Two weeks to choose

160 comments on “Two weeks to choose ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bunji 1

   29 November 2011 at 3:45 pm

   Stay till after Christmas Phil!

   There’s lots of easy positive Labour news cycles available over the summer silly-season with a couple of (media-friendly) town-halls of the competitors speaking to members. It’ll give the members something to feedback on to their MPs.

   The contenders should get together and take this proposal to Phil – whoever wins will have a stronger mandate and lead a stronger party because of a good process…
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     29 November 2011 at 4:39 pm

     Phil should stay through to Waitangi Day, allowing time for the potential candidates to make their rounds across the country, convincing members of their individual potential.

     Moira’s email said to give feedback to Labour MPs on the potential candidates. But how are you supposed to do that if you have never heard or seen some of them speak before?
     • gingercrush 1.1.1

       29 November 2011 at 4:49 pm

       I don’t mean to be rude but surely if you’re a member of the Labour Party you should know already who your MPs are.
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         29 November 2011 at 10:01 pm

         lol i meant if u hadn’t met any of the candidates 🙂
       • Ari 1.1.1.2

         30 November 2011 at 3:39 am

         Are you implying that all Labour Party members have met all Labour MPs? (or even every potential candidate for leader or deputy?) I’m a Green member, and I’ve only met one Green MP. I’m not sure what you think party members do, but it’s not chum around with MPs all day.
   • SHG 1.2

     30 November 2011 at 1:59 pm

     As a former Labour voter who recoils in horror at what the party has become, I’d like to see Shearer as leader. He’s got a life story that easily stands up against Key’s; he’s got professional experience in managing huge political organisations and large budgets; and he fixes things that are broken.
2. lprent 2

   29 November 2011 at 3:46 pm

   Good. There has been a pretty good start here. But remember that you’ll need to communicate this through the party…
3. Francisco Hernandez 3

   29 November 2011 at 3:56 pm

   It’s better than nothing but could be much better.

   Why not have LEC meetings and debates so that we can test the mettle of leadership aspirants?

   There’s shitloads more ways to engage the grassroots etc. But at least it’s a start.
4. One Anonymous Bloke 4

   29 November 2011 at 3:56 pm

   Phil Goff you are leaving too soon, but it’s done now.

   Meanwhile, New Zealanders woke up this morning to a demand that for the next three years, they supply their own lubricant.
5. One Anonymous Bloke 5

   29 November 2011 at 4:03 pm

   And who will be the next leader? My concern is that whoever it is may spend three years being ignored by National’s media poodles, undermined by caucus, and emerge at the start of the next election campaign back at square one.

   Are you listening, caucus? Your lukewarm support for Phil Goff just screwed the whole country. Get behind the next leader and deal to this useless farce of a government!
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     29 November 2011 at 4:41 pm

     Exactly. Whoever is the next Labour leader will have to put up with the same implacable wall of opprobrium from the MSM as Phil got. Square fucking one, in other words.
     • dave brown 5.1.1

       29 November 2011 at 7:17 pm

       Well Cunliffe just started well by speaking directly to Maori, Pacifica and pakeha working people. Who gives a fuck about Tory media. Any Labour leader should first go and pay his/her respects to the founders of the Party on the West Coast and then initiate a solution to the mining question by stating that a future Labour govt would stop open caste mining, nationalise the mines without compensation, seize Pike River assets as restitution for dead miners families, and create 100s of jobs in conservation and tourism. Then s/he should go to ChCh and promise to set up a state insurance office to fully compensate munted houses, prosecute derelict officials for allowing workers to work in substandard buildings, and return ECAN to the people. The subsidised water rort by NACTster gentry would be reversed and farmers made to pay for their pollution. As a basic rule Labour leaders should go and consult the people and work out sustainable, popular solutions where the wealth is kept in the community and not pumped into NACTster pockets or overseas cartels. Who among you are up to that task Labouristas?
       • Tiger Mountain 5.1.1.1

         29 November 2011 at 7:44 pm

         Well put dave, proceed from the concrete. Good practical suggestions for a social democratic party to reclaim at least some respect back. Fer crissakes, it was only during Labour’s last term that the Blackball miners early 20th century claim for paid breaks was finally recognised.

         And then promptly overturned by natz under urgency in parliament which is why marxists call for revolution not reform. Annoying as that is for reformists. Reforms do deliver relief here and there and in earlier days significantly. But imagine if ShonKey had cut off one section of ‘welfare bludgers’ namely middle class recipients of the in work tax credit-Working For Families. Holy crap, thousands of kiwis might had to have got organised and gone for wage rises from employers rather than fellow taxpayers.

         Veering off my revolutionary theme, ShonKey’s dirty little secret is that he sleazes by on “communism by stealth” as he once called WFF.
       • SHG 5.1.1.2

         30 November 2011 at 2:57 pm

         Well Cunliffe just started well by speaking directly to Maori, Pacifica and pakeha working people.

         Awesome, because those are groups that don’t traditionally vote Labour.
         • dave brown 5.1.1.2.1

           30 November 2011 at 3:00 pm

           Read you labour history fuckwit.
   • Puddleglum 5.2

     29 November 2011 at 7:26 pm

     “My concern is that whoever it is may spend three years being ignored by National’s media poodles, undermined by caucus, and emerge at the start of the next election campaign back at square one.“



     That’s my concern too.

     

I’d like to know how any of the contenders would be able to ensure that the next three years is not a ‘Groundhog Day’ of the past three years.

     The media narrative is clear: “Here’s another unremarkable pretender to John Key’s throne whose main concern will be keeping his internal rivals at bay, and is still connected to Clark (or Goff) and disconnected from the public … Labour haven’t learnt, no rejuvenation, blah, blah, blah” (I say ‘his’ as I assume Nanaia is not going for leader, but deputy leader?)



     That’s why I thought the wisest option was to keep Goff (but he may not have wanted to stay). He had been through that three years and the narrative would have to be different from now on. Undeniably, people warmed to him during the campaign and I think he could not be called inept or ‘no match for Key’ ever again.



     So, the aspirants need to answer that question – how will they make sure Groundhog Day doesn’t happen?

     I sincerely hope that they aren’t just expecting that the ‘political cycle’ will deliver them the Treasury benches in 2014. If that’s the case, I see no reason to replace Goff.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1

       29 November 2011 at 7:43 pm

       Duncan Garner has already begun the bullshit narrative: “three Davids but no Goliath”. I expect he feels very pleased with himself for coming up with that little witty.
       • Puddleglum 5.2.1.1

         29 November 2011 at 7:48 pm

         I think Duncan needs to read his Bible a bit more closely – now, how did that David-Goliath story go?

