Tizard not coming back

66 comments on “Tizard not coming back ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   3 April 2011 at 10:15 am

   Judith – Thank you for decision, and for putting the needs of the Labour Party and of New Zealand first in your priorities.
   • felix 1.1

     3 April 2011 at 10:22 am

     What does NZ First have to do with it? 😉
   • Anthony C 1.2

     3 April 2011 at 10:50 am

     CV – Hopefully the parliamentary wing can start doing the same thing.
2. r0b 2

   3 April 2011 at 10:18 am

   OK – taken my one down and moved a comment here.
3. mickysavage 3

   3 April 2011 at 10:18 am

   All the best Judith.

   I have seen her speak on the arts previously and you could not hope for a better informed or passionate supporter. She was also a hard working and dedicated MP and minister.

   Congratulations to Slater and Farrar also for their dog like attacks that mark current politics. We do need to work out a better way of doing things.
   • RedLogix 3.1

     3 April 2011 at 10:32 am

     It’s moments like this, when you see the naked vitriol and loathing that the right-wing heaps upon capable or powerful women, that you realise what a sad, narrow and repellent little world they live in.

     Slater cannot help himself, but Farrar is intelligent and experienced enough to know exactly how to play this machievellian game.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1

       3 April 2011 at 10:51 am

       Notice its a woman who they attack.
       Jacinta Adern will get the same treatment when she wins in Auckland Central.
     • Rich 3.1.2

       3 April 2011 at 10:53 am

       For me, if the Fat White Dickheads attack someone, then my admiration for that person improves.

       (I still don’t like the idea that the list is manipulable after the election. If the parties want it that way,why don’t they change the electoral laws so that instead of the next listed person being elected, the party just has the right to nominate a candidate. Personally, I’d rather go the other way and have semi-open lists*).

       * – where in addition to making a party vote, you can also fill out a list ranking ballot.
     • J Mex 3.1.3

       3 April 2011 at 11:14 am

       I don’t think Judith was attacked because she was a woman. She was attacked because she was a useless m.p. Her tenure as “Minister for Auckland” was a shining example of doing and achieving absolutely nothing. Parliament is better for her departure – and non return.

       It may be the “right” who is openly attacking Tizard, but the Labour party have spent a good deal of time attacking her privately. I suspect that large amounts of time and effort have been spent keeping her away from Parliament this term. It would be a naive person to suggest that she didn’t feature in the Mt Albert decisions.

       I also can’t help but think that if it was Goodfellow and Key telling five candidates to step aside, that this post would be emblazoned with “DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK”.
       • Anthony C 3.1.3.1

         3 April 2011 at 11:21 am

         I’m trying to think how she was useless, I hear it bandied around a bit but there doesn’t seem to be much substance to it.

         I know she did draw the ire of countless geeks over threatening our warez, but as for “achieving absolutely nothing”…

         It’s not like she left parliament after a hiding either, more or less a victim of changing demographics and a green vote split.

         And Chris isn’t in a wheelchair, saw him at the bakery yesterday.
       • J Mex 3.1.3.2

         3 April 2011 at 11:24 am

         Also, any comment on Judith’s comment –

         “Ms Tizard made it clear she had struggled with the decision and – in a clear swipe at former Labour Party president Andrew Little – defended the right of list candidates to take up a seat without being “bullied” by “unelected” party officials.”

         http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4842249/Judith-Tizard-not-returning-to-Parliament
         • seeker 3.1.3.2.1

           3 April 2011 at 12:58 pm

           She first said on Q&A this morning that she had been ‘bullied’ by the news media and even named the NZ Herald. She said they had personalised the debate.
           She also made the point that she believed it was illegal for the media (outsiders) to try to influence MPS ( and, I hope, elections) .
           This cheered me up, as I am now going straight to the NZPC every time I see it happening.
           I think I will be very busy, judging by the behaviour of the media (watch out Paul Henry if you are seen and heard again on TV3) during the 2008 election.
           Media influence / brainwashing was, to my mind, the main reason National plus Rodney Hide won. Key is still trying to use it to this day.
           • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.3.2.1.1

             3 April 2011 at 2:38 pm

             Yeah, because interfering with the operation of a free media – even if that media happens to be as shallow as a puddle and as biased as Goebbels – will never come back to bite you.
           • J Mex 3.1.3.2.1.2

             3 April 2011 at 7:55 pm

             Seeker – It is just about impossible to read the transcript below, and hold the belief that Judith Tizard does not believe she was bullied by the Labour party president…

             GUYON OK, but, um, the party president made it very clear – and you talked about the integrity of MMP. He made it very clear he didn’t want you, and he didn’t want the other ones on the list. He wanted Louisa Wall, which is-

             JUDITH Five people were supposed to stand aside, so why do we waste our time, as all the political parties, choosing lists if an unelected official can then weigh in and say, ‘You five have got to stand aside’? One of the elderly Samoan ladies at the Labour list conference in Auckland made that point to me.

             GUYON So you see this as an attack on the integrity of MMP?

             JUDITH Yes, I do. And I don’t like bullying, and normally I would stand up, and that’s the main reason I’ve been thinking of going back.

             GUYON That’s why I asked you who the bully here was.

             JUDITH Well, the bully is also, of course, NZ Herald, who are behaving like-

             GUYON OK, well, let’s not talk about the other media-

             JUDITH No, but you asked me who the bullies were. The bullies are people who are protecting their property interest or their sectoral interest who are coming to MPs, and outside influence on MPs is actually against the law.
             • seeker …

               4 April 2011 at 12:05 am

               J.Mex.
               I agree with you. What I had meant to say was “She also said …” rather than ” She first said..”
               I think the following is the bit you mean where Ms. Tizard refers to “unelected party officials..”. It was near the beginning of the interview as I had remembered. Later she said that outside influence on MPs is “actually against the law.”

               JUDITH TIZARD – Former MP
               “Um, I am really concerned about bullying. And I think the integrity of our constitutional arrangements means that outsiders – whether they’re unelected party officials or news media – should not try and weigh in and make decisions for individuals about how they deal with the lists which have been voted on. ”

               [lprent: no need to go overboard on the bold. Cleaned it out. ]
     • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.4

       3 April 2011 at 2:34 pm

       capable or powerful women

       Powerful by virtue of patronage, perhaps. But capable?! Would someone like to elucidate this “legacy” of which Eddie speaks? Because I see nothing of the sort. To be fair, I don’t see it with the majority of useless time-servers who’ve passed through our Parliament under any banner, but then again I don’t see too many people getting misty eyed about them either.

       I can’t claim to know the psyche of every critic of Tizard at this time, but to imply it comes from misogyny in the majority of cases seems to me unfounded. It’s certainly not what drives me… if I could, I’d appoint Sian Elias President for Life and there’s plenty of other brave and capable women I admire. But Tizard ain’t one of them.
       • RedLogix 3.1.4.1

         3 April 2011 at 2:49 pm

         Resorting to pedantry in my defense.. I did carefully insert the word “or” in there. While Judith Tizard was possibly not the most capable OR powerful politician this nation has ever seen… she wasn’t roast beef either.

         Nor can I see much justification for the sustained and nasty campaign conducted against her in particular… when her record of public service is really not remarkably worse or different than most of her peers. Why was she singled out for this treatment?

         I’ve been around to see this pattern before, the sneaky, low-key, plausibly deniable campaign of smears and innuendo… repeated over and over until most folk start to think there must be something to it. And while politicians of both genders can be the target; we’ve seen the right-wing machine employ an especially unpleasant, misogynistic twist to targetting women of the left.
   • big bruv 3.2

     3 April 2011 at 11:58 am

     [Deleted. Yes you are right. Consider this an opportunity to clean up your act…RL]
4. Mac1 4

   3 April 2011 at 10:45 am

   Yes, well done, Judith. I honour your commitment to the party above personal interests.
5. Jim Nald 5

   3 April 2011 at 11:08 am

   Good on Tizard who has held herself well with decorum and dignity.

   The smears and rabid right mad dog attacks will be buried by History which will be kind and generous to her.

   Tizard has set the correct tone and approach for others after her on the list.

   Judith: some of us had confidence in you all along and I was glad to give voice to that (28 Mar 11):

   http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28032011/#comment-313462

   http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28032011/#comment-313470
6. Anne 6

   3 April 2011 at 11:09 am

   I have much sympathy for Judith’s position. She was discredited and denigrated by her attackers for years, and she was entitled to an opportunity to refute their claims in a formal setting such as a valedictory speech. She never got it, and that must deeply hurt. Good on you Judith for putting the interest of the Labour Party before yourself.

   Btw, gwwnz: It’s Jacinda…
   • Jim Nald 6.1

     3 April 2011 at 11:27 am

     I hope the incoming MP will seek out Judith and give voice to, and positively frame, some of the important things that Judith did not have the opportunity to set out in a valedictory speech.
     Some matters can and should be put straight on record.
   • big bruv 6.2

     3 April 2011 at 11:55 am

     [Deleted. You’ve had plenty of oxygen here… but not for this. ..RL]
     • big bruv 6.2.1

       3 April 2011 at 12:31 pm

       Ha ha ha….. censorship is alive and well at the Standard.

       [Terminal stupidity… take a weeks ban…RL]
7. big bruv 7

   3 April 2011 at 11:52 am

   What a joke!

   First the Greens rorted the electoral system to get Red Russel into the house and now Labour think it is perfectly acceptable to abuse the voters of NZ by bullying (Tizards own words) list candidates to stand aside.

   Why is it that the left think that the rule only apply to their opponents?
   • Deadly_NZ 7.1

     3 April 2011 at 12:23 pm

     And the Bully she named??? The Granny Herald as being the worst of the bunch but every commentator has conveniently overlooked this little titbit. And did anyone notice Paul Holmes in the back ground? it looked like every time he went to interject there was this little voice in his ear saying Shut up. so a grunt and camera switch. Go back and have a watch, it should be on demand or on the Q+A webpage. And a lot of the comments there were scathing of Paul Holmes interview/rant of Phil Goff.
     • J Mex 7.1.1

       3 April 2011 at 8:03 pm

       She also said that she felt bullied by the Labour president, which she didn’t like. Posters and commenters seem to have a case of collective amnesia/a serious blindspot over this
       • todd 7.1.1.1

         3 April 2011 at 8:21 pm

         However the decision was ultimately hers to make. I personally think she has made the best decision for the Labour party. I would hardly say that expressing a preference is bullying.

         Why does National think the rule of media scrutiny only applies to the left and Labour? Oh! That’s because they bribe outlets like Mediaworks with huge incentives to bypass normal process.

         Now I’m off to look for some roaches per Paula Bennett’s social policies… I hear her new cook book is coming out soon.
   • Jim Nald 7.2

     3 April 2011 at 12:39 pm

     Nah, dear big bluf, for bullying: please refer to Nats like Brownlee, Tolley and Bennett
     Spanking fantastic for being spoilt for choice there 😉

     My National friend has just been updating me about National’s candidate selections for Rodney (the electorate, not the rorter).

     Btw, I’m practising doing demure. Remind me not to seek Boag for advice.
8. Tigger 8

   3 April 2011 at 12:00 pm

   Thanks Judith for all your work as an MP, especially for the Arts. You showed a keen interest in all arts (unlike Mr Finlayson whose really only interested in ‘highbrow’) and oversaw a period of growth in that industry. Good luck to whatever you choose to do.
9. Treetop 9

   3 April 2011 at 12:22 pm

   I was pleased to see Judith Tizard be given the oppertunity to return to Parliament as this would have allowed her to give a belated valedictory speech. Tizards case highlights the impact of bullying among list candidates. What does bullying teach the bully? That it pays off. What does it teach the person being bullied? That you have to stand up to the bully. Tizard can feel proud of herself for standing up to being bullied.

   There are bullies in every political party. What Roy had to say about Hide was revealing. I would like to ask Roy if Hide has kerbed his bullying tendencies?

   When it comes to a list seat being vacant I do not want to see any bullying of the candidate because of how destructive bullying can be. Parliament cannot reflect the school yard.
   • Rex Widerstrom 9.1

     3 April 2011 at 2:50 pm

     List MPs are “bullied” not just when taking up a vacant seat. They are bullied prior to the ranking process to make sure they’ll be good little soldiers, loyal to the leadership at any cost, and throughout the term with the threat of a lower ranking constantly over their head.

     Whether it’s overt, as in the example you cite, or more covert – even unspoken – it’s there, and it’s become a major factor in the way politics happens in this country.

     At least a safe seat MP can rally his or her local electorate committee round to see off a push from head office to unseat them. A list MP has no one to protect them from the handful of people who decide their fate when ranking the list. It’s a situation that could never be healthy for democracy.

     The noble exception to this being, of course, the Greens. And hopefully Act may one day adopt the “primary” system with which it experimented. Note that no such commitment to democratic list selection has ever been shown by National or Labour, who’d spent decades working to centralise control before MMP gifted it to them on a plate.
     • Treetop 9.1.1

       3 April 2011 at 5:12 pm

       Election time certainly settles the score. The ranking of the list. Have to see where Roy gets placed.
10. Lanthanide 10

    3 April 2011 at 12:43 pm

    I wanted to put this here rather than open mike, as it’ll get a little more visibility.

    A lot of the right-wing attacks on Tizard standing down is that “the list was set in 2008 and people voted on that, so you should keep the list as it was”. There are 3 obvious flaws with this argument:

    1. John Key said he wouldn’t raise GST, but did. So why is the list suddenly held as a sacrosanct promise from a party to the people, and direct policy statements are not?
    2. If John Key’s raising of GST was a “tax switch” to rebalance the economy in the light of the global recession, then surely the party list is also called into doubt, because 2008 was a long time ago in a very different climate.
    3. Very very very few voters would actually make their decision based on the list. I seriously doubt you could find anyone who chose, or chose not to, vote for Labour because Tizard was in her spot in the list. The list rankings for the first 10 or so people (eg, those likely to become ministers) may influence a few peoples votes, but they’ll be few and far between.

    All of these are common arguments, but another one was mentioned today in the panel discussion on Q+A. One of the panelists said that actually National wouldn’t have this problem, because their constitution specifically states that it’s up to the governing body to approve or dis-approve list positions.

    In other words the National party doesn’t abide by the list itself – it puts out a ranked list that means diddly squat because they can directly approve who gets the position, unlike Labour who ultimately can’t change a person’s individual decision.

    Time to see the ring-wingers attacking Naitonal for not treating the list with the respect it deserves, and all of those other spun lines they used against Labour.
    • gobsmacked 10.1

      3 April 2011 at 2:16 pm

      Yes, very obvious faux outrage from the Nats, such as Paul East on Q & A.

      The list ranking that matters most to voters is – of course – number one. The party leaders are the visible candidates, and elections are presidential in their presentation. None more so than National inviting us in 2011 to vote for John Key, even though most of us can’t, because we don’t live in Helensville.

      So, let’s just review the result of those party votes, cast for National …

      1996: Top of the list – Jim Bolger. Subsequently dumped by National.

      1999 – Top of the list – Jenny Shipley. Dumped.

      2002 – Top of the list – Bill English. Dumped.

      2005 – Top of the list – Don Brash. Quit.

      So, according to this new version of “democracy”, where the party list at the election must be kept intact, National have shafted the voters and rorted the system … four times in a row. Not with number 38, but … Right at the top.

      Now, how about Labour’s dozy communications team get their act together and start pointing out this HUGE hypocrisy from National? Tizard has only become a beat-up story, because the other side work 24/7 on media manipulation. What do Labour do? Take Sundays off?
      • felix 10.1.1

        3 April 2011 at 2:57 pm

        Take Sundays off? I’ve been wondering if they even have anyone working on this stuff during the week.
        • Jum 10.1.1.1

          4 April 2011 at 12:03 am

          So tell me, where are they going to go to have their messages printed.  The Herald either lies about them or ignores them.
           
          People like guyon espiner, catch him on Q and A, trying to lead Tizard away from saying the Herald was a manipulator, i.e. TVNZ are not going to give Labour a fair reporting.  So, Radio?  Maybe Radio NZ would be a fair reporter unless it is on between 1.30 and 5 weekdays and then you have Jim Mora heaping up the debaters with right wingers like Michelle Boag, Joanne Black from The Listener a known rightwing magazine.
           
          So talk backs? – those rabid neo-con stations? Don’t think so!
           
           
          • D-D-D-Damn ! 10.1.1.1.1

            4 April 2011 at 2:37 am

            “The Listener, a known right-wing magazine.”

            Absolutely. When Sterling became Editor, she argued that the Listener had become “predictably left-wing” in its commentary. Under her editorship, it would apparently now espouse “a diversity of opinion.”
            
            Reality: It has become predictably right-wing. In fact, little more than a National Party mouthpiece. I still remember a particularly outrageous editorial a week or two out from the last election. A poll had just come out indicating the race was going to be tighter than previous polls had suggested. Clearly, Sterling / Black / Clifton or whoever went into a blind panic. And hence that week’s editorial argued that, even if Labour ended with enough support to form a coalition government, this would be grossly unfair. Not only because National would be the largest party (Sterling/Black/Clifton obviously hadn’t heard of second-placed parties regularly forming coalition governments in Europe/Scandinavia) but also because an expected swing from Labour to the Greens (a swing entirely within the Left) apparently indicated desire for a National-led government.

            Needless to say, I no longer buy the magazine.
             
            • Jum 10.1.1.1.1.1

              4 April 2011 at 3:29 pm

              Me neither.

              And Sterling was lying when she said the Listener was a left wing magazine.  It was always rightwing and its attacks on Helen Clark and Labour were always brutal.  It has merely progressed to being extreme rightwing.  Unbelievably, it actually pays those journalists for the misleading nonsense they write.  Brian Easton is probably the only objective writer there, in a political (economy) sense.

              I have nothing but contempt for the media in New Zealand.  I am not a member of any political party and I never will be.  What I cannot abide is the state of ethics in media today.  Printed, visual, talk-back audio.

              The journalists insult my intelligence every time they put fingers to the keyboard.  They have sold themselves to greed very cheaply.  Their children will suffer for that in the future just as mine will – the difference being I can tell my children that I didn’t betray the principles of objectivity, fair reporting, after exhaustive research, and no undercover allegiance to the moneytrader who has set out to destroy New Zealand as a country of people that once could look in the mirror and be proud of what they stood for.  They cannot do that now.

              Paul Henry back in the media to badmouth Labour and talk up National in the months before the election was always going to happen.  They will do anything to get back into government.  It will not be for our benefit unless we are the top 10%.  I used to like the creep until I realised what he was there to do on TV1 and that he was a failed ex-NAT.  This man insulted a New Zealand Governor General, yet he belongs to a party that professes to stand for good old-fashioned values like respect.  What a joke.

              TV3 and Duncan Garner who loathes Phil Goff and has set out to destroy him and Labour – that is so obvious in everything Garner says that I seriously doubt the man is thinking clearly which puts New Zealand in danger of being misled by his manipulations and any real problems happening to New Zealand and New Zealanders will be ignored because of his obsessive hatred for Goff and Labour.

              Talk-back I don’t listen to anymore, after experiencing the behaviour of many talk-back New Zealanders during the 2008 election campaign.  Those people gave me an understanding of the true depth of hatred against women and against any sort of real umbrella caring in this country. Yet I know through mixing with other people that the talk-back callers are just a small part of the New Zealand population.  It will remain to be seen as the 2011 election begins to heat up if that number has increased.

              I just hope, as I always have, that people will do their homework on what they stand to lose if they vote for John Key, and whether they stand for his greed and sale of our assets or for a society worth having and an economy that we can all enjoy the fruits of.

              Objectivity in reporting I thought was the second part of the media mission statement after ethics. I was wrong on both counts.
               
11. seeker 11

    3 April 2011 at 2:32 pm

    @Lanthanide

    “One of the panelists said that actually National wouldn’t have this problem, because their constitution specifically states that it’s up to the governing body to approve or dis-approve list positions.

    In other words the National party doesn’t abide by the list itself – it puts out a ranked list that means diddly squat because they can directly approve who gets the position, unlike Labour who ultimately can’t change a person’s individual decision.

    Time to see the ring-wingers attacking National for not treating the list with the respect it deserves..”

    Excellent observation Lanthanide ! And the panelist who boasted this piece of information to us looked so pleased with himself (and his beloved National) and had no idea how wrong it sounded. I thought his sense of self satisfaction and aggrandisement was almost palpable throughout the programme.
12. randal 12

    3 April 2011 at 3:42 pm

    who heard the slimy jerk peter wolfenkamp or whatever hew calls himself on newsquawk zb standing in for keri wooham last week.
    he was rude and scurrilous and downright nasty about what he said about judith tizzard and government in general.
    where do these clowns in the meejah get off.
    they have no education, no morals no nothing yet they carry on as if they have something worthwhile to say when it is just un educated drongo drivel.
    somehow we have entered this twilight zone where scum like wolfenkamp get a say when it isnt worth anything and everybody toadys to them because they have a job at a RADIO STATION.
    get rid of him.
13. illuminatedtiger 13

    3 April 2011 at 3:45 pm

    I’m happy to see her go. My opinion of her quickly turned when she allegedly yelled at a group of people opposing the draconian and undemocratic guilt by accusation bill. Labour – when you’re in government please put someone forward who has a clue about technology when you want to legislate around it.
14. randal 14

    3 April 2011 at 4:25 pm

    oh you mean someone like u tigerlite.
    why didnt you say so.
15. Frank Macskasy 15

    3 April 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Whatever one thinks of Ms Tizard, it was wholly inappropriate for them to pressure her to step aside so that Louisa Wall could fill Darren Hughes’ position.

    This is a corruption of the MMP party list system, and a slap in the face to members of the Labour Party who voted for the List rankings. If  Labour deserves to lose the November election – it is for this reason alone. It shows that they still have not learnt that arrogance in politics is a toxic brew.

    Shame on you, Labour hierarchy!
    • RedLogix 15.1

      3 April 2011 at 5:55 pm

      See comments at 10.0 and 10.1 above.
      Faux outrage is the technical term applicable.
    • Graham White 15.2

      4 April 2011 at 1:34 pm

      Dr Bryce Edwards also concerned:
      see  http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/bumping-wall-up-labour-list-rort-commentator-4097405/video
      • Frank Macskasy 15.2.1

        4 April 2011 at 9:10 pm

        Thanks for that, Graham. I had seen that interview and I agree with Edwards. It’s not a good-look for MMP when a Party can manipulate List rankings to suit their agenda.
         
        I feel that the Labour hierarchy has let the rank-and-file down badly on this. And perhaps handed political ammunition to the right-wing.
         
         
16. jaymam 16

    3 April 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Judith seemed competent when I last met her. I was involved in the rather random Labour list selection that put her on the list. I far prefer the Green’s list selection process, except that the Greens juggle the list around at the end, against the wishes of their members.
    I wish the list order could be decided by the popularity of the candidate on election day. But a simple comparison of electorate votes received is unfair because some electorates have a number of good candidates, hence the votes for each are lower than where there is no real competition.

    However Judith should not be back as an MP for making these two comments:

    “Phil said I was welcomed back. I have to confess, he sounded like he was chewing dead rats as he said it.”

    Ms Tizard also told weekend media she had some “unfinished business”, including her valedictory speech, and it would be nice to say “stick it up you” to those who did not want her back.
17. Thomas the Unbeliever 17

    4 April 2011 at 7:02 am

    “She has seen her legacy destroyed by losers”

    ….. What legacy is that?  Judith Tizard’s response over the last week will be her legacy. Sadly, I cannot see that her response is inconsistent with her record.

    As an “experienced politician” she must be given the credit for knowing how her intransigence would look. She need only look to Mark Burton’s clear and timely response (followed by no further comment) to see how she should have acted. I am sure he has some strong views on how he has been treated (both by his own party and by his detractors), but he has wisely kept those in check.

    Tizard’s actions will be rightly viewed by many (if not most) of the electorate as further damaging Labour’s reputation in an election year. If Labour is to get itself back up of the floor, it must accept that it cannot continue to carry politicians who conduct themselves in this way. The electorate will make its own judgement – and it is unlikley to be favourable.
18. Sam 18

    4 April 2011 at 7:43 am

    I recall the Mt Albert by-election – Goff ensured his handpicked candidate (Shearer) won pre-selection rather than Twyford. because  Twyford win would have allowed Tizard back. Similar machinations also surfaced during the Chris Carter Te Atatu seat fiasco, where the party desperately wanted Twyford, but were hoping that Carter would not resign (as if he would, his snout is still in the trough) because that would let Tizard back in, if Carter had resigned. Then the “Little” bully stepped in and told Tizard she was no longer wanted when Clark’s “surrogate son” Hughes had his “faux pas”. Why did Little do that – well she is a Helen Clark supporter after all and the last thing Goff and co would have wanted was another Helen Clark “spy” in caucus. So the claim by Eddie that it the reason Tizard did not go back to parliament is the fault of the “right wing” media is blatantly untrue. I do recall that during the Clark years, the same “right wing” media was definitely “left wing”.
    • lprent 18.1

      4 April 2011 at 8:04 am

      Don’t be daft. Quite a lot of us in Mt Albert were worried about the by election in our electorate getting bogged down in the right being their usual arsehole selves about Judith. I have been running numbers in campaigns in Mt Albert for decades and it simply isn’t that safe a seat. I was worried about having a new candidate giving the right that type of story to tell.

      I’m sure that the party was worried about that as well, but I didn’t have people from the party trying to tell me how to vote. The opposite was probably true.

      Phil would have been a great candidate, but he had infernally bad luck as a candidate for that by-election – as I told him. Under any other circumstances I’d have been his greatest advocate. But I wasn’t prepared to hand the hysterics from National that good a electoral stick. There were other good candidates out there so the electorate people voted for them.

      Quite simply you’re lying on that. Looks like you like doing it a lot.
      • Sam 18.1.1

        4 April 2011 at 9:20 am

        Well then I must be a liar.
        I voiced my opinion, just like you are voicing yours, but I reasoned with argument, you resorted to a personal attack, some things never change.
        Seeing this is (still) a public forum, all opinions are surely allowed, whether you agree or disagree.
        If you want me to not be part of the discussion, then kick me off permanently, but then you could never convince me to change my vote to Labour.
        I would just lurk here get more and more convinced that voting Labour is a not a good move.

        Instead of calling me names, surely you should be concentrating on getting me to vote for your party?  From what I see, there is no argument yet that will convince me to do so.

        And it has not been “the right” being arseholes about Judith Tizard, your own party has been like that for a while now , just like it has been over Chris Carter.  

        Seems to me that tirades against “the right wing media” here are based on paranoia, not seasoned reasoning.
      • Lanthanide 18.1.2

        4 April 2011 at 9:24 am

        But given National’s disastrous selection of Melissa Lee, don’t you think that the Tizard stick wouldn’t have been as powerful in National’s hand?

        “Vote Melissa Lee to keep Tizard out!” doesn’t work too well.
        • lprent 18.1.2.1

          4 April 2011 at 9:31 am

          20:20 hindsight is powerful for making decisions retrospectively. Exactly how appalling Melissa Lee was at campaigning wasn’t known when we made the selection. It only emerged (to our delight) during the campaign.
    • Carol 18.2

      4 April 2011 at 9:30 am

      I do recall that during the Clark years, the same “right wing” media was definitely “left wing”.
      Actually, Clark (and Labour) had to work to get positive coverage in the media, initially she got a lot of negative coverage. The media later picked up on the anti-Clark venom in right wing blogs & talk-back, and used it to promote the right-wing agenda. In contrast, Key got a free ride right from the get-go.  And even when he is an incompetent PM, and does bad things, like supporting SCF when he had constant information warning him about their failings, the media says nothing about it, and continues to give him a pretty easy ride.
      
19. Carol 19

    4 April 2011 at 9:23 am

    As well as being critical of Goff, Little, the Labour Party etc, Tizzard has targetted the NZ Herald saying they act like they smoke too much dope, and are too manipulative, rather than reporting the news.

    “Their behaviour has been appalling,” she said of the Herald. “They should be reporting and analysing the news, not trying to make it.”
    …
    Ms Tizard attacked the Herald’s coverage last year of right-wing blogs that were critical of her.
    She also cited one of the four Herald stories about her last week, and Friday’s editorial headed “Tizard exposes downside of party lists.”
    The editorial criticised political parties which manipulated lists, as well as what it called Ms Tizard’s “posturing and prevarication”.
    She told the Herald last night that the editorial had been an attempt to manipulate her decision-making.
    “I find it astonishing that a newspaper has tipped over in trying to manipulate the news, rather than reporting it or analysing.”
    Ms Tizard told TV3: “The Herald have been behaving, I think, like sulky 15-year-olds who smoke too much dope.”

     
20. The Voice of Reason 20

    4 April 2011 at 11:50 am

    Being a cynical bugger, I can’t help thinking that Tizard’s comment yesterday that the money would be nice because she needed to do some work on her house may have had something to do with her decision. Does anyone know if a) she gets the paliamentary pension and b) whether returning as an MP would stop the pension payments temporarily?

    I’m thinking the real reason she sad no was because there was no financial advantage in taking the job if the 6 months pay for doing bugger all till the election was offset against her current income.

    If Andrew Little’s last action as President was to stop this whingeing hasbeen making a comeback, then he deserves the thanks of all Labour party members for his efforts. Hell, all NZ voters should be thanking him.
    • RobC 20.1

      4 April 2011 at 6:32 pm

      Tizard was in Parliament for 18 years. She’d be getting a fair whack from the pension fund I would imagine.
21. Deadly_NZ 21

    4 April 2011 at 5:58 pm

    And no one has thought how it’s going to affect Louisa Wall I really would not want to be her walking in to parliament on her first day to be greeted by all the bullshit thats going to come her way,  One thing would be funny if she turned it down and blamed the media.
    • Colonial Viper 21.1

      4 April 2011 at 6:04 pm

      Louisa will cope just fine mate, she’s been there, done that 🙂
22. chris73 22

    4 April 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Ha ha, the right wing bloggers laid the smack down and Labour and Phil Goff folded.
    • felix 22.1

      4 April 2011 at 6:34 pm

      So you think it was all bullshit then? Me too.
23. burt 23

    4 April 2011 at 8:06 pm

    It’s only a quirk that we should be looking back to a list written in 2008 to fill a seat for 6 months now.

    Sorry it’s actually called democratic process. I know that’s not something Labour respects when there is an election to win…. but this is hardly a quirk.
24. The Voice of Reason 24

    4 April 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Bollocks. A quirk is exactly what it is. No party should be tied to the list beyond election day.
    • burt 24.1

      4 April 2011 at 10:24 pm

      I for one are happy that Tizzard isn’t coming back. That’s not making the blatant manipulation of the list for electoral expediency ignorable. OK in this case the outcome is good, but hey how would you react if ACT did it after dumping an MP?

      The list was published for people wanting to cast their party vote with some openness about how the party would be represented. Now you think it’s OK to just change that order to suit the party – wharrrrrp thanks for playing. This isn’t the student union committee we are talking about, it’s a published Labour party pecking order for electoral purposes that party votes are to be applied against. Ignoring the published order by saying it should be up for grabs after the election is no less an assault on democracy than the incumbent party deciding who should fill a vacated electorate seat if it is vacated mid term.

      Look it would have been a different story if Tizzard (and others) quietly declined the opportunity without a song and dance, the ships not so tight these days is it.
25. krin 25

    5 April 2011 at 9:43 am

    If “Their lives have moved on. ” why did they take their names off the list?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS