, if they can.

              But. BUT.

              (a) Such a policy should be dependent on Cross Party support. Without that support, it is not worth pursuing. Labour could then promote differences between parties, on who would benefit from the increased revenue.

              (b) It needs to be sold, on what it may deliver, and not what it is taking away. Obviously any change will result in winners and losers, however.

              (c) People who need to retire (eg because of ill health) need to be able to access super sooner. Issues of ‘discrimination’ that you suggest need to be carefully considered.

              (d) I am assuming that the age will only be increased to 67 or 68

              The reaction to the policy (that it was a bad election policy) is understandable, because the issues above were not considered. As it was promoted in the 2014 election, it was yet another self inflicted wound. The principle of the policy is however (potentially) sound.

              • wekarawshark …
                9 October 2014 at 3:06 pm

                Sure, as I said it’s possible to argue the pros. But its still a discriminatory policy.

                “(c) People who need to retire (eg because of ill health) need to be able to access super sooner. Issues of ‘discrimination’ that you suggest need to be carefully considered.”

                That doesn’t take into account classes of people that die younger. Try selling 68 to people who have family members who die in their 60s.

                It also doesn’t take into account that we now live in a country that actively abuses and discriminates against ill people. It’s bad enough that we make ill people pariahs and jump through unacceptable hoops that impact negatively on their health, but now you want to create a special bludger class of people who want to retire early. Are you familiar with the painter on the roof meme? Replace sickness beneficiary in that story with early retiree.

                “Most people want to work longer, if they can.”

                I don’t know if that’s true (I think it depends entirely on what they can do for a living), but obvious if people want to work longer they can. No-one is saying they have to retire.

                • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark …
                  9 October 2014 at 3:15 pm

                  it’s possible to argue the pros

                  it’s also possible that the proposed policy is an exercise in pretend and extend.

                  cry out that it is/will be unaffordable and extend the qualifying age.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    9 October 2014 at 3:20 pm

                    Raising the retirement age is a right wing policy which favours those who are already monied by the time they are 65 – or 67. And do not need to rely on NZ Super.

              • Skinny …
                9 October 2014 at 9:37 pm

                The jobs are not going to be there you fool. 50 % are gone within 20 years, and not just manual laboring jobs. Technology supersedes work as we know it. The opposite should be happening with the emphasis on responsible corporate behavior. We really are losing the fight when all the stat’s are showing we are becoming slaves to the rich elite.

              • Puddleglum …
                9 October 2014 at 9:50 pm

                “Most people want to work longer, if they can.”

                Any evidence for that claim?

                While there’s an increasing proportion of people of retirement age working (a) they are still a considerable minority of people aged 65 and over, and (b) their motives are unknown (unless you know of some research on that point?).

                Being employed (as opposed to employing someone) is a subordinate social rank. It involves one’s daily activity being in the service of someone else’s project.

                Irrespective of the long-term goal, if any, that people believe they are working towards through being employed (and receiving income in exchange) the daily effects of suppressing one’s own autonomy to serve the demands of another has its price. In lay terms, it grinds you down mentally and emotionally.

                Very few people (or other animals) thrive when they occupy such subordinate status – see the Whitehall studies.

            • greywarshark 7.2.1.3.1.3
              9 October 2014 at 6:22 pm

              wekarawshark 1.19
              +100

          • Bill 7.2.1.3.2
            9 October 2014 at 1:41 pm

            Hey Lanth, you’re overlooking a tiny, somewhat annoying detail when you make that assertion.

            By around 2040, the mean average surface temperature of the planet is slated to be around 4 degrees C above what it was just prior to the industrial revolution.

            Now, that doesn’t mean that at mid-night on the 31st Dec 2039, or whenever, the temperature suddenly jumps by 4 degrees C. It means that between now and then, we will experience increasingly deleterious climatic ‘events’ – longer harsher droughts, heavier rains, stronger winds…all essentially ripping the economy to tatters.

            Maybe you failed to notice that mere 100km winds toppled Auckland infrastucture last week? Extrapolate that into the scenario of far harsher climatic conditions unleashing multiple and widespread destructive weathers.

            See, a (at best) highly dysfunctional market economy has no jobs to offer…let alone a retirement option.

            • Lanthanide 7.2.1.3.2.1
              9 October 2014 at 1:51 pm

              So your point is that the retirement age is going to raise to 85?

              Or what?

              Seems you haven’t disagreed with me at all.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                9 October 2014 at 2:42 pm

                I think Bill was pointing out that Labour’s thinking framework around the retirement age, and your thinking framework around giving it the thumbs up, are both wildly and massively mistaken compared to what we know is coming down the pike of the physical real economy between now and 2050.

                • Lanthanide …
                  9 October 2014 at 3:49 pm

                  Yes, but being truthful about that isn’t going to win any votes.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    9 October 2014 at 4:06 pm

                    Well yes that is certainly a problem. It’s why I believe that democracies around the world will continue marching towards a rather nasty cliff edge as ‘pretend and extend’ finishes up.

                    It would reassure me a little however Lanth, if you didn’t also take up the arguments for continuing the march off the edge.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 October 2014 at 4:15 pm

                      The only way to stop the march off the edge is to be in charge of the marching band itself.

                      Of course it is quite difficult to get into a position of power, only to pull the mask from your face and appear (to the public) to be a ghastly boogeyman that they didn’t vote for. 4th Labour government effectively tried that tactic.

                      So I guess democracy is fundamentally fucked in that it can’t deal with the unrealistic aspirations of the public.

                  • wekarawshark …
                    9 October 2014 at 4:31 pm

                    “Yes, but being truthful about that isn’t going to win any votes.”

                    If you want to take that tack, then a key policy on raising the retirement age will prevent Labour from winning in 2017. What’s the point then?

                    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark …
                      9 October 2014 at 4:49 pm

                      Yes, please clarify, Lanthanide.

                      I read your comments above and elsewhere, particularly where you said the following which is quite difficult to reconcile where you are coming from and where you are going:

                      “I agree with telling the truth (although ‘what’ truth are we trying to tell here? [… ] aren’t going to win votes, no matter how inevitable they are).”

                    • greywarshark …
                      9 October 2014 at 6:37 pm

                      @ wekarawshark 4.31
                      Confronting people with policies that deal with the scenarios perhaps getting people to work through them as an exercise would help to shift people away from rejection. A mock disaster, based on what happened in Christchurch, only over much of the country. As a situation without a possible return to past capacity.

                      Weekend role playing, attempting to think and work through problems that would have to be considered and then stop at various stages. That would result in people putting forward ideas on what would be likely and then there would be a discussion on different ways it would be dealt with. Then division into different groups who would follow the idea through to the next stage and report.

                      People must start to prepare. This debacle of yek and his tribe of toadies and grifters getting another three years comes about because Labour management showed an example of ignorant, wilful refusal to look to the practical and necessary. And they lost the election and the power of resolve and also respect from the people. That’s what I thought myself and what I am hearing from people I ask who I know are thoughtful citizens.

                      Acting out the problems, experiencing them at firsthand, getting involved in role playing and examining likely events and responses from citizens, would be one way of demonstrating the likely reality. Much more effectively too, than words and exhortations and didactic messages that the intellectually-lazy or the enmeshed in present TINA are resisting with all their skills of denial and mockery.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      9 October 2014 at 6:43 pm

                      Sorry, before I read that can I just ask if you would put pm/am after your @ thingy. I’ve been thinking you were referring to post numbers not time. cheers.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      9 October 2014 at 8:34 pm

                      That’s a very interesting idea grey. Were you referring to Climate Change?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      10 October 2014 at 8:23 am

                      weka – so you’re arguing in favour of National’s change to superannuation, where they put the age up by 1 year suddenly, and 6 months every year for 8 years, instead of Labour’s very gradual 2 months for 12 years.

                      That’s the truth. Labour can win the election with such a policy, if they actually articulate it in these terms.

                    • greywarshark …
                      10 October 2014 at 11:37 am

                      wekarawshark …
                      9 October 2014 at 8.34 pm
                      A long and more detailed version of the idea is down at No. 43 where it won’t blot out the light falling on the thread of others comments! Let me know what you think offhand.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      10 October 2014 at 12:41 pm

                      🙄 @Lanth

                      Lanth I’ve been very clear about what I think on this issue. Why are you repeatedly putting words in my mouth?

                      Yep, grey, should get to it later today. Thanks!!

                    • Lanthanide …
                      10 October 2014 at 1:15 pm

                      @ weka: I’m not putting words in your mouth, I’m answering your question.

                      You said “being truthful won’t win votes”, so I pointed out what the truth is in this case: either we raise the super age gradually as Labour proposes, or we do it in a short sharp jolt like National did. If this truth were properly articulated by Labour, it wouldn’t have to lose votes for this policy.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      10 October 2014 at 3:57 pm

                      No, I didn’t say that. Here’s what I actually said,

                      La: “Yes, but being truthful about that isn’t going to win any votes.”

                      Weka: If you want to take that tack, then a key policy on raising the retirement age will prevent Labour from winning in 2017. What’s the point then?

                      YOU are the one that said being truthful isn’t going to win votes, so I pointed out that if you believe that how is Labour going to win the next election by having openly having such an unpopular policy.

                      You then went on to make up some shit about what I think about National, despite me having not said that.

                      IMO, the misunderstanding arises fom you still arguing TINA, whereas I and others are calling bullshit on that.

                      “If this truth were properly articulated by Labour, it wouldn’t have to lose votes for this policy.”

                      Ok, so please articulate it properly here, as if you were talking to someone who has family members across many generations die in their 60s, and who have more than 50% of the people in their families doing jobs they don’t particularly like.

                    • wtl …
                      10 October 2014 at 4:20 pm

                      IMO, the misunderstanding arises fom you still arguing TINA, whereas I and others are calling bullshit on that.

                      Yes, Lanth seems to be relying on a TINA argument. While I’m not generally keen on such arguments, I have to say I agree with Lanth here. The retirement age is going to go up in the future. Although there are ways for the Government to continue to fund superannuation at 65 (print money? raise taxes on the rich?), I really don’t see any of these as being politically tenable in the (near) future. Unfortunately, this is considered heresy by most commenters here.

                      Is it a voter loser? I don’t know. Of course there are people who are against this policy but there are also others who support it (like Lanth and I) because we see it as a responsible policy. Unlike Key and National’s way of dealing with it – stick their fingers in their ears and ignore it because it will be someone else’s problem. To me it simply reinforces what I see as the biggest problem with the current Government – all their thinking is short-term, from ways of growing the economy (more cows!) to raising money (sell assets!).

                    • wekarawshark …
                      10 October 2014 at 5:29 pm

                      “The retirement age is going to go up in the future. Although there are ways for the Government to continue to fund superannuation at 65 (print money? raise taxes on the rich?), I really don’t see any of these as being politically tenable in the (near) future.” = TINA

                      The retirement age is going to go up in the future.

                      We can’t afford to pay beneficiaries enough to live on.

                      We can’t afford free education.

                      We can’t afford free and cheap healthcare

                      We can’t create jobs for everyone

                      We can’t make sure all kids are fed, clothed, sheltered, given opportunities

                      We can’t prevent poverty

                      etc

                      = we can’t recover from neoliberalism so let’s make the best of it.

                      If you think 67 isn’t an unpopular policy, how about you try answering my question to Lanth about presenting it to someone whose family dies in the 60s.

                      I also suggest reading Bill’s comments on retirement policies and AGW.

          • Colonial Rawshark 7.2.1.3.3
            9 October 2014 at 2:20 pm

            The retirement age *is* going to be increased, sooner or later.

            Why? Is the government somehow going to run out of money?

            And why increase an already excess labour pool when there aren’t enough full time jobs available to go around, already?

            • Andrea 7.2.1.3.3.1
              9 October 2014 at 3:26 pm

              When they can categorically say they are running out of PEOPLE to carry out work, and they can name the work choices on offer.
              When the work on offer pays well.
              When discrimination against older people and differently abled people is not only mentioned in nice words but actively countered.
              When we know who is hiring, and that our value is not being exported while NZ goes without funds.
              When job/employment is simply one of the work choices on offer and there is no slur attached to other work-styles.

              Then we can mention ‘money’ and ‘affordable’ and ‘work ’til you die if that’s your choice’.

            • Lanthanide 7.2.1.3.3.2
              9 October 2014 at 3:52 pm

              “Why? Is the government somehow going to run out of money?”

              The government already has run out of money. Eventually the public will realise this and will take measures to curb spending and increase revenue.

              “And why increase an already excess labour pool when there aren’t enough full time jobs available to go around, already?”

              If political parties really cared about this, they’d be putting in policy measures so that people who are still working when they’re 65+ would have their superannuation abated as encouragement to retire.

              The difference in the number of people employed if the age of entitlement is increased to 67 from 65 pales in comparison to the number of people who are 65+ that are voluntarily working because there’s no downside if they do.

              • Tracey …
                9 October 2014 at 3:57 pm

                Do you know how much the super annuation payout is?

                • Lanthanide …
                  9 October 2014 at 4:12 pm

                  I’m not sure what you’re asking.

                  • Tracey …
                    9 October 2014 at 6:57 pm

                    Do you know what a retired single person gets and a retired couple?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      10 October 2014 at 8:27 am

                      Off the top of my head, it’s $13k for an individual and something like $18-21k for a couple.

                      Turns out I’m woefully out – $22k for an individual, $33k for a couple.

              • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark …
                9 October 2014 at 4:18 pm

                The government already has run out of money.

                Tell us more about “money” please?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                9 October 2014 at 4:40 pm

                The government already has run out of money. Eventually the public will realise this and will take measures to curb spending and increase revenue.

                How can the Government run out of money when it issues the money? Unlike you and I who are merely *users* of NZD, the NZ Government is an *issuer* of NZD.

                Bigger picture – why would you push for government curbing spending into the economy and increasing its tax take from the economy, if the immediate result will be to drive private sector businesses, households and communities into a net deficit (in order to create a government net surplus)?

                • greywarshark …
                  9 October 2014 at 4:45 pm

                  @colonial Rawshark 4.40
                  Can I do the easy questions first and go back to the hard ones if I have time??

    • phillip ure 7.3
      9 October 2014 at 3:04 pm

      @ bill…

      ..will it be chippy..?

      ..please say it will be chippy..!

      • Bill 7.3.1
        9 October 2014 at 3:08 pm

        I think, even the ABCers ain’t quite that ridiculous. Mind you, I’ve been proven wrong before now 😉

    • JAMESMAXTON 7.4
      9 October 2014 at 9:33 pm

      Bill,

      I think you are spot on and hopefully it comes to fruit.

  8. Skinny 8
    9 October 2014 at 12:28 pm

    Great news very happy for Andrew and Labour. Looking forward to a catch up with him next week. He knows I will work hard to influence further support from the membership.

    • Tracey 8.1
      9 October 2014 at 1:38 pm

      Can you ask him how he proposes to successfully counter the two track key cult that will rain down upon him, if selected, as it did on goff, shearer and cunlifde, and make a post here?

      • Skinny 8.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 6:12 pm

        Rodger that!

        • Tracey 8.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 6:58 pm

          I look forward to getting the skinny…

        • phillip ure 8.1.1.2
          9 October 2014 at 7:01 pm

          and cd u ask him to clearly show where he sits within the labour spectrum..?

          ..from neo-lib at one end..to ditching neo-lib and reaching out to the million disaffected..at the other

          ..because..up until now..he seems like a rightie/defender of the neo-lib induced staus quo…..

          • Tracey 8.1.1.2.1
            9 October 2014 at 7:06 pm

            Yeah, which is why it would be useful if lp sorted out who it wants to represent and then choose a leader to carry that vision…

            It looks like a leader will be picked and then impose their vision…

            History may well repeat itself

  9. Clemgeopin 9
    9 October 2014 at 12:33 pm

    The contest is getting more unpredictable now.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 9.1
      9 October 2014 at 12:49 pm

      mmm ……. “unpredictable” for who?

    • Lanthanide 9.2
      9 October 2014 at 1:03 pm

      Pretty easy to predict Cunliffe is going to lose, now.

      It’s just a toss-up between Little and Grant, and personally I think Grant is so invisible and dishwater-dull that he won’t win over the members.

      • phillip ure 9.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 3:07 pm

        so..little will out-charisma him..?..you reckon..?

        ..whoar..!

        ..hidden-until-now talents will be flourished..?

        ..(if only he didn’t look/talk like beaker..from the muppets..that little…)

        • Lanthanide 9.2.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 3:53 pm

          Cunliffe mightily screwed up his post-election manoeuvres. He’s damaged goods and I don’t think he can come back from it.

          Up against only GR it would have been a stretch, but with Little in there as well he doesn’t really have a chance.

          • phillip ure 9.2.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 4:08 pm

            have you ever seen little stumbling his way thru parliament..?

            ..he makes bloody shearer look good/polished in comparison..f.f.s..!

            • Lanthanide 9.2.1.1.1.1
              9 October 2014 at 4:21 pm

              No, I haven’t.

              • phillip ure …
                9 October 2014 at 4:29 pm

                i have seen all of them..thru doing commentaries on q-time..for quite a long time..

                ..and just going on that performance in the house/sticking it to key/national..

                ..cunliffe is head and shoulders above both robertson and little..

                ..he is the only one in labour that i have seen that key/national are afraid/respectful of..

                ..they treat/view both robertson and little as easily waved away by any number of national ministers..

                ..and i just imagine how much better cunliffe will be at that already admitted strength/skill he has..

                ..by 2017..

                ..and if those in the labour party who will make this decision value what cunliffe has to offer..

                ..and are looking at victory in 2017..

                ..it is a no-brainer choice..

                .. (you don’t have to ‘like’ him..f.f.s..!..i can’t think of any politicians i ‘like’/would like to spend extended periods of time with..

                ..it is who can do the job..and will have the correct policy-focus to attract that missing million..

                ..that is what matters..

                ,..and once again..cunliffe is the answer to that question..

                ..the other two are neo-lib/righwing stalking-horses..

                ..and will just continue to drag labour down oblivion-alley..)

                • boyonlaptop …
                  9 October 2014 at 4:35 pm

                  No you don’t have to like him, but the voting public have to if he’s ever going to get elected and they clearly don’t. 25% is not a mandate for continual leadership it’s a loud and clear result that it’s time for him to stand aside. That’s the no brainier choice.

                  I really don’t understand where the narrative is coming from that the right are somehow scared of Cunliffe, they may have been initially in the same way that English looked promising at the start of his tenure as National leader. In much the same way they’re both a joke now and not seen as viable leadership material.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    9 October 2014 at 4:45 pm

                    Grant’s been on the senior leadership team two elections in a row, it’s time he take some responsibility for Labour’s poor campaign decisions, and its poor election results.

                    In fact, where has Grant *ever* taken any responsibility in public for the decisions he has made as part of the senior campaign teams in both elections.

                    Fine for you to say that 25% is an appalling party vote result for Labour. But Wellington Central came under even that. So I want to hear GR’s explanation for why Labour was no.1 in the party vote in Wellington Central when Hobbs was there, and why under his watch its fallen to no.3.

                    • boyonlaptop …
                      9 October 2014 at 5:07 pm

                      Wow, this comment and this comment alone epitomizes the complete aversion for any factual analysis by Cunliffe supporters.

                      1. To suggest that the leadership should take responsibility for the leadership would be to suggest that Cunliffe should take primary responsibility far more than Robertson or anyone else.

                      2. In Wellington Central the Labour and the Greens together got 53% of the vote which if that had been replicated nationally I think any left-winger should be jumping for joy over. Losing support to the Greens is not the same as losing support to National.

                      3. Grant Robertson achieved a much better personal vote than DC did in New Lynn.

                      4. Robertson has been more than generous to Cunliffe since the election frequently refraining from criticizing him personally for the election loss and talking about changes within Labour not just the leadership. He has been a lot less critical of Cunliffe than many of his supporters would have liked.

                    • leftie …
                      9 October 2014 at 8:30 pm

                      @Colonial Rawshark. Good point.

                  • phillip ure …
                    9 October 2014 at 5:04 pm

                    @ boyo..

                    ..so why are the right so singing in chorus to get rid of cunliffe..?

                    ..and to elect anyone but him..?

                    ..first robertson..then little..

                    ..next..?..the office-cleaner..?

                    (..their concern is touching..and sincere..i am sure..)

                    ..and cunliffe got that crap result in part because those rightwing ratbags in labour nobbled him by ensuring they sent him out with an empty policy-satchel..

                    ..all he had for the poorest..was to raise their pension-age..

                    ..that was a real winner of a strategy…eh..?

                    • boyonlaptop …
                      9 October 2014 at 5:10 pm

                      They’re really not singing a chorus to get rid of Cunliffe. Many supported the keep David Cunliffe as Labour leader facebook page. Many others have simply offered their opinion as political commentators.

                    • phillip ure …
                      9 October 2014 at 5:44 pm

                      @ boyo..

                      ..name me one msm-media-person who is saying in print labour should keep cunliffe..?

                      ..i have been amazed at not only the levels of anti-cunliffe hysteria/witch-hunt from most of them..

                      .but at how they are all so in lock-step/on-message…

                      ..so so anyone but cunliffe..

                  • Tracey …
                    9 October 2014 at 7:03 pm

                    Did robertson and little vehemently oppose labours policy and refuse to sign off the manifesto…

                    Little totally ballsed up the change of emphasis on sexual assault cases until it was totally lost in the screeches of

                    ” labour is making people guilty til proven innocent!”

                    He made the gaff and was unable to retrieve it…

                    Maybe he has learned from it… Pity cunliffe doesnt get to learn the lessons of a hard dirty campaign, from inside and out.

                    I dont vote labour, so this is simply an external observation.

                    Fascinating the number of new posters who appear when labour has a leadership contest, and then disappear afterwards.

                    • boyonlaptop …
                      9 October 2014 at 7:16 pm

                      “Did robertson and little vehemently oppose labours policy and refuse to sign off the manifest”

                      No and I have no idea what you’re trying to insinuate here. Nor, am I a Little supporter.

                      “Fascinating the number of new posters who appear when labour has a leadership contest, and then disappear afterwards.”

                      Fascinating, how people at a time when they’re encouraged to share their opinions and get a chance to do so actually do. Or are new posters not welcome in your closed community would you rather continue to just have people who agree with you?

                      Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out numerous times I’m not new to posting online and in fact supported Cunliffe last time.

                  • phillip ure …
                    9 October 2014 at 7:05 pm

                    @ boyo..

                    ..nah..!..the english comparison wd be with shearer,,

                • leftie …
                  9 October 2014 at 8:28 pm

                  @Phillip Ure. All that and more, and that’s why my vote goes to David Cunliffe.

  10. Skinny 10
    9 October 2014 at 12:48 pm

    The contest will be a lot more predictable when a leader nominee confirm their intention to advocate for numerous by elections to be held in the new year to refresh the MP pool. Also advocating for 2017 candidate selections to occur next winter, in other words giving a longer lead in time for them to campaign.

    • Lanthanide 10.1
      9 October 2014 at 1:05 pm

      Given the by-elections cost about $500k each, National would have a field day of Labour’s divisions wasting tax-payer money.

      It’s not really feasible to have multiple by-elections, even 1 or 2 would probably be too much unless there were credible reasons given for the departure of the MPs involved.

      It’s much easier to quit when you’re a list MP.

      • Tracey 10.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 1:40 pm

        Announce you are not going to stand for re election, thats how the nats do it

      • alwyn 10.1.2
        9 October 2014 at 3:07 pm

        It wouldn’t be just the tax-payer money that would be wasted. Just how do you think that Labour would pay for multiple campaigns, given their widely agreed financial woes compared to National?

  11. Cancerman 11
    9 October 2014 at 1:00 pm

    I imagine Cunliffe will resign if he is not re elected.

  12. Marksman33 12
    9 October 2014 at 1:00 pm

    @ bearded rawshark , you my friend are so right, Robert would get my vote in a heartbeat, and his partner Maxine is no slouch either, they are both good good people.

  13. Karen 13
    9 October 2014 at 1:07 pm

    I still prefer Cunliffe, mainly because he has already been through all the shit that gets thrown at Labour Party leaders in election years and he, hopefully, has learnt from the experience and will avoid making the same mistakes. I think Grant will be chewed up and spat out, so my second choice is Little. He is a bit ponderous and I am not sure how he relates to Pacific Island and Maori constituents.

    He is good in TV interviews and at union rallies. This is him back in 2010 at a rally:

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      9 October 2014 at 1:11 pm

      +1

    • Chooky 13.2
      9 October 2014 at 1:42 pm

      +100…imo …Cunliffe is more personable than Little ( who is very dry, has had less experience and has Boag supporting him on some accounts)

      i would like to see Cunliffe ( who the right wing hate and did their best to roll! ) and Mahuta , or Wall , or some other Maori woman, as Deputy ….Poto Williams would give a South Island voice

      http://campaign.labour.org.nz/team

      • boyonlaptop 13.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 4:48 pm

        Cunliffe ( who the right wing hate)

        Ardern, Woods, Street, Twyford, Parker, Hipkins, Fenton and Parker have been on the right of Labour since when?

        • Chooky Sharksmile 13.2.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 6:11 pm

          are you making trouble?…I am talking about the right wing as in John Key Nactional…and the hell of a time Cunliffe got from the right wing msm media , the Herald and John Keys PR bovver boys Slater and Farrar

          • boyonlaptop 13.2.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 6:29 pm

            ( who the right wing hate and did their best to roll! )

            Seriously sounded like you’re referring to the caucus there, as many Cunliffe supporters have been spinning the ludicrous narrative that people who oppose him are all on the right of the party.

  14. paddy 14
    9 October 2014 at 1:10 pm

    Cunliffe should be number 1 and Little number two. Robertson is a traitor and should not be on the ballot paper.

    • Chooky 14.1
      9 October 2014 at 1:46 pm

      Prefer a Maori woman as no.2. …( women 50% of population of voters)

      imo …Little needs to prove his credentials before becoming Deputy leader…i am not sure how Left he actually is and how much the Electorate will like him

      • Tracey 14.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 2:31 pm

        How do you prove them in opposition?

        • Chooky 14.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

          see comments below on Little in opposition…seems to be mixed opinions on whether he is leadership material based on past performance

          • Tracey 14.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 2:41 pm

            I havent seen much of him other than sound bites on the news.

            I remain concerned that LP is going to elect a new leader before they determine who or what they represent.

            Ive read their vision… Mission… Etc but watched as they preferred winston to the greens… Kelvin winning TTT to strengthening the left chances of toppling a damaging govt…

            • Chooky 14.1.1.1.1.1
              9 October 2014 at 3:20 pm

              yes all not a good look….question is who was in charge of the strategy for that disaster?…was it caucus …or the leader …or the President ..or a combination?

              ….who would work best with a Left coalition? …seems this is crucial…Labour can no longer call all the shots…Labour is no longer the major Party it once was …other parties have taken its voters….and then there is the great number who do not/will not vote Labour…who can woo them into voting Labour?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                9 October 2014 at 4:48 pm

                To get a woman on the leadership ballot paper one is going to have to stand.

                • ropata mako shark …
                  9 October 2014 at 4:56 pm

                  I wish Lianne Dalziel was still in Parliament…

                • Chooky Sharksmile …
                  9 October 2014 at 4:56 pm

                  well maybe one needs to be persuaded to stand (lured with some meat)

                  …as a woman voter I would be more likely to vote Labour if they had a woman Deputy…and a stroppy Shark Left one! ( not a namby-pamby one)

                  …Helen Clark did not win three times in a row without the women Shark vote

  15. Not a PS Shark Sashimi 15
    9 October 2014 at 1:14 pm

    Little was the President from March 2009 after Mike Williams stood down following Helen’s exit. Little filled that role up to some time before the 2011election.

    How well did he handle the transition of the Party from the Helen and Williams years to a new era? He was there for much of the time that Phil Goff was leader.

    Many of the problems that curse us now festered and became cancerous then.

    How much of that should we attribute to the President? What leadership did he show in the era?

    • Bill 15.1
      9 October 2014 at 1:24 pm

      Still scratching me head at what you expected ‘a newby’, walking into a, by then fetid organisation of shoulder tapping and vested interests, to have done in such a constrained period of time. And that’s before any examination of what power the president actually has, and what room they have for maneuvering in the absence of any caucus endorsement or support for their moves.

      • Tracey 15.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 1:42 pm

        He still has to counter the inevitable attack from cult key and their two track nastiness…. They all do. The quesion is HOW

        • Bill 15.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 1:55 pm

          My tactic would be to call out the journalists on their school yard pack bullshit…front foot them and publicly humiliate them until such times as they step back and down. I reckon the bulk of the public would cheer such a move.

          And then, as ‘just saying’ commented the other day, just tell the fucking truth. Fuck the spin and the bullshit. Stop playing the game and tell it like it is. The voting public ain’t horses nor children, and I’d punt they’d quickly come on side in opposition to (the more powerful than national governments) vested interests that will spin and fear monger to keep things ‘as is’.

          But then, I’m just a punter who gets through life using simple, straight tactics, smartly. That could be a failing and merely a sign I’m just sadly lacking when it comes to subtle sophistication. Who knows?

          • Lanthanide 15.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 1:58 pm

            I agree with telling the truth (although ‘what’ truth are we trying to tell here? Peak oil and catastrophic climate change aren’t going to win votes, no matter how inevitable they are).

            But attacking the media needs to be done in a very nuanced and skilful manner. I’m not convinced anyone in Labour can pull that off.

            • Bill 15.1.1.1.1.1
              9 October 2014 at 2:04 pm

              So ‘permitting’ people to realise that this way of doing shit is continuing on the back of borrowed (overdrawn?) time and that we need to take some very serious and radical step changes ought to be relegated below the task of winning votes on platforms that allow and encourage widespread denial?

              I guess that is the current preference of politicians. 🙁

              • Lanthanide …
                9 October 2014 at 3:58 pm

                As I’ve said many times before: politics, the art of the possible.

                By and large the public is greedy, stupid, short-sighted and irrational.

                If the public were wholly rational and appraised scientific fact on it’s merits we might have a chance. But it doesn’t.

                Lunatics declaring the end of the world are routinely ignored; a political party doing the same won’t be received any differently in the current climate (pun intended).

            • Hanswurst 15.1.1.1.1.2
              10 October 2014 at 9:32 am

              But attacking the media needs to be done in a very nuanced and skilful manner. I’m not convinced anyone in Labour can pull that off.

              I’m not sure that anyone currently in any of the parties can pull it off. In fact, I think it’s an herculean task that very, very few people could pull off at all.

          • Tracey 15.1.1.1.2
            9 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

            I hear youbut something tells me that until key goes and the left are up against a key clone… It will be freaking hard to counter.

            Look at what journos are now labelling as “dirty politics”… Its like they didnt read it or didnt understand it.

        • Lanthanide 15.1.1.2
          9 October 2014 at 1:56 pm

          National won’t be attacking Little on his role as party president from 2009 to 2011. I’m sure they’ll bring it up as embellishment, but the thrust will be that he’s a union man and no one likes unions etc.

          • Tracey 15.1.1.2.1
            9 October 2014 at 2:25 pm

            And they are commies and to the hard left and he will favour strikes and on and on…

            But little leading could see a move to regard the unions as a strength for lp, and to build a voice from the shop floor up.

    • Skinny 15.2
      9 October 2014 at 3:07 pm

      Bill is correct. You forgot to say you support Robertson ? Beltway staffer 🙂

  16. Saarbo 16
    9 October 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Interesting.

    Not sure whether his selection will improve the “Mood of the Boardroom”, nor do I give a shit, NZ Ceo’s are the most mediocre bunch of overpaid suck ups that you’ll find anywhere in the world.

    In my view to deal with his 1st 2 issues he needs to get rid of the deadwood in caucus.

    • alwyn 16.1
      9 October 2014 at 4:11 pm

      “NZ Ceo’s are the most mediocre bunch of overpaid suck ups that you’ll find anywhere in the world.”

      That is an amazingly broad comment and appears to show an encyclopaedic knowledge of the business world.
      Perhaps you could tell us how you come to that conclusion. Please tell us how you would evaluate the talents of the CEOs of the largest twenty companies in New Zealand and compare them with the talents of the corresponding group in, shall we say, Brazil.
      You do know who those CEOs are do you? For that matter do you even know the largest company in Brazil? Or the largest one in New Zealand for that matter?
      No looking at Wikipedia mind.

      • Colonial Rawshark 16.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 4:50 pm

        Not worth the money. Suggest a 79% income tax threshold set at 10x the median wage. (Circa $440K pa).

        • Skinny 16.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 6:21 pm

          Totally agree with that CV. How on earth State & Public sector CEO’s are pulling million dollar plus salaries that taxpayers fund beggars belief. Then these overpaid clowns successfully screw their workforce down to peanut payrises.

          • Colonial Rawshark 16.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 9:42 pm

            You notably forgot to mention anything about the private sector, where the real problem with sky high pay is.

      • ropata mako shark 16.1.2
        9 October 2014 at 5:29 pm

        alwyn, maybe we can work it out using ‘facts’ and ‘logic’:

        1. Our largest corporations are
        a) utilities built by taxpayers
        b) co-operatives of farmers
        c) resource extraction
        d) global leaders in technology
        e) australian banks

        How much heroic effort did your overpaid CEO’s put in to create these titans of industry? Or was it actually miners, farmers, and joe taxpayer who made it happen?

        2. Since 1984, New Zealand’s Gini coefficient (inequality) has
        a) not changed
        b) gotten a bit worse
        c) shown the worst decline in the OECD

        3. Since 1984 has the wage gap with Australia
        a) not changed
        b) gotten a bit worse
        c) shot up to 40%

        4. Since 1982 has child poverty
        a) not changed
        b) gotten a bit worse
        c) almost doubled

        • phillip ure 16.1.2.1
          9 October 2014 at 5:51 pm

          @ ropata..

          ..+ 1..

          ..well/tidily put..

          • ropata mako shark 16.1.2.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 6:11 pm

            Phil U, it’s probably a losing battle but sometimes I feel the need to remind cerebrally deficient Nats that the truth is out there, somewhere beyond #teamkkk and #natswaronfacts

        • alwyn 16.1.2.2
          9 October 2014 at 7:18 pm

          None of the things you are talking about have anything to do with the fanciful claim made that
          “NZ Ceo’s are the most mediocre bunch of overpaid suck ups that you’ll find anywhere in the world.”
          I am asking for some, any, evidence that they are the worst in the world and nothing you talk about has anything at all to do with that claim.

          In the meantime I looked at some of your statistics and they are very misleading. For example you are implying in 2 that “Since 1984, New Zealand’s Gini coefficient (inequality) has shown the worst decline in the OECD”. At the item you provide a link to we discover that the numbers they give are for 2007, near the end of the last Government. Hardly relevant today anyway and with very little to do with the ability of the current CEOs.

          You then say ” Since 1984 has the wage gap with Australia shot up to 40%”
          At the link you provide I find that that was a statement attributed to Don Brash in 2011. Another item in the list shows that in February 2013 even the New Zealand Labour Party was only claiming 20%. Looking at the June quarter figures for average wages in Australia and New Zealand I find that the Australian number was $A1122.90, converting at the mid (May) exchange rate to 1206.65. The New Zealand number was $1063.90. Thus the difference was down to 13.4%. Again not really valid for the main claim about CEOs but it tends to show we were right to pick a National-led Government weren’t we?

          I haven’t even bothered to look at your other two claims. How any business started decades ago has nothing to do with how good the CEO is now, and debates about the percentage of children in poverty has nothing to do with their capabilities.

          Nothing you say however has anything at all with the claim that New Zealand Ceos are the worst in the world does it?

          • ropata mako shark 16.1.2.2.1
            9 October 2014 at 9:11 pm

            Why are figures from 2007 “not relevant to today”?
            I was looking at trends over several decades, but don’t let inconvenient data interrupt your diatribe.

            The economic indicators are relevant to the claim that the NZ executive class is grossly overpaid, and the trends of the last 30 years are consistent in making life worse for most people, while the fat cats get the cream.

            You obviously don’t care for children in poverty, or proper stewardship of public assets. Typical me-first attitude from the right.

            • alwyn 16.1.2.2.1.1
              10 October 2014 at 11:12 am

              You don’t understand what I am talking about do you?
              What was claimed was that
              “NZ Ceo’s are the most mediocre bunch of overpaid suck ups that you’ll find anywhere in the world.”
              I would like to seem some evidence for that extreme claim.
              The claim wasn’t that
              ” the NZ executive class is grossly overpaid, and the trends of the last 30 years are consistent in making life worse for most people, while the fat cats get the cream.”
              was it? It was that, effectively, they were the most overpaid for their abilities of ANY countries CEOs and that is the evidence I am requesting. Your information may be evidence for something else but it isn’t for the statement made.

          • Puddleglum 16.1.2.2.2
            9 October 2014 at 10:23 pm

            “For example you are implying in 2 that “Since 1984, New Zealand’s Gini coefficient (inequality) has shown the worst decline in the OECD”. At the item you provide a link to we discover that the numbers they give are for 2007, near the end of the last Government.”

            The latest figures can be downloaded from here.

            The relevant graph is on page 15 of the ‘overview summary’ downloadable document. A quote from that page:

            “• The two distinctive features of the trend in income inequality in New Zealand in the last three decades are:
            o the rapid and significant rise in income inequality from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s, taking New Zealand from well under the OECD average to well above at that time
            o the fairly flat trend line from the mid 1990s to 2013.
            • The OECD average steadily rose over the last three decades, thus bringing the New Zealand and OECD trend lines closer together. On the latest OECD figures (2011/12), income inequality in New Zealand is at a similar level to that in Australia, Canada, Italy and Japan (Ginis of 32-33) and a little lower than the UK (34). Countries such as Denmark, Norway, Finland and Belgium have lower than average inequality (Ginis of 25-26). The US and Israel have higher scores of 39.            ”

            The brutal and rapid rise in income inequality in the decade from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s created much of the social and personal dysfunction present today.

  17. Opal 17
    9 October 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Andrew Little is the most boring man alive. Seriously soporific.

    Surely his record in his portfolios should matter. He did nothing in justice of note at all (he failed to gain any respect amongst the justice sector or score any hits despite the government messing up legal aid big time). And his big acheivement in the labour portfolio was scrapping industry standard agreements in favour of … nothing much?

    Inspirational.

    • Craig Glen Eden 17.1
      9 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

      Yeah Andrew is a good guy but has failed to get voters to elect him over a very average National Party MP in Jonathan Young. If you cant win NP which remember the likes of Harry Dynhoven has done multiple times why do you think you good get wider NZ to vote for you against John Key? Little would how ever be the perfect number two. He is loyal to Labour Party values, he understands how the Party works and with Cunliffe would certainly give Labour some credibility with the board rooms around NZ. I think Little standing is good and believe he has the fortitude to help Cunliffe take the Party forward. Labour needs stability and above all needs its Caucus to be disciplined from and forever quite frankly going forward. The Nats want Cunliffe out of the leadership and for good reason they know Cunliffe has got what it takes to beat Key.

      • boyonlaptop 17.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 2:35 pm

        > The Nats want Cunliffe out of the leadership and for good reason they know Cunliffe has got what it takes to beat Key.

        Cunliffe got 25%, the Nats certainly don’t want him out of the leadership.

      • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 17.1.2
        9 October 2014 at 2:43 pm

        I agree with most of what you say GGE. Andrew would be an excellent No 2 to David.

        Bill, above, has concerns that Andrew Little needs a lot of time to get his head around complex matters:

        “Still scratching me head at what you expected ‘a newby’, walking into a, by then fetid organisation of shoulder tapping and vested interests, to have done in such a constrained period of time.” Say Bill in reference to Andrew’s performance as President of the Labour Party during the Phil Goff era. I share Bill’s concerns on Andrew.

        • Bill 17.1.2.1
          9 October 2014 at 2:51 pm

          I didn’t say that Andrew Little “needed a lot of time to get his head around complex matters”.

          I was questioning your heightened expectations of an (read: any) incoming party president in the immediate aftermath of Helen Clark’s departure.

      • Jamal 17.1.3
        9 October 2014 at 3:48 pm

        He stood in a Tory seat, one that has had major boundary changes since Labour held it that have brought in thousands more farmers. I think we should be encouraging more high profile Labour MPs to stand in blue electorates, not using it as a stick to beat them with.

      • leftie 17.1.4
        9 October 2014 at 8:37 pm

        +1 Craig Glen Eden.

    • Skinny 17.2
      9 October 2014 at 3:26 pm

      That call is total bullshit!

      After attending a justice forum where Little was a guess speaker, a number of justice lawyers join the Labour Party, one contested the last election and another is the LEC Chair. these lawyers and others have a justice branch. I was there too and like the others was most impressed by Little. So much so that I arranged and met him at a restaurant on his next visit to town. This was so I could get a line on him one on one, the guy speaks my language, no flakey crap straight up and to the contray a wit that gave me a few laughs. Let me guess Beltway are you?

      • Jamal 17.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 3:46 pm

        It’s the same Wellington crowd who made up stories attacking Cunliffe for years. You can only guess as to what their motivations are.

    • Jamal 17.3
      9 October 2014 at 3:49 pm

      This is untrue – Labour kept its commitment to industry standard agreements. Can you point me to where Labour dropped them? Because you’re making things up.

  18. Dave 18
    9 October 2014 at 2:13 pm

    I think the Labour party would be better off without Robertson. He seems the most likely cause of the division in the caucus.

    I would be happy with Little or Cunliffe leading.

  19. Not a PS Shark Sashimi 19
    9 October 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Both Little and Cunliffe will be presented with the same problems if they take over the leadership.
    Little did not rock the boat when President. Bill says above that he hadn’t enough time or authority to get to grips with the complexities. Has Andrew the nerve and skills to sort out this dysfunctional Caucus quickly?

    1. Will Andrew tell Goff, King, Shearer, Mallard and Cosgrove to move on?
    2. Will Andrew tell Robertson to either put up or fuckoff?
    3. Will Andrew tell Hipkins and Faafoi to grow a pair and to stop hanging off Kings’ apron strings?
    4. Will Andrew ask Nash what planet he thinks he is on and give him the bottom place on the pecking order? Personally I thinks Nash should be expelled.
    5. Will Andrew give Clare Curran the link to http://www.seek.co.nz?

    • Keir 19.1
      9 October 2014 at 2:52 pm

      Yes, will the next leader engage in enough bloody purges, that is the key question.

      • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 19.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 3:12 pm

        There is no choice but to clean out those who have created the mess.

        That bunch put themselves above the Party. Cunliffe tried to create a unified party when he took over at the end of 2013: but that bunch would not accept the will of the Membership and the overall Party. They continued their stupid games and destructive behaviour. Also Cunliffe would have found it difficult to clear them out with an election looming. He won’t have that problem this time.

        • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 19.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

          Cunliffe would have found it difficult to clear them out with an election looming. He won’t have that problem this time.

          That is true. And the membership and affiliates know it is crucial to confirm Cunliffe’s leadership for the rejuvenation of the caucus and party that will need to take place in the coming months.

        • Keir 19.1.1.2
          9 October 2014 at 5:02 pm

          Yeah really no thanks, if Cunliffe is offering purges and ongoing faction fights, I think I’ll pass.

          In fact, caucus was far more disciplined under Cunliffe than Cunliffe was under Shearer or Goff. There’s no suggestion Robertson or Little ever undermined the party leader, unlike David Cunliffe. In fact, one of Little’s biggest problems as party president was getting close Cunliffe ally Judith Tizard to step aside to allow Louisa Wall into parliament in the run up to a general election. Tizard seemed to see this as an opportunity to take potshots at Phil Goff, the then leader – and now she’s giving Cunliffe strategic advice…

    • Bill 19.2
      9 October 2014 at 2:54 pm

      All questions I’m tempted to answer in the affirmative, which is conjecture. What we do know, is that in relation to David Cunliffe those same questions (ignoring #4) all got answered in the negative.

    • phillip ure 19.3
      9 October 2014 at 3:15 pm

      “..4. Will Andrew ask Nash what planet he thinks he is on and give him the bottom place on the pecking order? Personally I thinks Nash should be expelled..”

      + one..

    • Lanthanide 19.4
      9 October 2014 at 4:04 pm

      I don’t think Shearer needs to move on. He’s a new MP, new blood and would be a great foreign affairs minister. He just hangs around with the bad crowd (the same ones that propped him up to fail in the first place).

    • ankerawshark 19.5
      9 October 2014 at 8:56 pm

      Shark Sashimi 100+

  20. vto 20
    9 October 2014 at 2:25 pm

    If I was in the Labour Party I would vote for Andrew. Knew him some long time ago and he was genuine, intelligent, compassionate, sharp and smart, and funny. Don’t know where people get the idea he is boring – far from it.

    Go Andrew.

    (just wonder though whether he has enough miles under his belt yet. Maybe this is a test-run for a future crack in a couple more terms?)

    • leftie 20.1
      9 October 2014 at 8:44 pm

      @VTO. Andrew Little who has been unable to even win his seat, does not have enough experience. It would be a repeat fiasco like it was with David Shearer. No thanks.

  21. boyonlaptop 21
    9 October 2014 at 2:27 pm

    I really like Little and I think he’ll make a great cabinet minister but he’s not leadership material. He lost New Plymouth by almost 10,000 votes a former marginal electorate. If he can’t win his own electorate what are his chances of resonating with the country?

    I also think scrapping the CGT is crazy. It’s finally a chance to rebalance the economy with a progressive tax and have the funds to implement actual progressive policy.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 21.1
      9 October 2014 at 2:57 pm

      Between Little and Robertson, Little has greater leadership material, as well as more experienced coal-face one-to-one engagement with a wider range of people.

    • Jamal 21.2
      9 October 2014 at 3:45 pm

      You forgot to mention the significant boundary changes that brought in thousands of extra farmers. It’s a Tory seat.

      • boyonlaptop 21.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 4:20 pm

        He lost in 2011 by 10,000 votes as well with the exact same boundaries that Duynhoven faced. He’s seen the party vote drop from 31.4%(since 2008) to 21% one of the biggest drops of any electorate in the country. Looking at the change in results in Whanganui which is where all those supposed tory votes into New Plymouth came from you see that the drop in Whanganui in Labour’s party vote was still 2%.

        • swordfish 21.2.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 9:20 pm

          Oh well, you’re nothing if not enthusiastic for your man, Robertson. Like an excited little puppy-dog crapping all over the place.

          “(Little has)….seen the party vote (in New Plymouth) drop from 31.4% (since 2008) to 21% one of the biggest drops of any electorate in the country.”

          You seem to have “inadvertently forgotten” to mention that the bloke you’ve been vigorously cheerleading on The Standard over the last week or so – a Mr Grant Robertson – has presided over an even greater drop in Labour’s Party Vote:

          Labour Party Vote New Zealand 2008-14
          2008….34.0%……………..2014…. 25.1%……….minus 8.9

          Labour Party Vote Wellington Central 2008-14
          2008… 34.6%……………..2014… 23.8%……….minus 10.8

          Labour Party Vote New Plymouth 2008-14
          2008… 31.4%……………..2014… 21.2%……….minus 10.2

          Extraordinary, then, that you have the audacity to tell CV that his earlier comment “epitomizes the complete aversion to any factual analysis by Cunliffe supporters”.

          • boyonlaptop 21.2.1.1.1
            10 October 2014 at 2:40 am

            Oh but you seem to forget as I’ve been frequently reminded on the standard about Labour’s poor polling is that we live in an MMP environment and the 10.2% in New Plymouth has gone almost exclusively to National(55.9%) in 2014 vs. 48.2 in 2008. Whereas in Wellington Central National is on 37% vs. 35.41% in 2008.

            Wellington Central’s drop in party vote support for Labour since 2008 has gone almost exclusively to the Greens while retaining a very popular incumbent. This shows that many voters on the left like Grant but don’t like Labour’s current direction.

            Essentially it is ludicrous to suggest a swing from Labour to the Greens is in anyway equivalent to a swing from Labour to National.

            • swordfish 21.2.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

              (1) You do have a bit of a tendency to shift the goal-posts. First, it was all about the size of Labour’s Party-Vote decline, now it’s about the size of Labour’s Party-Vote swing to National. Not the first time in the last week that you’ve suddenly moved the goal-posts when caught out.

              (2) We’re still talking about a significant fall in Labour support in Wellington Central. The Greens and Labour are separate Parties, in many key senses competitors. From the point of view of the Party, a fall is still a fall.

              (3) You’ve got the New Plymouth figures wrong. Labour fell by 10.2 points 2008-14, but National only rose by 5.3 (50.5% to 55.8%). I’d suggest more Labour voters swung to both the Greens and, in particular, to NZ First than to National over this period.

              (4) I’m sure you’re well aware that the Left remains strong throughout Greater Wellington – and especially in Wellington City. In other words, National’s poor Party-Vote performance in Wellington Central has little if anything to do with Robertson himself and everything to do with the demographics and, arguably, (given that I’m a very loyal Wellingtonian) the unusually progressive values of the City as a whole. The Left vote, for instance, has held up just as well in Annette King’s Rongotai seat (Labour down 12.2 points since 2008, Greens up 9.4, Nats only slightly up 1.3). Indeed, a weaker Nat increase in Rongotai compared to Wellington Central.

              (5) Following on from point (4), the New Plymouth swing has as much to do with the fact that it’s a Provincial City as anything else. New Plymouth has always been a National-leaning town, despite the occasional exceptions (Duynhoven). Strategic faux-pas like the “Man-Ban” are always going to play much more poorly in the relatively conservative provinces than in places like Wellington. And consequent swings away from Labour are always more likely to go to NZ First and National and less to an Urban liberal party like The Greens in the Provincial cities. In other words (for both (4) and (5)), more focus on the demographics and geographics, less on the individual politician.

  22. Tracey 22
    9 October 2014 at 2:33 pm

    only BM has commented, breathless righties otherwise have nothing to say about Little. Is that a clue?

  23. Marksman33 23
    9 October 2014 at 2:51 pm

    @ tracy, agree totally. The media is no friend to the LP, or the left, certain lp polies need to accept that fact. They play them along then come election time they shit all over them, its in their dna. Perhaps if these polies got up every morning for the next 3 years pretending it was aweek out from the election, the voting public may see them as hard working individuals and not the one dimensional caricatures the msm portray them as. Just a thought.

  24. boldsirbrian 24
    9 October 2014 at 3:01 pm

    I would prefer comments promoting the positive aspects of each candidate; rather than negative …. more helpful I think, (although not always possible, I am aware)
    GOOD Comments 20
    NOT AS GOOD Comments 18; 19;

    eg Comment 18 could simply have been written
    “I think that Little and Cunliffe would be better at unifying the caucus”

    The comment would be even further improved, by providing some justification showing the basis for that opinion.

    Just a thought.

    Mr. Botany (B.)

    • greywarshark 24.1
      9 October 2014 at 3:53 pm

      @ boldsirbrian 24
      Positive thought Mr Botany (B) We could get quite a different person if he or she felt the workers and the thinking middle class were behind him/her all the way, when he/she trumpeted Labour’s vision. Hardly any ironical salutes would be seen. In three years a real following would result, and some impact on the variety of calcified gargoyles of the RW.

  25. Not a PS Shark Sashimi 25
    9 October 2014 at 3:21 pm

    The Labour Party Conference in Elllerslie in November 2012 was a game changer for the membership. Unfortunately a large chunk of the Caucus fought against the Unions and the Membership getting a significant say in the leadership selection process.

    An abiding memory I have from that Conference is Andrew Little, face enraged, roaring at the membership for having the temerity to want to have a say in leadership selection. His own Union, the EPMU went against him and voted for a say. Andrew Little was certainly on the side of Shearer, Mallard, Goff and King that day. Has that changed?
    http://www.listener.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/lc12_andrewlittle-620×350.jpg

    • Tracey 25.1
      9 October 2014 at 3:26 pm

      Although unions have only about 25% of the workforce, dont they have great grassroot, on the ground presence and isnt that an advantage to a political party?

      • boldsirbrian 25.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 3:34 pm

        .
        @ Tracey (25.1)

        Yes, if used wisely. No if emphasised too much. It is after all only one of many sectional interest groups. Granted an important one (very important) for Labour. But Labour also needs to show that “fairness” does not always mean advocating for Union policies

        Yes, very much so, if Labour choose to be a smaller Party representing the values and wishes of Union members. Not so much the more the Party wants to be a larger Party representing a wider vision.

        It’s a tricky one for Labour. A gift, but a gift that can backfire if not used thoughtfully.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

        • Tracey 25.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 3:37 pm

          If union membership, as a result of collaboration and hard work between lp and unions grew by say ten percent in the next three years, and some of that translated to votes for labour…

          Nats shamelessly worhship at the alter of big business, never apologise for it…

          If by increasing union membership, Lp is shown to have suported people into pay rises without a single law change, and those workers have partners, children, family members of voting age…

          None of that requires the collusion of the media

          • Skinny 25.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 5:09 pm

            Yes Tracey your absolutely correct that the Union movement needs to recruit bigtime. There are some modern day tools to achieve this, especially with the numbers in the hundreds of thousands. I have had some solid idea’s for sometime, but loath the idea our dealing with the beltway types in Wellington.

            While there is a shake up within Labour there needs to one at the CTU. I would love to see Bob Reid take the helm and Helen Kelly replace one of the deadwood MP’s.

            Helen has served the leadership well, however with the pending ERA changes it’s time for a person like Bob (firmer stand) to step up. Who can forget the dropped bottom lip of Pagani, Susan Wood when he refuted their idiot comments and dealt to them on Q & A.

            • Marksman33 25.1.1.1.1.1
              9 October 2014 at 6:27 pm

              I would just make the point that unlike the EPMU, the FIRST UNION is not affiliated to the Labour Party, there are reasons for that. Also Robert and Maxine are very close personal friends with Laila, so that may say something of their personal political beliefs. That said, Robert has never failed to impress me at our conferences over the years and I would be a very happy man if what you suggest ever came to pass. In fact we have a conference coming up next week so might sound him out. :}

            • phillip ure 25.1.1.1.1.2
              9 October 2014 at 6:53 pm

              @ skinny..

              “..I would love to see Bob Reid take the helm and Helen Kelly replace one of the deadwood MP’s…”

              ..+ 1..

              ..that wd be far better use of their respective talents..

    • quartz 25.2
      9 October 2014 at 3:31 pm

      That’s not true. Little fully backed the democratic process but spoke out against the no confidence vote threshold being set at 40% of caucus.

      • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 25.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 4:06 pm

        I stand corrected if that is the case Quartz. There were a number of steps in the process at the Ellersliee Conference and perhaps my recall of him at the microphone with Hipkins behind him has clouded my memory.

        I’ve always thought of Andrew Little as a good man, with stacks of integrity. I know that he has Labour Values and has the blessing of being a straight shooter.

        He has put his hat in the ring and I’m asking questions about his experience and skills. I feel that he is a bit light on experience: perhsaps he would be an excellent No2 to Cunliffe I look forward to seeing and hearing him at the roadshows. Besides Cunliffe he is the only other candidate that I respect. I wish him well.

    • Karen 25.3
      9 October 2014 at 5:09 pm

      Is what Not a PS Shark Sashimi says true? Can someone else who was at the 2012 conference confirm whether this happened?

    • Keir 25.4
      9 October 2014 at 5:19 pm

      Again, this is a bare faced lie. Every delegate present, MP, branch, affiliate, voted for the new leadership process. (Grant Robertson was a key driver of that process, and worked hard to keep caucus on board and make sure it got to the conference floor, just for reference.) Andrew Little certainly voted for it.

      The contested vote was over the threshold caucus needed to roll the leader, a completely different matter.

      • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 25.4.1
        9 October 2014 at 7:39 pm

        Keir, tone down your language.

        The threshold was the difference between having a real say and not having a say.

        Grant’s team harangued the members on the Saturday and the affiliates on Friday night. They were livid that the veto was removed from the Caucus.
        After the membership voted for the better thresholds on the Saturday Grant/Shearer/King/Hipkins went feral. They briefed the Press that it was a coup attempt by Cunliffe.
        I’ve no doubt that Grant would try to repeal it if he got leadership. That is why he won’t get it. The membership will not forget that day in Ellerslie.

        • Anne 25.4.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 9:43 pm

          Correct NaPSS.

          Did they go feral what!! I still vividly remember the 6pm TV news on the Sunday night – sitting there in shock over what Shearer was saying. It was as though he was at a completely different conference.

          The truth of the matter is: they were wild with fury over losing their hitherto unbridled power to do what they wanted… when they wanted… and with whom they wanted… and damm the members and affiliates.

          • Olwyn 25.4.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 10:16 pm

            I wasn’t at that conference – I was away in Christchurch and missed it. But the importance of the membership’s vote continues to gain significance to me. What Labour most needs is someone other than the business lobby who is able to menacingly say “or else” to Labour MP’s. National have federated farmers,etc, filling that role. Hence National are forced to have some idea of who they are. We, in comparison, are faced with a chorus of “Labour should be more X,” “Labour should be less Y,” etc, etc. It seems as if the caucus is still resistant to the members’ having a say, and that the upcoming leadership election had to be forced. But the ability of the members and unions to put pressure on the caucus forces them to recognise what Labour must be. The benefit of this is clarity and purpose, and it would be nice if they all recognised it.

            • Tautoko Mangō Mata 25.4.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2014 at 8:48 am

              Absolutely agree, Olwyn. The caucus members need to understand that we, the members are not going to put in a huge effort to advance ideas and principles which we don’t believe in. We are not being paid to work in the electorates but we are passionate about making NZ a better place to live in for all. We care about social justice, the environment and fairness and we will put in a tremendous effort for these causes. We are totally put off by MPs who think that they and they alone should be able to determine the direction of the party. We the members ARE the party.

        • Keir 25.4.1.2
          9 October 2014 at 10:57 pm

          No, it is a bare faced lie to say that Grant and Little voted against the process, voted to stop the membership having a say. They were solidly behind the new process.

          They voted how they voted on the threshold issue. Little was very upfront about his views on that: for him, it was a divisive attempt by Cunliffe to undermine the leader. That was a different fight, and one the membership was closely split on – that vote was only just carried by the votes of the whipped affiliates.

          What veto was removed from caucus? What nonsense are you talking? Were you there? What LEC were you representing? I was there, carrying a vote, and I think there’s something deeply worrying about the distortion of the truth that Cunliffe supporters are engaging in to attack Grant and Andrew.

          • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 25.4.1.2.1
            9 October 2014 at 11:04 pm

            Has the revisionism already started so soon?
            Some of us have been holding back and not going public about what specific MPs said in bullying, threatening, blackmailing tones.
            Are you for real or a plant that is being deliberately provocative?

            • Keir 25.4.1.2.1.1
              10 October 2014 at 12:02 am

              Look, if you want to slag Andrew Little off, whatever, go ahead. I just quite like the guy and think he’s got a really bright future in the party, and doesn’t deserve to be thrown under the bus to save DC’s skin. Little voted for the democratisation of the party, I was there, I saw it happen, end of story.

    • Murray Rawshark 25.5
      10 October 2014 at 4:30 am

      The sad thing is that Little raging against party democracy doesn’t surprise me at all. Even if I had no other concerns, that’s enough to put me off him completely.

  26. boldsirbrian 26
    9 October 2014 at 3:21 pm

    .

    Stuff 9 Oct 2014; Andrew Little confirms Labour leadership bid

    The Stuff report on Andrew Little’s Leadership bid, presents the very best Opening Statements from a potential leader. He appears to be the first candidate talking about a vision for Labour. He is definitely a serious contender, and not simply a “name in the mix”

    I am a still undecided voter. More of the talk demonstrated by Little, by all three candidates, promises a realistic Labour recovery, by whoever is chosen.

    Mr. Botany (B.)

    • Tracey 26.1
      9 October 2014 at 3:34 pm

      This is what puzzles me. Who decides a vision for a party? Is a leader chosen based on that persons vision and then permitted to get on with implementing it, or does a “board” or whatever settle on a vision and then choose the leader they think can best implement it.

      I get a sense that some in caucus think that once elected, they need to be left alone to do what they think is best…

      • Jenny Kirk 26.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 5:12 pm

        Labour has a vision. Its spelt out in its Policy Platform . It was agreed upon via a fairly ponderous membership consultation,

    • leftie 26.2
      9 October 2014 at 9:00 pm

      @BoldSirBrian. What bothers me is the pro national biased media promoting and championing Andrew Little.
      Personally, I think the media won the election for National and now they think they can dictate who the Labour leader should be.
      The media, as in the likes of Peter Wilson among others, who have been outright vicious in their character assassination of David Cunliffe, are now supporting Andrew Little as Labour leader, in my opinion, that should be a red flag to the membership, and its yet another reason for me to vote for David Cunliffe.

      • boldsirbrian 26.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 11:33 pm

        @ leftie (26.2)

        Basing your decision on somebody being bad, because your enemy prefers that person seems a rather odd method of selecting the right candidate. Second guessing the reasons of your enemy, sort of plays into their hands, and the sort of games they love.

        I’m sure that David Cunliffe would probably prefer your vote was based on him being the best candidate, rather than the candidate DirtyJohn and Mike Hosking don’t want?

        But it’s your call. That’s all part of our system. Baffling to me, and one I would never consider ……. but there are many reasons people choose. Go for it! ~smile~

        Mr. Botany (B.)

        • leftie 26.2.1.1
          10 October 2014 at 1:51 pm

          @Boldsirbrian. I never said Andrew Little was bad, what I have said is that he hasn’t been able to win his seat, is too inexperienced and it would be a repeat of the David Shearer fiasco. So why hand National a fourth term on a platter? There is no time left to waste. As posted previously, its clear Cunliffe has had his hands tied in the one year he has had as leader in the lead up to the election. With a new mandate, loads of experience to draw from, and with a 3 year time frame, David Cunliffe has what it takes to clean up Labour and prepare fully for the 2017 election.
          But it’s baffling to me as to why you refuse to see the role the media are actively playing.
          I have made a number of reasons, as to why I support David Cunliffe quite clear… there have been no “subtle hints” (as you keep saying) about it.
          For instance, Repost. “David Cunliffe has shown without doubt, that he has steel alright. Never seen anyone withstand the vicious and ferocious assaults dished out by the media and the national party on a daily basis like Cunliffe has endured and continues to do so, and yet here he is, still standing, always ready to continue the fight, always calm, confident and resolute. I’m so impressed with David Cunliffe, given a chance he will make a very good and strong leader, not just for the Labour party but for this country too. I would like to see David Cunliffe win the leadership again, he deserves a second chance.

          How long do you think shallow John key and his inflated ego would have lasted if he had of been on the receiving end by the pitbull media tearing him apart like they have done to David Cunliffe? key would have been reduced to a sniveling heap in 2 mins flat.”

          I am just pointing out the fact that now we have the National party media mouthpieces promoting Andrew Little and that is a warning to all. They obviously view him as an easy pushover, they don’t with David Cunliffe, who they still regard as a threat, and it was just worth noting, that’s all.

          P.S. Next time you decide to respond and reply, would appreciate it, if you were not so patronizing.

  27. Rob 27
    9 October 2014 at 3:31 pm

    For LP to get enough support to lead a future govt they need to keep things simple
    Look United
    Have a progressive tax regime the avoids fiscal creep
    Start the tax rate really low
    Cut GST so it can be seen to help those at the bottom while spin it that Labour are the party that do reduce tax
    Keep it simple stupid
    And that will make The Natz look like they are.

  28. Sirenia 28
    9 October 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Grant Robertson is very effective in the House. He can rattle the Nats including Key, and is hated by Judith Collins for his gradual undermining of her all year – and after her final fall he was the one the media turned to for comment. He is also very popular with people who know him (apart from the hardline Nats) because of his easy and inclusive manner.

    • NeutObserver 28.1
      9 October 2014 at 3:54 pm

      I agree. For all those good reasons Grant Robertson will make an excellent leader.

      • leftie 28.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 9:05 pm

        @Sirenia & Neut0bserver. I disagree. Repost. Grant Robertson along with Shearer et al kicking David Cunliffe and undermining the party right after the election to force a leadership change shows Grant Robertson is far from having any principles and is just in it for himself. He was not prepared to forge unity within the party under another leader, and telling media he could have beaten John key is just ludicrous.
        Despite the pro national electoral boundary changes, (that no doubt played a part for labour’s disappointing result) David Cunliffe, who lost a large chunk of his electorate, received more in party votes than Robertson did.

        Grant Robertson does not have my support or vote, that goes to David Cunliffe, who deserves a second chance, Its clear Cunliffe has had his hands tied in the one year he has had as leader in the lead up to the election. With a new mandate, loads of experience to draw from, and with a 3 year time frame, David Cunliffe has what it takes to clean up Labour and prepare fully for the 2017 election.

        • Chookyrawshark 28.1.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 10:08 pm

          +100 leftie

        • boldsirbrian 28.1.1.2
          9 October 2014 at 11:45 pm

          @ leftie (28.1.1)

          I do not think Cunliffe is any more of a Saint re “undermining” the current leader. Personally I think it’s all a bit of a red herring. We have three candidates, all of whom are ambitious, and could be claimed to be “in it for themselves”. Being a Leader is an achievement, and being Prime Minister is the ultimate prize. They are all worthy candidates, quite capable of achieving their personal goals, while doing the best for the party.

          Issues of experience are important. What that experience is becomes the real issue. Was the experience good or bad? There are plenty of posts here about all three candidates making the point that each candidate is experienced in different ways.

          I have noted your subtle hints that you prefer David Cunliffe. Best wishes. I may yet vote for him.

    • Lanthanide 28.2
      9 October 2014 at 4:09 pm

      “Grant Robertson is very effective in the House.”

      Key generally behaves like a little schoolboy in the house. The public clearly don’t care about “performance in the house”.

      • boldsirbrian 28.2.1
        10 October 2014 at 12:01 am

        @ Lanthanide (28.2)

        Key generally behaves like a little schoolboy in the house

        Key generally behaves like a little schoolboy. Fullstop. It’s his method of getting support. And it has worked for him very effectively. Being the larrikin, is a way of being “one of the boys” when you are not one of the boys. I’ll bet he has acted like this since his schooldays. His peers probably fought unfairly in the rucks, with low hidden blows. Key would have fought a similar sort of battle, using verbal sledging with a grinning face. It’s not surprising that he made quick friends with Cameron Slater.

        But his larrikin schoolboy act wears thin. At first it’s a lovable trait. The low blows are easily missed. But when I realise that he is a one trick pony, it’s hard to maintain respect.

        It will be interesting how history treats Key. Definitely one of the most successful Prime Ministers. But I suspect that recent PMs such as Clark (Labour) and even Bolger (National) will be respected more. Dirty Politics will be Key’s legacy where the UN has been Clark’s.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

        • Clemgeopin 28.2.1.1
          10 October 2014 at 12:31 am

          History will remember Key as a very popular affable prime minister who managed to fool almost half the country through his smiles, lies and spin while copying a few of the social policies of Labour for votes, but working primarily in the interest of the wealthy, the privileged and the corporates, and at the same time destroying a very decent one of the best nations on Earth through undermining our freedom, decency, security, free speech, justice, privacy and our caring fair welfare state by being a lapdog of American interests.

    • phillip ure 28.3
      9 October 2014 at 4:41 pm

      @ sirenia..

      “..Grant Robertson is very effective in the House..”

      ..are you dreaming/deluded..?

      ..what do you base that fanciful claim on..?

      ..i have watched robertson pawing ineffectually at a range of national ministers..

      • Skinny 28.3.1
        9 October 2014 at 5:28 pm

        Ha ha got a good chuckle out of that one Phil.

        I once saw him heading to a glass door, at the same time a young lady with big knockers was coming the other way. She had to open the door for him, he breezed on in without as much as a thank you as she held the door open and closed it afterwards. If that wasn’t bad enough, he came out to join me and others at our table, he ignored the lady completely but chatted away merrily to us boys. Unknowingly to Grant, he just snubbed my Mrs who had voted for him in the last challenge. The flip side was DC gave her a selfie and she likes him ever since.

        • Chooky Sharksmile 28.3.1.1
          9 October 2014 at 6:56 pm

          lol Skinny…i have to say Robertson does nothing for me!….whereas Cunliffe is good!
          …he should be given another chance..he has been through the fires of hell

          (Little is an unknown quantity …i doubt he could have done better than Cunliffe …and with Michelle Boag’s endorsement …a bit sus imo)

          • boyonlaptop 28.3.1.1.1
            9 October 2014 at 7:30 pm

            I’m curious where does this idea that Cunliffe has been through the ‘fires of hell’ come from? He certainly didn’t have the same destabilization within caucus during his leadership there wasn’t Paddy Gower going around the media waving a letter around. Chris Carter didn’t leak to the media, Chris Trotter didn’t call on him to resign just a month from the election. MPs didn’t avoid having their face next to him like they did with Goff in 2011.

            He did run against an opponent with a higher unemployment rate than when he took office, an opponent embroiled in dirty politics scandal and an opponent that didn’t perform particularly well in the debates. Yet, he ended up with an abysmal 25%.

      • boldsirbrian 28.3.2
        10 October 2014 at 12:05 am

        .
        @ phillip ure (28.3)

        I have picked up your subtle hints that you do not like Grant Robertson. Was there anything else of substance?

        Mr. Botany (B.)

    • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 28.4
      9 October 2014 at 5:04 pm

      Grant IS at home in the House.
      Unfortunately he never went out into the fresh air. It would have done him some good.
      That is why he got poor support from the membership and unions in the last leadership elections.
      That is why he will get poor support from the membership and unions in the next leadership round.

      He use and abuse of Shearer was cold hearted. Grant’s brand is so damaged by his history of Machiavellian behaviour that he has no future in a Labour Caucus.

      • boldsirbrian 28.4.1
        10 October 2014 at 12:07 am

        @ Not a PS Shark Sashimi (28.4)

        I have picked up your subtle hints that you do not like Grant Robertson. Was there anything else of substance?

        Mr. Botany (B.)

  29. The Pink Postman 29
    9 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

    The proper thing to do is just wait until all the candidate have been named then go the the candidates meetings then decide .
    Let’s give them all a chance to tell us their beliefs and how they will led the country.
    And lets decide for ourselves without the Right-Wing press trying to tell us how we should run “our” party .It’s our party not the bloody vocal right wing press and media.

  30. Ad 30
    9 October 2014 at 5:38 pm

    Can someone sensible get Little and Cunliffe to have a proper conversation over the weekend? Please?

    And once they’ve done that, could the winner have a proper conversation with Robertson, decide on a united ticket within caucus like adults, and forget this whole Primary thing altogether?

    It’s pretty clear that neither the broader public nor the political commentariat, indeed nor caucus, have the maturity to deal with primary contests.

    We need a united ticket in which Little, Cunliffe, and Robertson are all a part of the leadership team.

  31. lurgee 31
    9 October 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Ed Milliband won the British Labour Party leadership by being no-one’s first choice and everyone’s second choice; I suspect the Cunliffe / Robertson camps are so embittered that they will probably find they do the same as the supporters of David Milliband, Ed Balls, Dianne Abbott and Andy Burnham, and achieve curious unity and elect the leader none of them want.

    Whether a universal second choice not that is what Labour (British or New Zealand editions) needs is a very profound question.

  32. Rodel 32
    9 October 2014 at 6:42 pm

    I want Cunliffe as leader and Little as deputy- a formidable duo.

    • Chookyrawshark 32.1
      9 October 2014 at 7:10 pm

      I want Cunliffe as leader and a Maori woman as Deputy ( women’s vote is important and a WINNER as Helen Clark found …..for three Elections!)

      …and Yes a pity Shearer demoted Dalziel to the backbenches and then she left

    • Rodel 32.2
      9 October 2014 at 7:35 pm

      I meant to add-
      Cunliffe good academic qualifications, Bachelors degree with 1st class honours, Diploma in social science, Masters degree from Harvard, diplomatic service, business consultant to Boston group.
      Little -down to earth-with strong union background.

      I repeat- a formidable duo..would eat a simple minded futures trader for breakfast.

    • leftie 32.3
      9 October 2014 at 9:08 pm

      I like that Rodel.

  33. Picard101 33
    9 October 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Little all the way.

  34. Richard AKA RAWSHARK 34
    9 October 2014 at 7:33 pm

    1st Cunliffe 2nd Little for me.

    David is a better head to lead, little would bring in the votes as deputy.

    Cunliffe has the oration skills and heart, Little the Unions and workers votes.

    A bloody good match I think.

    • Rodel 34.1
      9 October 2014 at 7:39 pm

      RAR
      Probably better said than I did. +1

    • Chookyrawshark 34.2
      9 October 2014 at 8:12 pm

      what about the women’s votes …50% of the voter population ( and sick of boys’ clubs).

      …how about two Deputies? Little and Mahuta?..(Maori Woman Deputy)….then all bases are covered…a triskelion

      …(.and the ABCs wont dare undermine)

      • lurgee 34.2.1
        9 October 2014 at 9:19 pm

        Women and Maori already support Labour disproportionately. They don’t need to be pandered to with some token placement.

        • Colonial Rawshark 34.2.1.1
          10 October 2014 at 11:02 pm

          National has an extremely poor gender balance in their caucus, and their popularity has really desperately suffered for it.

          • wekarawshark 34.2.1.1.1
            10 October 2014 at 11:10 pm

            has it occured to you that left wing, right wing, and swing women voters might have different priorities when it comes to voting?

        • wekarawshark 34.2.1.2
          10 October 2014 at 11:09 pm

          “Women and Maori already support Labour disproportionately. They don’t need to be pandered to with some token placement.”

          Yeah, because having gender/ethnic parity is only necessary to get votes, so once you have those you don’t need to bother 🙄

    • Kiwisaver 34.3
      9 October 2014 at 8:57 pm

      Agree totally.
      Cunliffe has the experience behind him of a bizarre election and post-election hounding. He’s done well to hang in there and I for one feel I know him better now.
      He’s smart enough to have learnt from his mistakes and if he’s re-elected to come out a lot harder against TeamKey.
      The DP book has shown us all what’s really going on and this needs to be kept on about by us all.

      • Rodel 34.3.1
        10 October 2014 at 10:48 pm

        Kiwisaver
        I must agree how Cunliffe has stood up to the relentless right wing media biased attacks on him (and his wife).

        John Key would have wilted under the pressure if the Gowers, Garners , Smalls and Watkins had subjected him to their spiteful venom under the guise of journalism.

        I think Gower and perhaps Susy watsername might have realised what arseholes they have been and are feeling a bit guilty about their prior lack of professional ethics.

        More power to Cunliffe!

  35. rich the other 35
    9 October 2014 at 8:23 pm

    Just reading the article on stuff .
    Little is saying the right things , one more step he will need to take , labour must be just labour .
    Kick the greens completely into touch , deal with who ever AFTER the election is held , labour must stand alone from a position of strength to have any chance at the next election .

  36. odysseus 36
    9 October 2014 at 8:26 pm

    Heard Little on the radio tonight, saw him on TV as well, and gawd I was depressed. Bland bland bland…he is not the Messiah. Am still sticking with DC.

  37. fisiani 37
    9 October 2014 at 8:38 pm

    The Cunliffe is the Messiah. He will lead the flock out of the wilderness in 2017.

  38. finbar 38
    9 October 2014 at 11:09 pm

    In honesty,can!t see him talking around Labours,socialist care.So three just like a bus hogging the centre line,not a thought about the real soul of Labours being have they got.Only their corporation understanding,this is the way it is.Not a thought for them to say,it does not have to be this way.We can change it,and our product shall always be needed.

  39. phillip ure 39
    9 October 2014 at 11:10 pm

    anyone thinking about little..

    ..go and watch his interview on henry 2nite..

    ..(and no..henry wasn’t hard on him..the opposite..)

    ..little was beyond hopeless..

    ..he can’t even handle an interview…

    ..to somehow hold him up as better than cunliffe..

    ..and to claim he is able to convince the people of nz that he is their ‘captain my captain’..

    ..is beyond a fucken joke..

    • boldsirbrian 39.1
      10 October 2014 at 12:26 am

      .
      @ phillip ure (39)

      I followed your advice and watched the interview.

      I came away with a totally different conclusion to you. Little was himself, and performed well. His style is completely different from that of Key, Cunliffe, and Robertson
      .
      I suspect that Little’s style will be seen as an advantage by some, and a disadvantage by others. If he changes his style, especially to try and ‘match’ Key, then I think he will be hopeless. But if he keeps his style as it is, polishing it off, he may be a winner. Cunliffe’s style is completely different, with a different set of strengths and weaknesses.

      Amazing, how we came away from the interview with such different conclusions. Was your opinion just a teeny bit coloured by the fact Cunliffe is your preferred candidate?

      Mr. Botany (B.)

  40. phillip ure 40
    9 October 2014 at 11:12 pm

    with little..you really have to make do with..a little…

    • ropata mako shark 40.1
      10 October 2014 at 12:10 am

      lol! sometimes the simplest jokes are the best 😀

    • boldsirbrian 40.2
      10 October 2014 at 12:34 am

      .
      @ phillip ure (40)

      Now now, phillip. This is not insecure schoolboy comparisons on size is it?
      Really, it is how whatever size you have is used. Holds as true in politics, as elsewhere.

      TV3 (Henry show Thurs night) said something similar, along the lines of “A little can mean a lot”……..Aaaaah.

      Mr. Botany (B.)

  41. finbar 41
    9 October 2014 at 11:13 pm

    Capitals run from N.Z.if it came down hard on employers abuse and profits abuse,would be miniscule.Profit and its exploitations need,will always deal,even lesser their profit. if profit is to be gained.

    • ropata mako shark 41.1
      10 October 2014 at 12:14 am

      Translation: “workers rights will cause capital flight” is a stupid bankster lie; I think they can handle a slight reduction in their bloated profit margins.

    • Colonial Rawshark 41.2
      10 October 2014 at 12:26 am

      Hey Finbar

      Try and make some sense

      And if capital were really to try and flee NZ – we’d just pick up their assets at bargain basement prices – as well as slapping on capital controls to clip the ticket of every dollar of foreign exchange which was taken out of the country.

      • ropata mako shark 41.2.1
        10 October 2014 at 1:37 am

        JohnKey™ (pat.pend.) is happy to raise GST on every Kiwi but he’s unlikely to regulate his debauched wall street bankster buddies.

      • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 41.2.2
        10 October 2014 at 9:32 am

        ‘Capital flight’ will be used both as a bluff and blackmail. A country with resources and nous can give in. Or call their bluff, while regaining more control over its future.

  42. les 42
    10 October 2014 at 9:39 am

    Better get Shane Jones back on board…also get Helen Kelly into parliament.Cunnliffe,Little ,Robertson…none of these have the charisma to appeal to middle NZ..draw one out of a hat.

    • Anne 42.1
      10 October 2014 at 10:13 am

      After three more years of this sorry imitation for a government and prime minister “charisma” might be the last thing the punters want.

      • les 42.1.1
        10 October 2014 at 10:17 am

        obviously its exactly what they want….if Labour can even find someone to..fake it…they’ve got it made.

        • Anne 42.1.1.1
          10 October 2014 at 11:35 am

          obviously its exactly what they want.

          For the moment les, but that might change over the next three years.

  43. greywarshark 43
    10 October 2014 at 11:25 am

    @ wekarawshark 6.43pm
    Okay. As it was an attempt to connect with the right comment – I might use post numbers more often, I’ll do a proper job. And I’ve done a proper job on taking further my idea which I outlined earlier. Too much information? The idea needed to be rounded out properly if I was going to continue with detail about it.

    My idea was thinking of climate and lifestyle change, which is the elephant in the room
    I guess that we need to bring out and look over carefully (as does our planet which is our everything. Did you see the in line planet effect with the moon in shadow on Wed?
    About 11 pm it was a lightly glowing pale orange ball in the sky and oddly seemed very close to he earth, more like a big balloon high over the city.)

    I was thinking of a real-life computer game, involving all players as equals and problem- solving oriented. It would be about possible outcomes for NZ, not filled with teaching but learning from doing, from confronting sets of problems and a scenario.

    Young people love computer games, avoiding obliteration, hah! escaped, a clever move now I have got you, that’s really what games are all about. I have noticed with quite a few games where others can be encountered, because they are individualistic and competititve for resources, it is hard to find a trustworthy other. Either you get shot for your booty straight away, or you wonder whether they are biding their time! There are too many games where there is no room for human positive ongoing co-operation against nature or events, too much warring against others, destructive stuff. I don’t notice a warmth to others in young people especially anyone older. In education groups there is a tendency to go into tight cliques and not be open to mixing generally in the group. Anyone who doesn’t fit with their style they aren’t ready to get to know that person enough to greet ‘hello’ with a genuine warmth.

    Games would be just as interesting and exciting when involved in group versions with chosen goals rather than the more usual peripatectic aimless travel encountering adventures and ogres, looking for treasure, etc. In the Futuregames you would have to argue your own point of view for a minute and define it, make a group decision for planned moves and expected outcomes, note negatives, dissensions, and abstentions. Go ahead with the plan for limited time following to its logical conclusion even if becoming noticeably illogical, then regroup, debrief. What went wrong, why? Discuss negatives, dissensions and abstentions – get those views and examine them against outcomes etc. Run through other scenarios and likely outcomes with the experience acquired in the recent one.

    There would be numerous groups with similar goals and scenarios. They would compare notes afterwards, and details and ideas be noted and distributed to the participants later. Then there would be a get together, tea and coffee and sandwiches and later a band and an enjoyable social time with as little brawling and drunkeness as possible!

    It would be more like chess than rugby. I don’t see chess playing suiting us as a national game, but this one would involve thinking, action and thinking again and planning better moves. It could become a national craze. There could be a travelling team moving round the country running them, earning a living. It would cost, (which would limit numbers and make it seem more desirable, people would then invest in it ‘own’ it, it’s easier to dismiss something that is free.)

    It could be like the top team funny-sports show on television, only more interesting and with greater mental challenges, and more exciting. (Television should be kept out of it. The dead hand of the $eyeball and peabrain intellects of the television and commercial radio people should be avoided as they would skew the methods and kaupapa for commercial or political reasons.)

    There could be physical challenges set up also, with an orienteering style but also considering the future and how things would pan out under certain stresses. People from Christchurch would understand this very well, the Games could start there!
    I’ve been reading Jane Bowron’s book ‘Old Bucky & Me’ – dispatches from the Christchurch Earthquake. Jane could talk authoritatively about the responses and tricks and stresses arising from managing in difficult times!

    So that is the idea Weka. No use in having a half-baked idea and leaving it to dry in the sun, so to speak. I have tried to finish it off, rise it, knead and work into shape and bake it! Could be a goer for people who had energy, forward looking and want a challenge that offers something for them and for the country. I’m too old and have other things to do for my last decade or so.

    • greywarshark 43.1
      11 October 2014 at 11:11 am

      @ wekarawshark
      Another thing that has occurred to me that would involve a paradigm shift. I have the feeling that a lot of the vitality and ideas and forward thinking on TS comes from women and probably feminists.

      This would be a powerfully capable group able to help motivate NZ into practical and innovative areas if they could apply the same keenness to do so as they put into jumping up any time that rape culture or the like is referred to. The problems that women still face now are largely because women have achieved more freedom to work, work late hours, take part in society more widely, than they were before feminism pushed the gates open. But when that was happening, women were also taking self defence classes, a practical measure. Now some think all that is unnecessary, just downing extra alcohol and thinking they are invincible.

      The mental processes that produce a culture of willingness for an aggressive, manipulative group to hound others considered suitable targets and vulnerable people, will probably never be eradicated.
      http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/university-of-canterbury-lecturer-returns-award-over-racism-2014100907
      A recent protest from an Indian lecturer at University of Canterbury Engineering students (a fertile perennial group for yoiks) – I’ve been brown all my life, so I’m used to racism. Whether it’s the ignorant throwaway comment or the overtly aggressive act, I’ve seen it and experienced it and I know one day my daughters will see it and experience it. This is why I’m taking a stand.”
      In a survey of students soon after his start he was criticised because he was Indian.
      ‘In the section where it asked what should be changed to improve the course, one student wrote ‘his ethnicity’.’Assoc Prof Veer is of Indian descent and was born in Liverpool.

      Feminists would keep pressing for better attitudes in society but also turn their major energies to new areas of developing danger from climate change, and limitation of rights to poor people etc.

  44. RRM 44
    10 October 2014 at 12:58 pm

    What Labour needs to do is sit down with the Greens, and do a player swap deal whereby all the gay rights people in Labour (and most of the beltway professional politician types within Labour) get signed to play for the Greens.

    The Greens are a better natural home for LGBTI rights people now, as ‘social justice’ has become the Greens’ main stated headline modus operandi.

    This would rid Labour of at least one faction, allowing them to return their focus to being simply the working man’s party.

    Then, they should work on getting a few more credible ex tradies, ex factory floor workers, and DARE I SAY IT even a few ex self employed small business blokes in there, so that it is a more broadly representative WORKING MAN‘s party that real people can identify with, and not just a Trade Union party.

    Do one or two things well, instead of doing three or four things badly.

    I make these comments as someone who applauded Louisa Wall’s marriage bill, but I now believe Labour is too divided. They need to completely re-group and re-think.

    [*delete “man” and substitute “man/woman” wherever appropriate.]

  45. Chooky Shark Smile 45
    10 October 2014 at 4:19 pm

    “What Labour needs to do is sit down with the Greens, and do a player swap deal whereby all the gay rights people in Labour (and most of the beltway professional politician types within Labour) get signed to play for the Greens.”

    FUCK NO!…..what makes you think the Greens want Labour’s cast offs….that is an absolutely appalling idea….NO WAY!

    Labour can deal to its own bastards!

    The Greens are a cut above Labour !…didnt you know that ?….you……. ( censored )

  46. Clemgeopin 46
    10 October 2014 at 5:19 pm

    The Greens are a cut above Labour

    Oh dear! What arrogant rubbish!

    • Chooky Shark Smile 46.1
      10 October 2014 at 6:33 pm

      of course they are…they are well organised , and smart , and have integrity , and are to the Left of Labour…they have brilliant well thought out policies. They have male and female co-leaders ( no probs ) . Their selection process is flaxroots and highly democratic ….They are not riddled with careerists or Roger’s old dog in the manger has- beens ….They are not infiltrated by new young bucks, the wannabe Neolib darlings of Hooton and Slater eg Davis and Nash

      …they are sweet, they are nice, they are luscious , they are loveable….and irreligious…and young …or young at heart …they are pure souls..

      they are sweet pagans and feminists and guardians and gentle warriors for the Earth, our Papatuanuku , our Gaia… and they are the future …

      • Clemgeopin 46.1.1
        10 October 2014 at 6:55 pm

        Oh dear! Now you are sounding and spinning like a doped mungbean C Textor on moonshine.

  47. Chooky Shark Smile 47
    10 October 2014 at 7:12 pm

    lol…nah …i think it is Labour that is going to Pot

    • greywarshark 47.1
      11 October 2014 at 10:47 am

      @ Chooky shark smile
      lol

      • Chooky Shark Smile 47.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 11:46 am

        thankyou greywarshark…(btw…like your new name!)

        i might also add that the Greens have a very careful selection process for their MP list

        ….each prospective MP on their list is a very specially selected flower variety of extraordinary quality

        …..like specialist nursery plant breeding experts …each flower variety is carefully selected,… mulled over endlessly …cultivated carefully ….pros and cons weighed… discussed at the flaxroots level …., pondered …and then finally selected and put up for judging

        …the Green Party vote is democratic and the final MP list is compiled carefully and sequentially based on this flaxroot vote ( Labour has a lot to learn from the Greens!)

        ( to suggest that the Green Party take Labour’s problems and MP rejects is not only laughable but is contemptible to the Greens! ….I hope it was a joke…because if not …it is symptomatic of the dinosaur top- down, short- cutting , undemocratic, fiddling the books , argy- bargy male chauvinist entitlement attitudes which caused Labour to lose this Election!….ie arrogance, lack of understanding and cooperation with other Left Parties )

        • Clemgeopin 47.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 3:46 pm

          Quote: “undemocratic entitlement attitudes which caused Labour to lose the Election”

          Oh dear! Labour got 25% of the party vote. What % did the Greens get? Were they able to match Labour’s vote so that “Labour” could not have “lost” the election?

          • Chooky Shark Smile 47.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 4:58 pm

            @ Clemgeopin …re “Oh dear! Labour got 25% of the party vote. What % did the Greens get? Were they able to match Labour’s vote so that “Labour” could not have “lost” the election?”

            (if you are saying Labour lost the Election because the Greens did not get a high enough vote?…and are in agreement with RRM above who is suggesting the solution for Labour is to cast off its unwanted MPs onto the Greens….then yes this is arrogant and shows “undemocratic entitlement attitudes”….and a whole lot of other things! )

            …your percentage of the vote argument is beside the point…the point is that no one Left Party can win without working in co-operation with other Left Parties …Labour in cahoots with Nactional tried to kill off Hone Harawira and Mana /Internet ….and refused a deal to work with the Greens before the Election….splitting the vote in crucial seats which could have won the Election for Labour and the Left

            …. besides which the Greens on 10% of the vote is pretty good considering that the Greens are a very young Party compared with the Labour Party on 25%…Labour has been tracking down and the Greens tracking upwards …..no room for complacency or crowing there for Labour i would not have thought..

  48. greywarshark 48
    11 October 2014 at 11:57 am

    On the nail Chooky