         Edit: No need to guess who most political journalists would see as the Goliath-like Collossus striding across the New Zealand political landscape
         • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 5.2.1.1.1

           29 November 2011 at 8:03 pm

           Parekura Horomia?
         • Ari 5.2.1.1.2

           30 November 2011 at 3:42 am

           Hah, I really hope that one of the Davids points out that little error. 😉
   • mickysavage 5.3

     29 November 2011 at 7:36 pm

     We are on the edge of an economic meltdown in Europe and economic credibility is going to be vital.  We also need someone who can talk to a business audience and at least get them on side.  This more than anything else is most vital.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.1

       29 November 2011 at 7:49 pm

       I think it’s considerably more vital that Labour are led by someone who can connect with the electorate.
6. mickysavage 6

   29 November 2011 at 4:07 pm

   Kia kaha to Phil and Annette.

   Phil took the leadership at the worst possible time, a hospital pass of hospital passes. He then worked through without hesitation and campaigned like a trogan. If this was three years time he may have been the next PM of NZ. But politics is all about luck and timing and is a bugger most of the time.
   • insider 6.1

     29 November 2011 at 4:22 pm

     Any views from the well connected on the two week period? Was that a demand from the contenders who want to take over quickly, or a concession from Goff to not go straight away.

     I’m not sure why you’d consider it a hospital pass micky? Goff was the anointed successor of a very popular PM. Labour lost as the economic cycle turned, which proveided a great platform for comparison of performance. If anyone got the hospital pass it was the nats.

     My theory of the election is that National won because few were willing to blame them for a global economic crisis and an earthquake, and changing the govt was seen to carry more risks than stability. Next to nothing Labour could do in that situation could help them win.
     • Bazar 6.1.1

       29 November 2011 at 7:13 pm

       “Goff was the anointed successor of a very popular PM.”

       Anointed?
       Clark lost the election and that very same night said, without warning, resigned.

       See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txI29QEwMRM

       There was no anointed successor, she left it up to on the fly internal struggling to find someone to replace her, and Goff seemed to draw the short straw there. Disgraceful.

       Its interesting to note that this site has harshly criticized Key for stating he would resign from government if he lost, but compared to what Clark did, its a striking opposite.

       “Labour lost as the economic cycle turned, which proveided a great platform for comparison of performance.”

       I don’t know if that’s sarcasm, or pure leftwing bias blinding you. But its because of the recession that figures are hard to measure on performance.

       “If anyone got the hospital pass it was the nats”
       And yet they now have 2 terms in government, a time when the country really needed a strong successful government. Time will tell if that’s the case, but either way, Labour has no part in it.

       “My theory of the election is that National won because few were willing to blame them for a global economic crisis”

       No one except for leftwing nutjobs would blame national for the recession, after all we hit the recession under labours watch. But i don’t blame labour for the recession either.

       “and changing the govt was seen to carry more risks than stability.”

       National ran on a policy of fiscal conservatism, and actually held to that promise. Labour for 2 years into the election kept talking about tax cuts, increasing welfare benefits, and other spending blowouts.
       It also criticized most of National’s actions, regardless of if it was a popular decision or if they had an alternative.

       And in the last year, just weeks before the election, finally presented a labour budget. Something that felt cobbled together to meet all of labour’s promises AND still beat National in debt reduction.

       At least in the final 2 weeks it looked like Goff got his party got their act together, but that fell apart as well, as he started spouting bullshit over police recruitment freezing, and even labour bitching about Key flying Air NZ, which cost labour dearly, perhaps even giving life to that pile of shit NZ First.

       Lets face it, the greatest thing that even happened for labour popularity this entire term, was when National was ambushed with Teagate, and responded poorly over it. When the best thing that happened to your party didn’t even directly involve you, that’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

       “Next to nothing Labour could do in that situation could help them win.”

       Perhaps being a competent opposition would be first on the list of things they could have done to try and win the election.
   • felix 6.2

     29 November 2011 at 4:29 pm

     “If this was three years time he may have been the next PM of NZ.”

     Err, I trust you do see the irony of that observation…
7. r0b 7

   29 November 2011 at 4:14 pm

   Thanks Phil and Annette.  I don’t think anyone could have tried harder.
8. Shona 8

   29 November 2011 at 4:17 pm

   They’re still dancing to the media’s tune, altho Phil deserves a break over summer , however there is nothing to be gained in pressuring a leadership change within such a short timeline.
   FFS make the NZ media work ! Tease the shitheads!
   Get maximum mileage don’t bend over for them!
   Treat them like the grubby bottomfeeding scum and arsewipes that they are !
   • David 8.1

     29 November 2011 at 4:47 pm

     Spot on!
   • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2

     29 November 2011 at 7:51 pm

     +1
   • mik e 8.3

     29 November 2011 at 8:41 pm

     set michael laws onto them they deserve each other
   • Maui 8.4

     30 November 2011 at 6:28 am

     ++1 @!
9. aj 9

   29 November 2011 at 4:19 pm

   Pause for thought.

   How would the top 5 likely National leadership contenders stand up person to person with this 5.

   Cheers me up somewhat.
10. gingercrush 10

    29 November 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Seems all a bit sudden. Those wanting leadership not only need to convince those who have presently made it but a few that could possibly make it come Dec 10.
11. Pete 11

    29 November 2011 at 4:27 pm

    I really like Grant Robertson. He’s smart, personable, and appreciates the importance of a good public service. I happily voted for him when I lived in Wellington in 2008. I think he’d make a really good leader. He has two hurdles, though – his sexuality and the fact that he’s not Auckland-based.
12. the sprout 12

    29 November 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Ok, well that’s sad Goff is going but that’s his choice. He’s done a great job during the election and I’m sure he deserves a bit of a break from a pretty thankless job.

    So now my vote would go to Cunliffe, then Robertson.
    I’d actually prefer Robertson but I think he’s too new to be Leader just yet.

    Ardern as Deputy for either.
    • Jasper 12.1

      30 November 2011 at 4:19 pm

      Louisa Wall as Deputy.

      A real Female. A lesbian, Maori AND a real sport star.

      Pandering to three socioeconomic groups at once, and getting the sporting types on side too.
      • lprent 12.1.1

        30 November 2011 at 6:07 pm

        One term… That is a pretty large minus.
13. queenstfarmer 13

    29 November 2011 at 4:40 pm

    I wonder if Labour shouldn’t first figure out what it stands for and how and why it can be relevant in 21st century NZ, and then pick a leader best suited to that vision.
    • Tom Gould 13.1

      29 November 2011 at 5:14 pm

      @ QSF, you mean like MonKey and his vision of a brighter future? Fair point. A smiling idiot and an vacuous slogan is all they need, right?
      • queenstfarmer 13.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 6:06 pm

        ^ That sort of arrogant attitude is symptomatic.
        • Ari 13.1.1.1

          30 November 2011 at 3:51 am

          Perhaps, but it’s also quite factual. Labour came up with a comprehensive and detailed policy alternative, while National floundered around with holes in its budget and shonkey accounting, and the media narrative was that because Labour made some brave calls in their policy, they must be too desperate. Really, there is no way to win the media over at the moment, and it’s pretty hard to win the game when you’re playing against the ref as well as the opposite team.
    • tc 13.2

      29 November 2011 at 6:55 pm

      I thought their campaign launch was that, a fair deal etc, back to basics this is why the party was formed etc. More of that works for me as they are the party that has a track record of doing the tough reforms and fixing others mess.

      Cunliffe’s smart and charismatic enough to cover the bases our tweet attention span world seems to gravitate towards. He’s also been out there rather than a career public servant of one form or another so ticks that box to and he’s NOT a lawyer…another plus IMO.
      • mickysavage 13.2.1

        29 November 2011 at 7:41 pm

        He he

        TC is right about the launch.  If you want to see what Labour stands for watch the video.  There was also a very good attempt to transform the basic tenets into a modern message. 
14. David 14

    29 November 2011 at 4:42 pm

    Labour HAVE to get this right: they should only have one chance before the next election (God help us if it takes two). They badly badly need the best possible leadership combination: people who the electorate actually believe are future Prime Minister material, can actually win the next election (and/ or the one after it) and provide smarter, more positive, braver, more in touch leadership than John Key. There are serious talents among all the contenders: the half arsed factional alignments proposed in the media risk not making the most of them. Small minded jealousies, anxious factional stakes, precipitous loyalty declaration, talk about deserving this or that after the difficult Goff time all point to a decison which costs the party in terms of overall talent contribution. The rush to election is not good either: the model for how to do this is UK labour after Brown: they took three-four months. The exhaustive US presidential primaries (not a model for much else) at least make it clear where the strengths and weaknesses are. Labour PLEASE DONT land us with a weak factional combo in two weeks time.
    • insider 14.1

      29 November 2011 at 4:45 pm

      Which David are you? C, P or S?
      • David 14.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 4:49 pm

        You’d be appalled how many Davids are out there in Labour land!
        • insider 14.1.1.1

          29 November 2011 at 5:04 pm

          ‘We’re all Davids now’ – 🙂
          • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1.1

            29 November 2011 at 5:26 pm

            And there is more than one David C inside the Labour caucus now.
            • Maui 14.1.1.1.1.1

              30 November 2011 at 6:42 am

              Who slew Goliath ?

              [lprent: I have started trashing comments you make under new pseudonyms. It appears that you have more than sufficient already. Since the moderators have to release new psuedonyms, it merely increases our workload. ]
              • Wild Colonial Boy …

                30 November 2011 at 7:36 am

                Have a nice day, lprent. I was trying to pay you a compliment.

                To the best of my knowledge ‘Wild Colonial Boy’ is not new ..

                [lprent: It was a new handle and e-mail. However if that is the one you want to use, then I’ll restore the comment. Puts glove on and humorlessly fishes the comment back out again.]
15. Sanctuary 15

    29 November 2011 at 4:50 pm

    http://www.davidshearer.org.nz/issues/speech-to-the-tertiary-education-conference

    Food for thought.

    – A proven track record and back story that makes Key’s life look like an under-achieving exercise in vacuous selfishness.

    – An ability to make bold decisions about big visions.

    – An understanding that the party is out of touch.

    – A man from outside the Thorndon bubble.

    There are three people so far who have admitted Labour has lost touch and has been soundly trounced. Shane Jones, David Shearer and Damien O’Conner. It may or may not be significant that all three are heterosexual, men, and have little time for the Wellington based coterie of identity based professional party hangers-on.

    Shearer and Jones!
    • gingercrush 15.1

      29 November 2011 at 4:51 pm

      Left-wing people here don’t seem to like him. Personally I think that should be reflected on.
      • Craig Glen Eden 15.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 5:23 pm

        David Shearer is a nice guy but and its a huge BUT, at times he was shit scared in the bye-election just 2.5 years ago. Dont try and tell me he is ready to run a Party like Labour and take on National in a National election campaign. Jacinda has not put her Name forward as far as I know and I would be very surprised if see did, she is to smart to willingly throw her carrier away with such a premature move.
    • tc 15.2

      29 November 2011 at 6:57 pm

      Jones is a lazy arrogant trougher….a bad call by Helen that one IMO.
    • Carol 15.3

      30 November 2011 at 7:23 am

      It may or may not be significant that all three are heterosexual, men,

      and that is relevant because…..?

      Considering that all 3 leader contenders are heterosexual men, there is no evidence for the implied victimisation, or marginalisation of heterosexual men in the Labour Party.

      Politics has changed…. it’s not as TOTALLY dominated by heterosexual white men as it used to be, though somehow they are still the people picked for most of the higher status and more powerful roles…. especially in the NAct parties. I’m glad left wing parties aren’t as bad as the right wing ones on this.
16. Jester 16

    29 November 2011 at 4:58 pm

    National supporter here but I honestly do say that out of the possible candidates I believe us Nats would be more worried if Phil had stayed on. He is certainly more capable then all 5 put together. I must admit he did win some begrudging respect from me over the later part of the campaign.
    However he could only work with what he was given and I believe his campaign manager and strategist should be drummed out of the party for such a poor performance.
    • tc 16.1

      29 November 2011 at 7:04 pm

      I’d love to see Mallard off to buddy but that’s the nature of media fixated politics todays , you fail you step aside.
17. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 17

    29 November 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Nanaia Mahuta! Is she serious?
    • mickysavage 17.1

      29 November 2011 at 7:41 pm

      Are you a fool?
      • sdm 17.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 9:17 pm

        SHe was detested as the Customs minister
    • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 17.2

      29 November 2011 at 8:08 pm

      Well, she might be, based in delusion of competance, but in all her time she’d done nothing except tick a few boxes: Female, check; Maori, check; Connected, check.

      Sounds perfect for Labour, but appalling for their chances of being elected and for the country as a whole should they be.

      [lprent: Moronic old style troll statement – too many of these and I start banning – read the policy. BTW: You had at looked a Paula Bennett recently with the same criteria? ]
18. philoff 18

    29 November 2011 at 5:11 pm

    The obvious choice to anyone outside of Thorndon and the media is Shearer – the man has proven character and leadership abilities under way more pressure than he is likely to ever face as PM of NZ.

    Cunliffe would be a disaster; I can’t imagine him being able to keep his ego under control. Smart, capable, but a divisive egomaniac.

    Parker would not be a disaster, just a disappointment. He doesn’t have a big enough personality (like Cunliffe) or a compelling enough narrative (like Shearer) to capture anyone’s imagination.
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      29 November 2011 at 5:30 pm

      Shearer has not had the time needed at the Cabinet level. Same with Andrew Little.
      • philoff 18.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 5:34 pm

        That must be what makes Key so unsuccessful
        • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1

          29 November 2011 at 5:41 pm

          The National Party only has one job for Key to fulfil: to be popular.
          • sweetd 18.1.1.1.1

            29 November 2011 at 6:09 pm

            Comments like that only show how much you under estimate Key time and time again.
            • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1.1.1

              29 November 2011 at 7:40 pm

              No, seriously, he only has one job for National: to be popular. Name any other? Apart from hiding from long format interviews and getting other Ministers to deliver anything resembling bad news?
              • neoleftie …

                29 November 2011 at 7:47 pm

                Key galvanised National supporters and party organisation where traditional they are at there weakest. Dunedin south LOC and campaign were out manouvered and organised by a very solid campaign by the national candidate. Over 150 national supporter gathered on election night in duendin south…funnily enough at the ususal place labour would have used too.
    • RobertM 18.2

      29 November 2011 at 6:31 pm

      In the short term why not Cunliffe. He’s a bit of a loose cannon , but able and educated and a good speaker. Lantham in Aussie was similar but looser and a greater risk. Of those currently on offer I think only Cunliffe as any credibility as a leader. Although I think Shane the Kirk or Lange and maybe more.
19. neoleftie 19

    29 November 2011 at 5:43 pm

    well for my depreciating two cent.
    David Cunliffe and David Parker -both too far right professional suit ex business hacks types and will be percieved that way both by the MSM and the centre – left voters.
    Shearer ticks alot of the requirement boxes, good background with ‘green and red appeal’ with a dash of light blue in for good measure.
    Remember the factions within labour have to be satisfied so Shearer for leader and Robertson for deputy.
    Robertson very ascute beltway hack from tne inner house of the party – union, rainbow and left wing of the party.
    Cunliffe as shadow finance minister, parker to run policy, trev mallard and Little as watchdogs.
    Robertson to follow in Helen’s footsteps, heavy on social but needs to understand macro / eco more so we dont have any more repeats of the Lange years.

    Robertson / Shearer will bring balance, charisma, passion, drive and a more united front to Caucus

    This is more than a legacy, or about power playing egos, this is about whats best for the labour party for the next 15 years.
    Time to organise every elecorate because if Dunedin south got as butchered in the party vote then trouble looms for the left.
    • millsy 19.1

      29 November 2011 at 6:34 pm

      I have to say that I would agree with every word on that post there.

      Having said that, I personally think Goff should have stayed on until 2014. He was only now finding his feet as leader.

      Imagine if Nash resigned in 1951 (or 54?) or Kirk in 1966 or 69?
      • Hami Shearlie 19.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 10:28 pm

        Agreed Millsy!
    • Colonial Viper 19.2

      29 November 2011 at 7:35 pm

      Good balanced thinking misses one thing though, the electorate doesn’t give a stuff about any of that. They want to see a strong charismatic leader, one who understands the every day NZer (or can fake it), not one with all the different party shades mixed in at just the right proportions.

      Remember, the country has just voted overwhelmingly for a party which can’t be bothered to place its first woman any higher than no.7 on their party list.
      • neoleftie 19.2.1

        29 November 2011 at 8:15 pm

        well once again into the breech the few go…the party has to balance the factions by its very nature but IMO this great leader in our time must be one to galvanise, to create interest and one that the common person can identify with…we need a middle of the roader, not left or right, union or marginalised but well good and ordinary – someone the swing and switch voters might just might vote for.
20. Tiger Mountain 20

    29 November 2011 at 5:58 pm

    The non Labour members here commenting on party leadership is rather amusing, but as long as it is kept civil thats fine. But it does illustrate the factional nature of political parties, Nats and Greens and hard left not excepted.

    Up to two hundred people regularly turned up to weekend meetings (and it was not to eat sausage rolls) when ‘Mad Dog’ Prebble was still around in Auckland Central. So my two cents worth is just that LP members have some reasonable input into the decision.

    The twosome (1 guy, 1 gal) I think would be interesting might possibly not want to be in the same room as each other, so with the short time frame the decision may be less than it might have been. But JFK mkII or something is not needed here, just someone fiesty and someone new.

    The true nature of ShonKey was briefly revealed again with the wee shot of him and Banksie yesterday by the elevator, “oh no I’ll have a coffee this time” said JK mugging for the crew, har har. Total hubris after wasting police time during an election.
    Anyone believe the pizza delivery shot with Johnny in shorts was spontaneous?
    • aj 20.1

      29 November 2011 at 6:05 pm

      The pizza shot was the first photo op for the next election. Yes, planned right the way down to the bare feet
      • Hami Shearlie 20.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 10:31 pm

        Where were the baby and the puppy? Don’t say Steven Joyce is losing his touch?
    • sodapaper 20.2

      29 November 2011 at 6:17 pm

      Re Pizza shot – JK probably does dress that bad in his down time. Not that his suits are much better.
    • tc 20.3

      29 November 2011 at 7:08 pm

      hell no, and as for johnny and the 6 pack of Tui…do me a favour (have you tried that sugar water lately) , isn’t he a pinot man.
21. Brett 21

    29 November 2011 at 6:11 pm

    [sprout: next one like that and you’re banned]
    • vto 21.1

      29 November 2011 at 6:13 pm

      Then you are clearly a pig.
    • Tiger Mountain 21.2

      29 November 2011 at 6:26 pm

      And I thought my jibe about certain torys predeliction for four legged girlfriends might be pushing it a bit, but obviously not in Brett’s case.

      [lprent: good thing that I haven’t seen it then isn’t it. At last not yet. ]
      • Craig Glen Eden 21.2.1

        29 November 2011 at 6:47 pm

        Brett’s and idiot, I bet if he is with a woman she wouldn’t be anywhere near as attractive or as smart as Jacinda. But hey people like Brett said the same thing about Helen, as the right were with Helen, I suspect Brett’s a little scared of Jacinda’s bite and so he should be, she stands for everything he does not.
22. aj 22

    29 November 2011 at 6:12 pm

    And you look like a dick.
23. Vicky32 23

    29 November 2011 at 6:41 pm

     I came home from work to find that Phil has caved… I am shocked, and disappointed. Just yesterday, I was assuring my son that PG and AK would not do the predicted thing – but they have! I am very sad.
    • Pete 23.1

      29 November 2011 at 7:10 pm

      You mustn’t have watched Phil’s concession speech on Saturday night, then. He dropped a hint as heavy as … a very heavy thing.
      • Reality Bytes 23.1.1

        30 November 2011 at 9:47 pm

        I was hoping that he wouldn’t stand down too, instead putting the leadership position up for a vote and putting his name in the ring. The fact he didn’t resign straight away seemed like this could be a possibility. And there would be no shame in losing the nomination, nothing wrong with giving it a shot and showing an eagerness to serve your country, especially when you are more than capable, as imo Goff was.

        Unfortunate for the labor party, as many have said, he really was doing well and finding his feet, even if history was against him in this election. Still it’s his call, and he well and truly deserves a break after his contributions.
24. Glenn 24

    29 November 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Well at least Winston will be there to voice some opposition that the media may take notice of. The reaction from most of NZ will be David who? Grant Robertson will be off the screen. He is an unknown outside Labour and unions. Nanaia is a no no because there are too many bigots and racists in our beloved country. I come across them daily unfortunately and I am sure most folk do. While those folk are usually national or ACT voters (and strangely NZ first) Labour folk aren’t immune from this disease.
    I would love to see a Maori female PM but NZ isn’t ready for it yet.
    Labour needs someone who appeals to the media and the swinging voters not just Labour party members.
    Phil became known in every household..he’s chucked it so all that recognition built up so painstakingly is gone. Done a Helen on who comes next .A shame and a waste. He was hope#1.
    Jacinda Arden is the next best hope..to save Labour….Hopefully she will stand.
25. Rodel 25

    29 November 2011 at 7:11 pm

    I want Mallard and Jacinta. What a powerful combo… stand up to media sycophants and Nat nasties.
    But I dream on.
    • tc 25.1

      29 November 2011 at 7:16 pm

      thankfully Rodel you do dream on….Mallard FFS he’d pick a fight with himself left alone long enough.
      • Anne 25.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 7:55 pm

        And he’d be the first to admit it.
        Couldn’t you have found better photos of Nanaia and Grant? Hope they havn’t seen them.
      • Rodel 25.1.2

        29 November 2011 at 8:22 pm

        And what’s wrong with that ? Might do us good. And if it has to be FFS then so be it!
        I’ve met Mallard and I admire him.He’s got guts..Look at his little interlude when he decked Tau. I wanted to kiss him then, but I didn’t.(Trev not Tau)
        I’m sick of pussyfooting Labour MP sychophants who are afraid to make anyone think, afraid to upset one or two floaty voters..
        We need to fight the bastards, not be afraid of engaging in battle. (Not Iraq or Afghanistan stuff though). Trev and Jacinta would be the perfect combination. He’s an unbelievable rottweiler..I love him.and ..she’s ….well she’s just unbelievably nice…Love her too
        There..I feel better now.
        • Colonial Viper 25.1.2.1

          29 November 2011 at 8:34 pm

          Yeah pretty much.
        • Matilda 25.1.2.2

          29 November 2011 at 9:55 pm

          Trev ….you think? The most interesting comment that I heard him make , was when he visited my son’s private school ( which he did on a regular basis) and he said ” This is my favourite school in NZ” This was when he was Minister of Education in a Labour Government! We parents were delighted and couldn’t agree more, but it didn’t really fit with the impression he gave publically!
          • joe90 25.1.2.2.1

            29 November 2011 at 10:06 pm

            Posh schools now is it….. lovely wee fantasy you’ve got going there Matilda.
            • Matilda 25.1.2.2.1.1

              29 November 2011 at 10:33 pm

              I heard this on more than one occasion ( from his very mouth and as clear as a bell, as did all the other parents, and the Bishop who was also in attendence.) Trev did get a huge round of applause for his comment and I apologise if it upsets you.,but I guess you weren’t there …… But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story or what you want to believe!
              • Jilly Bee …

                29 November 2011 at 11:05 pm

                Hey Matilda, I have a fair idea of which school Trevor may have been alluding to and if I’m right, I agree wholeheartedly with you.
        • Wild Colonial Boy 25.1.2.3

          30 November 2011 at 7:09 am

          Yeah, I think she’s cute too .. but being PM in these times could be a poisoned chalice for anyone, including Key.

          Dunno about the result, but blogging here looks like fun. Even some of the computer-literate Nats show up, good for diversity.

          Machiavelli would feel at home.

          Even the moderator has a sense of humour .. sometimes.

          I heard Chris Trotter say on TV that the numbers were there in caucus to roll Goff before the election, but they refused. I think that needs an explanation, now that the election is over.
          • Rodel 25.1.2.3.1

            2 December 2011 at 7:32 pm

            Cute? wot are you on about?
26. Dv 26

    29 November 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Why the hell are they doing this public?
27. tc 27

    29 November 2011 at 7:14 pm

    One thing’s for sure, it’ll be a factional brawl with the winner hopefully being able to bring it home in 2014 which’s a landscape that’s really hard to fathom looking forward.

    Unlike the nat’s who knew what they had to do, went out and did it with the greatest frontman you’ll ever see in NZ politics…credit where it’s due they’ve played this really well.

    Now watch them blast through a package pre designed and ready to rock since victory back in 08.
28. oftenpuzzled 28

    29 November 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Neoleftie “Robertson / Shearer will bring balance, charisma, passion, drive and a more united front to Caucus” agree

    I think this would be an interesting combination, and could definitely work if personalities allowed. We need a good financial spokesperson with conviction and charisma to confront English & Key head on and Cunliffe definitely has that. He would be better in that position than leader maybe.
    • neoleftie 28.1

      29 November 2011 at 8:18 pm

      exactly cant have shadow finance and leader. Cunliffe is a heavy weight and perfect to reign in treasary came 2014.
29. burt 29

    29 November 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Losing Rongotai in a by-election would be tough for Labour. Could make the ‘new leader’ look instantly lame as well….

    But for leaders, Sheaer seems the man for the job to me. He’s not tainted.
    • lprent 29.1

      29 November 2011 at 8:30 pm

      For National it’d be like the Mt Albert byelection. Well run electorates are really hard to take.

      I’m sure you remember Nationals pitiful performance in Mt Albert.
30. belladonna 30

    29 November 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Can someone confirm that David Shearer had a crack at beneficiaries in one of the televised pre
    election shows. The Nats have been talking up David Shearer on the radio all day today which indicates he would be an easy target for them.
    Probably a good idea for Labour to deal with all of this behind closed doors I think, it will get messy.
    • burt 30.1

      29 November 2011 at 7:52 pm

      Labour are usually good at messy. Bring it!
31. Blue 31

    29 November 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Labour’s campaign opening ad is a good place to look during this process and the reshuffle that will undoubtably follow.

    The ones who were in the video are the ones who are good communicators and come across well.

    They are as follows: Stuart Nash, Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Damien O’Connor, David Cunliffe, Phil Goff, Carmel Sepuloni and Kelvin Davis.
    • ianmac 31.1

      29 November 2011 at 8:15 pm

      And David Shearer was on the closing Video.
      • Blue 31.1.1

        29 November 2011 at 8:41 pm

        I didn’t rate the closing video as high as the opening one. They were quite different beasts.
32. lefty 32

    29 November 2011 at 8:14 pm

    If there is a socialist left in Labour, now might be the time to pull them out of the closet and anoint them leader.

    Such a leader might propose that if Labour is to survive maybe it needs to worry less about competing for votes and winning elections in the short term and concentrate on building a strong Labour movement that connects and unites workplaces and communities around a programme that defines a set of values they want to base live by.

    Then an economic framework that supported those values could be devised and promoted.

    Instead of making the people promises that can never be kept, or offering them what they don’t want, the party members and candidates might join them in their struggles against the thieving capitalists and the mindless bureaucrats and politicians that blight their lives.

    It might speak truth to power, stand beside the weak when they face they strong, defend the environment against the exploiters and laugh in the face of the ridiculous neo liberal apologists in business, academia and government.

    It might get really brave and say child poverty is unacceptable, that the children must be fed and housed – not when the economy is fixed, or the fiscal indicators allow, or the plan is complete – but right away.

    Then it might organise the people to take the food and build the houses.

    Thoughout this struggle party members would be battered and bruised, impoverished and imprisoned, mocked and misrepresented.

    They would also be educated, humbled and discover some wondrous things about themselves and the alienated and despised class they stood beside.

    And eventually the people in the communities and workplaces that have been connected through struggle, and have learned to trust those that stood beside them, might vote as one and sweep the party into government.

    Labour did this once before and could do it once again.
33. Misanthropic Curmudgeon 33

    29 November 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Labours problems are encapsulated in this thread: there is nobody.

    All the possibilties have serious flaws, and this can be sheeted right hiome to the Clark-ites who gutted the party of any potential leaders during Her Glorious Reign, and then stacked the 2008 and 2011 list with what Camneron calls ‘Clark Zombies’ at the expense of much of anything resembling new talent in favour of the likes of Fenton, Mahuta, Horomia, Mallard, Dyson, Street and other no-hopers.

    [lprent: Moronic old style troll statement that relies on implied shard values. I regard such comments as flame starters. I’d suggest that you read the policy. ]
34. neoleftie 34

    29 November 2011 at 8:21 pm

    there is a socialist wedge mainly around mallard and robertson.
35. RedLogix 35

    29 November 2011 at 8:35 pm

    I think Goff and King standing down is a blunder of historic proportions. Right now I don’t think Labour is going to recover from this….ever.

    Time could prove me wrong, but while I rather like Cunliffe for his excellent communication skills… I can’t see him doing any better than Goff. Goff at least earned a lot of grudging respect for how he handled this campaign, and now it’s all been squandered.

    As for the rest of the possible candidates, well outside this small circle of political tragics that we are… they are all pretty much unknowns to the wider public. They all start from scratch in a long uphill battle against a media machine that will do them no favours.
    • Colonial Viper 35.1

      29 November 2011 at 8:41 pm

      +1000

      Phil built up much credit with the electorate in that last month of campaigning. Now its all going to waste.

      Completely speculative: if Phil had cast iron support in caucus to continue as leader: he very well may have.
    • Rodel 35.2

      29 November 2011 at 8:50 pm

      Redlogix
      I agree. The panicky knee jerk stuff is silly. Steady thoughtful and not rushed by media bullsh*t demands is what is needed.
      Espiner, Armstrong,Watkins and Van der watsisname will be delighted. Their scripts have now been provided by Labour and they won’t have to do any real in depth thought, once again.
    • Redbaron77 35.3

      29 November 2011 at 9:53 pm

      I wonder if Labour and the parliamentary wing have really learned anything from 2008? National have secured a significant MMP victory at the expense of upstaging Labour’s credibility and mana amongs the public who are currently in no mood for Labour. A change of leadership at this stage will not counter this. The best thing the party can do now is spend quality time during summer recess reflecting on the loss and asking “the hard questions” of itself. By the early new year the afterglow of an overwhelming victory will be ebbing away from National with the public more likely to be receptive to a well-considered changing of the guard.
      • Colonial Viper 35.3.1

        29 November 2011 at 10:32 pm

        Yeah I think Phil should be facilitating things over the summer period personally.
    • felix 35.4

      30 November 2011 at 12:58 am

      RedLogix, that’s exactly my feelings too.

      A huge mistake, playing straight into the opponents’ hands and squandering all that’s been achieved.
      • rosy 35.4.1

        30 November 2011 at 1:18 am

        Same. They may as well toss a coin for the leadership now, for all the difference it will make in the next 3 years.

        FWIW I’d go Shearer simply because he is not associated with anyone at the top level so whatever profile he creates can’t be torn down with contradictions.
      • Carol 35.4.2

        30 November 2011 at 7:13 am

        Actually, I think Goff maybe have decided to stand down straight away, because, until the leadership is changed, the totally biased, scyhophantic, Key-a*se-licking media will be dissing Goff and Labour for not changing leader after a defeat.

        Basically Labour are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. The media are a craven bunch of Politics Idol cheerleaders, who continue to undermine democracy and the considered critical political debate that it requires.
36. Trevor 36

    29 November 2011 at 9:46 pm

    What a pack of muppets this lot are….do we have anyone else?

    [lprent: As a warning, we don’t get too happy with excessive identity jumping. We have to release each new one, and we always check IP’s in case it is someone who has been banned. Do not cause us too much work – the moderators get irritable about that. And avoid any temptation to using multiple identities to AstroTurf or strike up conversations with yourself. ]
37. dad4justice 37

    29 November 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Bring back H1 & H2. haha……………………………..Peter, Peter had a wife and could not ……………
    • millsy 37.1

      30 November 2011 at 7:00 am

      Havent seen your boyfriend lately (big bruv)
      • dad4justice 37.1.1

        30 November 2011 at 7:57 pm

        He is busy attending to Graeme Taylor’s anal problems.
38. Glenn 38

    29 November 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Don Brash might be prepared to take on the leadership if asked nicely. He certainly has the experience in leading parties.
    And maybe just maybe..third time lucky?

    Seriously though Damien O’Connor is a straight from the shoulder sort of fellow and he is a winner…something labour could do with at this time.

    .”In April, Mr O’Connor was chastised by Labour leader Phil Goff and told to apologise to caucus for saying the party’s list selection was run by “self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6048658/Time-for-action-says-O-Connor

    The more I read in this article the more I liked this politician.
    • Carol 38.1

      30 November 2011 at 7:00 am

      O’Connor’s a divisive character. Sure Labour needs to re-engage with many socially conservative working class people. But it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t encourage bigotry or undermine other sections of Labour’s support. O’Connor will also alienate people like me who don’t appreciate the slur against our sexuality in the term “gaggle”, along with the stereotyping and undermining of hard working unionists. Unions are the only hope for a fair deal for workers.

      O’Connor as Labour leader would never entice me away from voting Green or Mana. Though neither would Parker or Shearer. Cunliffe-Mahuta would be the only pair likely to even get my consideration.
39. jaymam 39

    29 November 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Here’s praise for Parker from Whaleoil
    “If Parker’s behaviour in this battle in anyway mimics his nastiness in Epsom then there will be blood for sure.”
    By “nastiness in Epsom” does he mean Parker’s very effective criticism of Banks and Brash that helped cause the demise of Brash?
    This is what Labour needs. Someone who can attack the opposition when needed.
    • Colonial Viper 39.1

      29 November 2011 at 11:04 pm

      No, the ‘attack dog’ role should go to the DPM, not to the PM who must be the inspiring leader of the nation.
      • jaymam 39.1.1

        30 November 2011 at 11:31 am

        I’d agree with that, but Labour does not seem to be choosing an attack dog as DPM.
        Why can’t Mallard be given a special position as “attack dog”?
        And Jacinda Ardern in some position that justifies putting her picture on every billboard like John Key did. Labour would have won in that case! Shallow, I know, but many people vote on appearance.
        • Colonial Viper 39.1.1.1

          30 November 2011 at 11:34 am

          And Jacinda Ardern in some position that justifies putting her picture on every billboard

          Oh wow. That’s quite the suggestion.
          • jaymam 39.1.1.1.1

            30 November 2011 at 2:01 pm

            Oh dear, obviously I meant some responsibilty or assignment, ranking, job within the Party. Not a physical position!
40. Leopold 40

    29 November 2011 at 10:47 pm

    Why o why
41. Colonial Viper 41

    29 November 2011 at 11:38 pm

    TV3 interviews with leadership contenders

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Meet-Labours-leadership-contenders–extended-footage/tabid/370/articleID/234619/Default.aspx
    • LynW 41.1

      30 November 2011 at 10:44 am

      Thanks for that link. A very interesting opportunity to see how they each dealt with the media. I’m feeling some optimism! I would hope that when choosing the best possible people for the leadership roles that all members will vote on what is best for Labour and NZ and not for personal gain. Caucus know each other’s strengths; let’s trust they will choose wisely, building on them.

      Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.

      Noam Chomsky
      American Philosopher, Author and Activist

      May the best candidates for the tough job ahead be chosen by their well informed and altruistic colleagues ensuring they have the skills to lead NZ into a society that is driven more by community spirit and compassion than greed and self-interest.

      Good luck!…I’m off to join the Labour party!
    • Carol 41.2

      30 November 2011 at 10:49 am

      Shearer seemed a bit limited at dealing with media questions. He is probably not ready to take the position at such a crucial time, though he may connect withthe general public.

      Parker came across quite well, and while lacking passion he probably will be good on selling a lot of Labour policies. But this may not connect with “ordinary” Kiwis.

      Good move by Cunliffe to promote himself as leader of a team, and to appear with Mahuta, showing a desire to represenrt diverse Kiwis.
42. Mark 42

    30 November 2011 at 7:09 am

    Whoever takes over Leadership, will still have to deal with the MSM or should I say National Party propoganda machine. I am sickened by the indoctrination NZ’rs are being subjected to by the MSM and their political commentators..
43. Carol 43

    30 November 2011 at 10:44 am

    Good move for the contenders to go on the road and open the leadrship selection to public debate:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6060236/Labours-three-Davids-to-hit-the-road
    • LynW 43.1

      30 November 2011 at 11:02 am

      +1
    • Colonial Viper 43.2

      30 November 2011 at 3:37 pm

      They need more time though. Say to Waitangi Day, Feb 6.
44. Darel Hall 44

    30 November 2011 at 11:33 am

    The Labour Party has lost the 2014 election if its leadership contest remains a contest to lead the Labour Caucus rather than a contest to lead the Labour Party.

    Capturing enough votes for the top Caucus job isn’t the same as capturing people’s hearts and minds to earn the right to lead our country.

    To be successful again, Labour MPs need to show they care more about transforming our country than maintaining their jobs in parliament. They need to be brave.

    Labour was praised for taking brave policy stances this election on capital gains tax and raising the age of superannuation entitlement.

    This is partly true. Both policies are important, demographically driven and likely to be inevitable policy positions irrespective of which party leads government. And it is Labour’s role to propose these kinds of big picture ideas. But not at the last minute during an election campaign.

    These big ideas, these generational ideas need time to become supported because they are part of a vision that transcends the three year electoral cycle.

    Labour is at its best when it takes the visionary approach. But it does mean Labour needs to be prepared to lose more elections that it wins against a conservative, steady as she goes, managerial National Party.

    And that’s the rub for those that want a steady career in politics – they’re in the wrong party.

    Labour does need to be brave now and have a genuine, no holds barred and bloody public contest that decides the future and leadership of the party so people know what Labour means.

    If there’s a private leadership contest and a public bland-off between the leadership contenders then that’s just about personal ambition and power and has nothing to do with Labour activists, sympathizers, voters and the wider public.

    The public bland-off includes the Cunliffe – Mahuta team being sold as ticking the Party’s representative boxes. That is not a strategy to win the hearts and minds of a nation; it is a navel gazing identity strategy that says to existing supporters “I look like you so you will vote for me”. No matter the strengths of both MPs, it is a losing strategy for the idea of Labour.

    It’s worth mentioning to the Labour leader aspirants that none of them are vote winners. They all lost about 5% of the party vote in 2011 compared to 2008 in the electorates in which they ran.

    Clearly then they have yet to convince the public that knows them best.

    If the parliamentary Labour Party continues their ‘beltway’ contest the Labour Party will continue to fail.

    That failure is not the failure to win elections. That failure is the failure to be brave, the failure to lead the debate about transformational ideas, and the failure to rebuild the idea of Labour.
45. Galeandra 45

    30 November 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Wot Darel Hall said:
    ‘The Labour Party has lost the 2014 election if its leadership contest remains a contest to lead the Labour Caucus rather than a contest to lead the Labour Party. …To be successful again, Labour MPs need to show they care more about transforming our country than maintaining their jobs in parliament. They need to be brave.’

    This election was hugely successful for labour inasmuch as it recentred the debate about social equity and political purpose.
    It was a failure inasmuch as the bold moves were at first written off as electoral desperation. People are now disappointed at Goff’s going because they recognised too late that he was genuine in his search for answers to intractable problems, not merely desperate.

    Goff leaves a legacy of seriousness which the electorate will draw down upon as the teflon/ muddle through approach of the Nats continues to prove inadequate. The leadership stoush will be good for Labour if it clears the air and shows the party can achieve unity and focus for a higher goal than self interest on the personal, or on the party level. If it can’t, there’s always the Greens …..
46. KJT 46

    30 November 2011 at 3:33 pm

    Phil Goff.

    None of the others have the name recognition and, as Phil showed during the campaign, the courage and real leadership when things look bad.

    Some of the young ones, including Jacinda, look good for future years when they have more experience.
47. theseeker 47

    30 November 2011 at 9:16 pm

    to me being a long time labour supporter and family who are heavily involved in the party in the south island is that the leadership needs to be shane jones and clayton cosgrove the simple reasons of never having a maori lead the party and christchurch is important and hence regional new zealand thoughts?
    • Colonial Viper 47.1

      30 November 2011 at 9:35 pm

      The requirements for a leadership team are basic IMO: they must be able to reconnect with NZ voters and they must be able to clearly drive home Labour values for the modern day.
48. neoleftie 48

    30 November 2011 at 9:47 pm

    just saw the three david’s on tv…
    ok the pundits and party hacks have it right.

    Parker for me as leader.
    Robertson as deputy.
    party minders little and mallard.

    cunliffe we need on the treasury benches and shearer – nice guy – but no polish at all.
    • lovinthatchangefeeling 48.1

      30 November 2011 at 11:17 pm

      Parker showed his true colours on election night, with his bleating denial that it was not a rout for Labour. He also made a point of saying “we had the right policies, but people just did not understand them”, showing he has learnt nothing from the last two electoral defeats.

      Add in the charisma bypass and you get the 21st Century Bill Rowling
      • felix 48.1.1

        30 November 2011 at 11:29 pm

        Sounds like you think “policy” is akin to an advertisement used to sell a party to the public like you’d sell soap.

        A party should put forward policies that they genuinely believe are the best for the country. End of. If the voters disagree, you don’t abandon your belief. That would indicate that you never really believed it in the first place.

        Call me old fashioned. Call me a cab. If this is all about winning a race then it’s all for nowt.
49. lovinthatchangefeeling 49

    1 December 2011 at 12:01 am

    No, it is the effectiveness of policies. Labour had no policies that promised or would have put cash in the hands of middle-class centre voters. WFF for beneficiaries may well have been deserved, but to go to the electorate as a whole with that as a cornerstone policy was a terrible idea.

    They were also unable to answer the obvious questions about their own policies. How does a capital gains tax applied equally on investments make something any more preferable than another option (i.e. property)? Why offer GST off fruit and vegetables when the Heart Foundation suggests it will raise inequality because the well-off spend more on groceries each week and will thus benefit more than lower income earners (their reason for objecting to National’s tax cut package)? And most importantly – how much will this cost?

    If your entire spending plan can be thrown into doubt by a Tom Cruise quote from Jerry Maguire, then you’ve got a serious problem.

    Will Parker be able to fix that?
    • felix 49.1

      1 December 2011 at 12:24 am

      You say it yourself: “they were unable to explain”.

      That’s simply the other side of the “people just did not understand” that you found so offensive but a moment ago.

      It says nothing about the validity or otherwise of the policies, only about the communication and reception of them.
    • Colonial Viper 49.2

      1 December 2011 at 12:27 am

      Fuck off loser

      1) There is no mythical ‘middle class voter’ because middle class incomes and job security no longer exist for four-fifths of people.

      2) WFF for all was NOT Labour’s cornerstone policy, NO ASSET SALES was.

      3) A CGT applied to all assets encourages investors to invest in businesses which create ONGOING PROFITS instead of participating in ASSET BUBBLES. Think about it for 2 seconds please.

      4) The wealthy need to eat as well so GST off fruits and vegetables will assist them. HOWEVER because the underclass spend a larger proportion of their income on food helps them MORE proportionally by assisting them make ends meet. Don’t be a fuck wit. This is not John Key giving himself a $1000 pw tax cut after all. And give me the reference to the Heart Foundation quote you use, dickwad.

      5) “Show me the money”. Key used that because he is a showman with no substance and no policies. Yes David will fix him good.
50. lovinthatchangefeeling 50

    1 December 2011 at 12:38 am

    Yeah just like Rowling “fixed” Muldoon.

    David Parker, the Helen Clark ‘yes’ man, renown for being indecisive and unable to make decisions, questionable previous business deals, responsible for political interference at the Environment Ministry not only while he was the Minister but also while he was the Attorney General and Minister of State Services (i.e. clearly lacks judgment and hardly an example for the public service), tight with his ‘right hand woman’ Clare Curran and Trevor Mallard and supportive of them being the front people of ‘brand Labour’ and in charge of the campaign, Red Alert and other stakeholder engagement tools.

    Good luck with that one. Loser.
    • Colonial Viper 50.1

      1 December 2011 at 1:14 am

      Professional right wing troll. Better start shorting your John Key stocks mate.
      • lovinthatchangefeeling 50.1.1

        1 December 2011 at 9:45 pm

        Au contraire. After today I will be going long(er)!

        Leadership infighting and back stabbing in the Labour caucus AND on this blog. Whoda thunk it?

        Pass the popcorn JK 🙂
51. BLiP 51

    1 December 2011 at 1:22 am

    Remind me, does the the Labour Party membership get a vote in this and, if so, how does that process work?
    • mickysavage 51.1

      1 December 2011 at 6:39 am

      Caucus has an exhaustive vote for the leadership. Members have no say apart from an ability to influence their MP.
    • Pete George 51.2

      1 December 2011 at 7:27 am

      We may not get to choose the new Labour leader but we are being included in the game.

      An interesting comparison on Close Up last night. Double David political wonks versus refreshingly non-political sounding but inexperienced.

      Part of it was pure election campaign revisited – literally. Some of David Parker’s recitals were virtually word for word what I heard from David Clark about a dozen times over the last month.
      It’s not surprising Parker helped Clark – Clark has worked for Parker in the past – but I was surprised to hear recitals of the same hims.
52. Carol 52

    1 December 2011 at 7:06 am

    So, is David Shearer shaping up to be the people’s choice?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/election-2011/shearer-wins-battle-three-davids-poll-4583409

    More than 7,500 people voted in the Close Up text poll which asked who viewers would like to see as the new leader. Shearer was a clear winner with 50% of the vote, Cunliffe 31% and Parker 19%.

    Or was that poll just skewed by the astroturfers, the politically illiterate reality TV addicts, and other well-off people happy to fritter money away on a txt poll?

    But even Gordon Campbell can see some value in Shearer for leader, although he’d also be a risky choice.:

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/30/on-david-shearer-and-the-maori-party/

    Of the three Davids contesting the Labour leadership, David Shearer’s main appeal is as the anti-candidate, the guy who aspires to the top job after a career of high achievement outside Parliament. He’s similar in that respect, to you-know-who.
    […]
    It is that ingenuous quality to Shearer – not many MPs would voice such a possibility in public – that makes him both an attractive candidate and a risky prospect for the spin doctors and the image merchants.
    […]
    It’s a quality that could make him an interesting leadership bet for some of his colleagues because – surely – someone couldn’t run successful missions under fire in Iraq etc without having leadership qualities that go beyond a relentless tendency to pat your colleagues on the back.
    […]
    All very well being a quiet achiever, but Shearer has been completely inaudible.
    • rain33 52.1

      1 December 2011 at 1:06 pm

      Gotta be Shearer, it’s a no-brainer.

      Cunliffe, absent is the likeability factor, essential in the new era of politics.
      Parker, dull, if you can’t inspire the people forget about it.
      Shearer, the political equivalent of a Willie Apiata. If you can do it in Iraq, Palestine and Somalia, you can do it anywhere. Throw the experienced Shane Jones in as his running mate..game over.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS