The union vote

106 comments on “The union vote ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Fisiani 1

   27 August 2013 at 9:56 am

   Of course the unions will use their massive 20% to anoint a leader who will promise the most to the unions.
   • lightly 1.1

     27 August 2013 at 9:58 am

     It can write, but it can’t read
     • QoT 1.1.1

       27 August 2013 at 8:46 pm

       Or count, because apparently 20% is “massive” and enough to “anoint” a leader.
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     27 August 2013 at 10:00 am

     And the half million or so NZ union members are looking forwards to it.
     • Melb 1.2.1

       27 August 2013 at 4:43 pm

       Promising the most to the union leadership does not always equal the best deal for union members.
   • billbrowne 1.3

     27 August 2013 at 10:02 am

     Yeah, the unions which are actually a union of the people who make up the union.

     The clue to the make up of the unions is actually in what they are called (unions).
   • Tracey 1.4

     27 August 2013 at 10:08 am

     um, yes… and?

     At least everyone in NZ knows the level of influence these particular unions have, unlike National and AVT who cling to their right to be influenced by people and companies the public never know about.

     At the risk of putting some fact into the hysteria

     “A2 The election process for each affiliate will differ. They will be based on the following systems:
     DWU

     The ballot will be exercised by delegates to the National Conference according to the Rules of the DWU Te Runanga Wai Inc. In the case of a delegate being ineligible to vote due to membership of another political party then the vote will be exercised by their duly elected deputy.
     EPMU

     The ballot will be exercised by the delegates to the National Conference. In the case of a delegate being ineligible to vote due to membership of another political party then the vote will be exercised by their duly elected deputy.

     MUNZ The ballot will be exercised by delegates to the National Council, representative of every branch of the Union. In the case of a delegate being ineligible to vote due to membership of another political party then the vote will be exercised by their duly elected deputy.
     MWU The ballot will be exercised by delegates to the National Conference. In the case of a delegate being ineligible to vote due to membership of another political party then the vote will be exercised by their duly elected deputy.

     RMTU The ballot will be exercised by delegates to the National Conference. In the case of a delegate being ineligible to vote due to membership of another political party then the vote will be exercised by their duly elected deputy.

     SFWU All eligible financial members of the Union will be indirectly informed through FaceBook, e-mail (where on record), text (where on record), worksite notices and through workplace delegates that they have a vote and how to vote in the process. The vote can be activated in two ways. The members can either turn up at any of the advertised election husting meetings, where they can be issued with and can cast a ballot (to be administered by SFWU staff), with the ballot being sealed at the end of the meeting; those voting will be checked off against a full list of eligible members by the Returning Officer or their appointee. The SFWU will appoint a Deputy Returning Officer for each meeting, and the Returning Officer may also appoint a scrutineer for the SFWU voting. If the member lives more than 32km from the location of any of those meetings/they have a personal emergency/they have a disability that prevents them attending and voting at a meeting, they may apply to the SFWU Deputy Returning Officer for a postal vote prior to the round of meetings commencing; if approved, that will be issued by the NZLP, and will be returned in the normal way. The SFWU will make available appropriate resources to the Returning Officer to enable this process to occur.”
   • Tom Gould 1.5

     27 August 2013 at 10:26 am

     Interesting how the media never write a word about voting at company AGMs which are, of course, entirely democratic and open and transparent, with a complete absence of block voting or undue influence or gerrymander. These things are reserved exclusively for the left, when ever they have a vote about anything. Never the right. Heaven forbid.
     • quartz 1.5.1

       27 August 2013 at 10:50 am

       No Brash, no cash.
2. Craig Y 2

   27 August 2013 at 10:13 am

   I’d like to back this. As I’ve noted in Gaynz.Com columns, Louisa Wall is backed by the SFWU and backs Cunliffe, while Grant Robertson is a PSA member. Union voting will therefore not be monolithic. I imagine that there are probably diverse opinions over who is the best candidate at the CTU’s Out @ Work LGBT group, for that matter.
   • Tracey 2.1

     27 August 2013 at 10:18 am

     SFWU

     One financial member = one vote.

     “SFWU All eligible financial members of the Union will be indirectly informed through FaceBook, e-mail (where on record), text (where on record), worksite notices and through workplace delegates that they have a vote and how to vote in the process. The vote can be activated in two ways. The members can either turn up at any of the advertised election husting meetings, where they can be issued with and can cast a ballot (to be administered by SFWU staff), with the ballot being sealed at the end of the meeting; those voting will be checked off against a full list of eligible members by the Returning Officer or their appointee. The SFWU will appoint a Deputy Returning Officer for each meeting, and the Returning Officer may also appoint a scrutineer for the SFWU voting. If the member lives more than 32km from the location of any of those meetings/they have a personal emergency/they have a disability that prevents them attending and voting at a meeting, they may apply to the SFWU Deputy Returning Officer for a postal vote prior to the round of meetings commencing; if approved, that will be issued by the NZLP, and will be returned in the normal way. The SFWU will make available appropriate resources to the Returning Officer to enable this process to occur”
   • Pete 2.2

     27 August 2013 at 10:27 am

     The PSA is unaffiliated, and staunchly so. To be otherwise would call into question the political neutrality of public servants while on the job.
     • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.1

       27 August 2013 at 9:10 pm

       Which is certainly fair enough, but some of the other restrictions and exhortations made to public servants are a bit ridiculous.
3. Craig Y 3

   27 August 2013 at 10:18 am

   Which pretty much reflects LGBT general opinion, too. I’ve had emails on my recent articles on the Labour leadership which congratulate me for my objectivity and neutrality over Cunliffe’s candidacy, from LGBT Cunliffe supporters. I would also like to acknowledge that I do not believe that Cunliffe backers are motivated by homophobia in this context, despite attempts by some right-wing trolls to stir the pot on this issue.

   As Gaynz.Com’s politics correspondent, I want to offer David Cunliffe and Shane Jones an opportunity to put their case for Labour leadership forward in our online publication. Both candidates will receive fair and equitable treatment.
4. Plan B 4

   27 August 2013 at 10:58 am

   The best thing about the contest is that it gives Labour some needed media oxygen. essential for survival
5. northshoreguynz 5

   27 August 2013 at 11:06 am

   A legitimate question; does a union member, who is also a Labour party member get two votes?
   • Pete 5.1

     27 August 2013 at 11:25 am

     I don’t see why not. I wouldn’t have an issue with Labour MPs having an extra vote as party members, either.
   • NZFemme 5.2

     27 August 2013 at 11:41 am

     David Farrar says yes. (I’m not a follower of kiwiblog in general, but have been keeping an eye on the blog since Shearer resigned)

     “…Each EMPU delegate will get approximately 46 times as much of a say as a normal Labour Party member (if they are a member, they get an additional vote in that section also). A MWU delegate will get 16 times the say of a normal Labour Party member…”(from kiwiblog-Aug 26th)
     • felix 5.2.1

       27 August 2013 at 12:20 pm

       lol, I like how he’s based his calculations on “union delegate” instead of “union member”.

       He’s counting on his readers not to know the difference.
       • Melb 5.2.1.1

         27 August 2013 at 4:46 pm

         But it’s the EPMU and MWU delegates that will ultimately be casting their vote in the ballot, not the members. That’s why the distinction has been made.
         • felix 5.2.1.1.1

           27 August 2013 at 7:21 pm

           Oh I get that, but it’s still disingenuous to compare a delegate voting on behalf of a large number of members with an individual part member voting on behalf of themselves.

           But if he mentioned the real numbers the weighting would be obvious and he wouldn’t be able to whisper Pssssst! Jimmy Hoffa runs the Labour Party

           But really, it’s hilarious for anyone from National to criticise the details of the democratic system of another party when they themselves have none.
           • Matthew Whitehead 5.2.1.1.1.1

             27 August 2013 at 9:35 pm

             To be fair, the system really is only 40% democratic. Weighting the affiliate votes up to 20% (bad enough) and the caucus votes up to 40% (outrageous) isn’t democratic, it’s something more approaching oligarchy.

             Of course, it should still be remembered that the Labour Party is still (to my knowledge…) the second-most democratic party in our country now that it at least allows a weighted vote on leader. National party members don’t get to criticise unions possibly getting additional say (assuming their numbers are small compared to their allocation of the 20%- some may get LESS say than a regular member, which is another weird thing about this odd hybrid system) when they don’t decide ANYTHING about their party AT ALL, unless of course they’re in the smoky back rooms doing deals.

             Now, that’s not saying Labour doesn’t have a long way to go either. There’s still no member influence on list selection, and the members need to vote on an equal basis with individual union member affiliates and caucus. But they’ve made a great first step to a more open and representative party process.
             • felix …

               27 August 2013 at 9:48 pm

               Not sure why you think including affiliates makes it less democratic.
               • Te Reo Putake …

                 27 August 2013 at 9:57 pm

                 Agree, felix. The structure reflects the nature of the party, its history and traditions. Mind you, I’m told there should be a clear distinction between management and governance, so perhaps we should consider whether it’s best practice for caucus to have a vote 😉
     • Tracey 5.2.2

       27 August 2013 at 12:24 pm

       Isn’t it great how everyone has so much information about Labour’s processes? Shame the same can’t be said for National and Act and their ilk.

       Surely a delegate has a seemingly greater say because they are representative of union members in that particular union/branch as a group? He is pointing out the obvious while trying to make it sound mischievious.

       It is of no matter how many votes the unions affiliated to the Labour party have. It’s their party too?
     • Tracey 5.2.3

       27 August 2013 at 12:25 pm

       …and we will never know how much say certain individuals or businesses get in National and ACT Mps vote for anything…cos it’s a secret..
       • Wayne 5.2.3.1

         27 August 2013 at 4:54 pm

         Tracey,

         I have participated in several leadership changes. I can tell you the Caucus members make the decision (as in fact did Labour until 2 years ago). No-one from any company ever rung me to tell me how to vote. But of course party members expressed their views to me (as was the case with Labour under the old system).

         Caucus members jealously preserved their autonomy in how they decide. After all there is no point battling to get into Caucus if you surrender your power to outsiders. Which is why the speculation on this site about shadowy outsiders deciding for National is nonsense.

         Having said all that, I can see advantages in giving members a more formal say.

         But it also has risks, which I think David Shearer suffered, since he did win the party member vote. He was always being white anted, especially on this site. However, I recognise that would not have continued if he had been more effective as Leader of the Opposition..
         • Wayne 5.2.3.1.1

           27 August 2013 at 5:24 pm

           That should have read DS did NOT win the membership vote.
           • Colonial Viper 5.2.3.1.1.1

             27 August 2013 at 9:24 pm

             Thanks for the detail and clarification, Wayne.
         • chris 5.2.3.1.2

           27 August 2013 at 10:12 pm

           @Wayne…” After all there is no point battling to get into Caucus if you surrender your power to outsiders”

           Now this is where the problem lies with National and Labour previously.

           Party members are NOT the outsiders, constituents are NOT the outsiders.

           The people are exactly who MP’s should be listening to.

           Multi Nationals are the outsiders, NSA and other spook equivalents are the outsiders.
     • NZFemme 5.2.4

       27 August 2013 at 12:32 pm

       Yes. He’s trying super hard to make a case for “big scary unions still wield too much power”, when the first media attempts based on lies – block voting -was dismissed and retracted. *Looking at you Granny Franny.
       • Tracey 5.2.4.1

         27 August 2013 at 12:44 pm

         He seems to be leaving out that due to many efforts over the last 30 years only about 25% of the workplace are in unions…

         So I guess what he means is

         “holy crap, union members get higher wages than non union members, imagine if that gets out? Membership of unions might increase.”
   • Colonial Viper 5.3

     27 August 2013 at 11:49 am

     A legitimate question; does a union member, who is also a Labour party member get two votes?

     I think so; also worth bearing in mind that the value of both votes will not be the same. Individual affiliate member votes are worth much less than Labour Party member votes, which are worth much less than the vote of a caucus MP.

     Farrar’s musings about how valuable a delegate’s vote attempts to obscure the fact that individual union members votes are weighted very low.
     • Skinny 5.3.1

       27 August 2013 at 1:09 pm

       Yes it’s 2 votes and the value differs. People have to get real, I had a delegate come see me this morning, he is not into politic’s and as I am, he asked who do I recommend he vote for? I outlined my opinion of each candidate and what they bring for our collective of members. So Cunliffe fits our brief & he will join in and vote accordingly as he best suits our needs.

       I really think people bemoaning from the outside know Cunliffe is heads and shoulders above the rest. The rank & file of the membership will determine the result which will be overwhelmingly for our hero DC.
       • Skinny 5.3.1.1

         27 August 2013 at 1:12 pm

         * that’s Labour party members I refer to above.
       • Tracey 5.3.1.2

         27 August 2013 at 1:12 pm

         would you mind telling us what you told him about each of them, and what you think they offer for the collective membership? I am genuinely interested.

         I am struggling to find much about what Jones or Robertson really stand for.
         • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.2.1

           27 August 2013 at 1:20 pm

           Robertson has spent his public career shying away from stating on record any controversial positions, or indeed any positions deviating too far from politically and economically orthodox (status quo neolib capitalist) thinking.

           It’s a Shearer Mk II ticket.
           • McFlock 5.3.1.2.1.1

             27 August 2013 at 1:34 pm

             lol

             Nah, you’re just beating the same drum.
             • Colonial Viper …

               27 August 2013 at 2:08 pm

               If you have access to documents or speeches where Robertson has set forth his vision of NZ society or NZ economy, please feel free to link.
               • McFlock …

                 27 August 2013 at 3:28 pm

                 Why would I bother looking? It’s not like you’d suddenly stop suggesting that anybody you don’t cultishly follow has neoliberal sympathies.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   27 August 2013 at 9:22 pm

                   So you’ve never actually seen any documents or heard speeches where Robertson has set forth his vision of NZ society or the NZ economy?
         • Skinny 5.3.1.2.2

           27 August 2013 at 1:44 pm

           Ha ha funny girl… well Jones was easy all I had to say was John Key said yesterday Shane is a good bloke, so I won’t repeat excatly what his blood mouthed response was to that, in short ” well f*** Jones then. Robertson’s was well…you know our HQ is in Wellington & his nick name is beltway Grant, who finished 3rd in his electorate seat. Oh shit beaten by the Greens aswell..again f*** him. And Cunliffe I showed him a message from before Shearer dropped out. “excellent mate keep in touch.” enough said *wink
       • Luka 5.3.1.3

         31 August 2013 at 8:24 pm

         In your opinion, do you think that the media is trying to make a contest out of a non-event. And perhaps, in relaity, that Cunliffe has this? (I am a DC supporter) and praying so! I dislike ABCs, and everything they stand for!
       • Luka 5.3.1.4

         31 August 2013 at 8:24 pm

         In your opinion, do you think that the media is trying to make a contest out of a non-event. And perhaps, in reality, that Cunliffe has this? (I am a DC supporter) and praying so! I dislike ABCs, and everything they stand for!
   • Te Reo Putake 5.4

     27 August 2013 at 12:56 pm

     I’ve got two votes, could have been 3. One as an LP member, one as a SFWU member. I’m also a member of the EPMU, but not a voting delegate to conference, which is how it’s done under their rules. So, according to Farrar’s calculations, I’m approximately 94000 times more powerful than the average National Party member.
   • The Pink Postman 5.5

     27 August 2013 at 3:03 pm

     Yes.
   • The Pink Postman 5.6

     27 August 2013 at 3:05 pm

     Yes.!
6. felix 6

   27 August 2013 at 11:09 am

   I don’t know about that, Eddie. I once saw a film about Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters and it clearly showed that unions are run from the top down by shadowy organised crime figures in dark smoky rooms.

   Also this one time in band camp, the Cooks & Stewards ruined my holiday.
   • QoT 6.1

     27 August 2013 at 8:51 pm

     felix, I can’t believe you’d give credence to such a cartoonish portrayal of the realities of union politics.

     Season 2 of The Wire was a far more accurate depiction.
     • felix 6.1.1

       27 August 2013 at 9:07 pm

       Well yeah, but that was a documentary.
7. Brett Dale 7

   27 August 2013 at 12:38 pm

   LOL.

   Union members will do what they are told to do.
   • Tracey 7.1

     27 August 2013 at 12:45 pm

     Just like National will do what the money tells them to do.

     No Brash No cash ring any bells???
   • NZFemme 7.2

     27 August 2013 at 12:51 pm

     I think you’ll find that the 22,350 SWFU members who get to vote individually will beg to differ with you.
   • Te Reo Putake 7.3

     27 August 2013 at 12:59 pm

     Poor Brett, he’s obviously someone who’s never been to a union meeting, let alone got his head round how democracy works in practice.
   • framu 7.4

     27 August 2013 at 4:04 pm

     Do you have to work at being this dense brettie boy? Or does it just come naturally?
     • fender 7.4.1

       27 August 2013 at 5:43 pm

       There’s a condition where people seemingly send txt messages in their sleep. Brett has a condition that sees him making comments on blog sites while sleeping.
   • Rodel 7.5

     27 August 2013 at 7:17 pm

     No we don’t. Wherever do you get your ideas? My evidence contradicts your “evidence.”
   • millsy 7.6

     27 August 2013 at 7:53 pm

     Piss off Brett. Just because you want unions to be banned and wages and conditions to be forced down to sweatshop level.

     I say again:

     IF YOU ARE ANTI UNION YOU ARE ANTI DEMOCRACY.

     When a dictator siezes power, the first thing he does is go after the trade unions.

     [lprent: Too many CAPS ]
     • Brett Dale 7.6.1

       27 August 2013 at 11:09 pm

       Millsy:

       Everybody should have the right to join a union, just as everybody should have the right NOT to join a union. It should be a choice.
   • QoT 7.7

     27 August 2013 at 8:53 pm

     Unlike you, the totally free-thinking independent dude who can’t even google basic shit.
     • Brett Dale 7.7.1

       27 August 2013 at 10:14 pm

       QOT:

       Or you, who cant form a sentence without saying fuck or shit.

       I stand by my point, union members will vote for, who the union leaders tell
       them to.
       • QoT 7.7.1.1

         27 August 2013 at 10:21 pm

         Oh fuck, I’m fucking swearing again aren’t I? Thank fuck you pointed it out, I’m clearly too fucking stupid to know what I’m shitting typing.

         And yes, dear, I understood your point. It’s just a stupid one, but I understand. See, you have to tell yourself that union members are just timid sheep, otherwise you’d have to ask yourself why you let your boss fuck you over instead of being part of a collective agreement which guarantees you decent pay and conditions.
         • Brett Dale 7.7.1.1.1

           27 August 2013 at 10:26 pm

           QOT:

           Old sweet nips herself is proving how hard she is again.

           I judge the unions by personal experience and the experiences of former
           co workers and if you dont like that you can go fuck yourself.
         • Brett Dale 7.7.1.1.2

           27 August 2013 at 11:06 pm

           QoT:

           But seriously my last employer was amazing, he wasnt a union guy and he was the best
           boss I have had in my life time. You couldnt ask for a better boss.
           • Colonial Viper 7.7.1.1.2.1

             27 August 2013 at 11:09 pm

             Good bosses know that there are plenty of shit bosses and shit employers out there. Hence the need for widespread union membership.
             • Brett Dale …

               27 August 2013 at 11:13 pm

               and a good union boss would call up union members if they physically threatening people.
           • weka 7.7.1.1.2.2

             27 August 2013 at 11:16 pm

             How about you tell us the stories about yourself and co-workers who did what they were told by the unions.
             • Brett Dale …

               27 August 2013 at 11:22 pm

               weka:

               Years and years back, we told certain people, we supported their rights, if they wanted to be in the union, but it wasnt for us> let me put it this way, the treatement we received, wasnt nice, i guess those union members werent about choice, like we were.
               • weka …

                 27 August 2013 at 11:30 pm

                 ” we told certain people, we supported their rights, if they wanted to be in the union, but it wasnt for us>”

                 What?

                 And what makes you think that all unions now behave in a way that compels their membership to do what the union says?
                 • Brett Dale …

                   27 August 2013 at 11:40 pm

                   weka:

                   IMHO that is what the union is about, making sure all union
                   members are in line with what the union heads say.
                   • weka …

                     27 August 2013 at 11:44 pm

                     You can think that Brett, it doesn’t make it real. Unless you can demonstrate that this is what is happening now in NZ while the Labour leadership election is going on, I’m going to assume you are making shit up.
                   • fender …

                     28 August 2013 at 1:01 am

                     But but “years and years back” some shit went down and it’s caused a serious allergy for poor wee Brett. Like the time he missed the bus, now all buses are bad in Brett’s tiny mind.
8. Loraine 8

   27 August 2013 at 12:44 pm

   David Cunliffe is the person John Key is most afraid of. It’s a bit rich John Key saying “The question for New Zealanders is will that deliver economic growth and jobs and all the evidence is that it won’t.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
   David Cunliffe is far more likely deliver jobs to the middle and lower income earners than Key. Key and his government have only made things more difficult for those in the middle to lower income bracket and ruined the country’s good ecological name in the process.
   Of course Key is having a go at derailing Cunliffe’s bid for the labour leadership. He knows Cunliffe is the man to beat him so he is doing his best to rubbish him. Cunliffe is a very very clever man, but unlike Key he has a heart and cares for those not so well off. He stuck with labour through all that shit that was put on him by Shearer and his cronies.
   Helen Clark thinks Cunliffe is the man to take down Key and so do a heck of a lot of the rest of us who have had enough of being shafted by the Key government.
   Go get ’em David Cunliffe! You have my vote in the bag.
9. Jenny Michie 9

   27 August 2013 at 1:01 pm

   According the rules which I’ve just printed off (3.3 and 3.4) members who are separately entitled to vote in more than one section of the College can do so. So that’s MPs and affiliate members. However affiliate members who are members of another political party can’t vote.

   I don’t think union members vote as they’re told to, anymore than other Labour Party members do. Certainly in general elections a considerable number of union members voteNational which always leaves me scratching my head, but that’s democracy for you.
   • Tracey 9.1

     27 August 2013 at 1:05 pm

     but Jenny Brett must be right because unions are just pure evil and bullies and the business interests that drive National and Act are just like teddy bears but with more money.
10. outofbed 10

    27 August 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Might be a worth having another look at this eh?

    what have unions ever done for us
    • Tracey 10.1

      27 August 2013 at 1:16 pm

      hehehehehe
11. alwyn 11

    27 August 2013 at 1:54 pm

    You had better have a word with Helen Kelly about this.
    Last week, Friday I think but I can’t track it down on the Morning Report part of their web-site, she said words to the effect that “The unions will vote for the candidate who is best for the unions”. She then realised what she had said and altered it to “er .. best for the party” .
    She obviously thought she could predict and reading betwen the lines control the union vote.
    • Jimbo 11.1

      27 August 2013 at 2:10 pm

      Helen was misinformed. If you read the rules you’ll see they actually don’t allow block voting. Helen’s confusion is probably due to the fact the CTU is not an affiliated union and therefore Helen has no actual role in the union section of the Labour Party election. Why she was speaking on it is a mystery.
    • Jimmie 11.2

      27 August 2013 at 9:06 pm

      Was on TVNZ report at 6pm – I saw it as well.
12. Sosoo 12

    27 August 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Thanks for this Eddie. I know that I’m not the only person who wondered whether the union elites might get their way. Looks like that is unlikely to happen.
13. weka 13

    27 August 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Am I the only one who still doesn’t get how the 40/40/20 thing works? Can anyone explain it as if to someone who knew absolutely nothing about the situation?
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      27 August 2013 at 2:29 pm

      1) The Labour Leader is chosen by a vote between the caucus, the party members and Labour’s union affiliates.

      2) The share of the vote is split 40/40/20. This means that caucus and party members have the same say; affiliates have 20% of the say.

      3) If you are a party member, the voting will be by post, and the system allows you to rank your candidates 1-3 in order of your preference.
      • karol 13.1.1

        27 August 2013 at 2:36 pm

        Also, added to that, the preference of each union member is worth less than 1 whole vote – there’s is a proportional numerical calculation to maintain the 40/40/20 share.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1

          27 August 2013 at 2:40 pm

          Yep. And with 34 Labour MPs, each MP’s vote will have a 40% / 34 MPs weighting. That is, each MP will have 0.85% of the total say.

          If Shearer abstains, as has been noted by the Herald, the 40% figure will be divided amongst just 33 MPs.
      • Skinny 13.1.2

        27 August 2013 at 4:53 pm

        Here the hustling meetings dates/times/venue;

        Details of twelve meetings spread across New Zealand have been announced as the unprecedented Labour leadership race enters its next phase. 
         
        Each will involve all three Leadership candidates – David Cunliffe, Shane Jones and Grant Robertson – and will be organised around a two-hour format involving speeches from all candidates, questions and answers from the audience and a mix and mingle afterwards.
         
        The first hustings meeting will be held in Levin, during Labour’s Region 3 Conference, at 1pm on Saturday 31st August.  The next day will see two meetings in Auckland and on Monday 2nd September the hustings meeting will be in Whangarei.  Over the next three days the events will be in Hawkes Bay, Tauranga and Hamilton. 
         
        After a one day break the hustings resume with two on Saturday 7th September, in Nelson and then Wellington.   The series completes with hustings in Dunedin, in Labour’s historic birthplace of Blackball on the South Island’s West Coast and – the final event, on Tuesday 9th – Christchurch, location of Labour’s 97th Annual Conference to be held at the start of November. 
         
        The meetings also offer an opportunity for members of the Service and Food Workers to cast their votes.  Party members who have received their votes in the mail can vote by post, vote electronically or vote through the ballot box at the meetings.
        Date      Time     Location              Venue
        Saturday 31/08/2013      1pm – 3pm         Levin     Horowhenua Events Centre, A&P Show Grounds Levin
        Sunday 1/09/2013            Afternoon           Auckland             TBC
                        6pm       Auckland             Western Springs College Hall
        Monday 2/09/2013          6pm       Whangarei          Forum North, Whangarei
        Tuesday 3/09/2013          Evening                Hawkes Bay        TBC
        Wednesday 4/09/2013  7pm – 9pm         Tauranga             Wesley Centre  100   13th Ave Tauranga
        Thursday 5/09/2013        7pm – 9pm         Hamilton              Te Rapa Racecourse  Centennial Lounge, Hamilton
        Saturday 7/09/2013         1pm – 3pm         Nelson  Victory Community Centre, 2 Totara St, Victory, Nelson.
                        Evening                Wellington          Wellington Girls High College TBA
        Sunday 8/09/2013            3.30pm Dunedin               Kings & Queens Performing Arts Centre, 270 Bay View Road, South Dunedin
        Monday 9/09/2013          Evening                West Coast         Blackball / Greymouth
        Tuesday 10/09/2013       7.30pm – 9.30pm             Christchurch       Christian Cullen Lounge, Addington Raceway, Christchurch
    • Te Reo Putake 13.2

      27 August 2013 at 2:35 pm

      I’ll give it a go, Weka!

      Each sector has a percentage of the overall vote, making a total of 100%. Each sector votes according to its own rules and the results will be divvy’d up on a proportional basis.

      So the result might look like this:

      Caucus has 40% of the total vote, split 3 ways, so perhaps 15% Cunliffe, 15% Roberston, 10% Jones.

      The unions have 20%, so perhaps 10% Cunliffe, 9% Robertson, 1% Jones.

      The members have the remaining 40% and from what I read around here, that’ll go 39% Cunliffe, 1% Jones (thanks Takare, you done good) Nil votes Robertson.

      Then they all get added together and Cunliffe is declared the winner.

      The important thing to remember is the proportionality. The votes get spread according to the percentage won in each sector and being the most popular candidate in a sector does not mean you ‘win’ the sector. All voters get to nominate a second preference, so if there isn’t an outright winner, the loser (Jones) gets eliminated and the secondary votes are re-distributed to the the two remaining candidates.

      If there is a tie at that point, then we move to the swimsuit section, where the candidates are invited to talk about world peace while arm wrestling each other in a pool of jelly. Probably.
      • Takere 13.2.1

        28 August 2013 at 8:04 pm

        Jonesee did good today at the epmu meeting in Manukau. He got a great reception from the PI brothers and sista’s. So I’m guessing that pathetic 1% score might just be a little higher. But I didn’t expect a fair contest from the party anyway. With an attitude like yours kinda tells me the contests rigged already.
        • bad12 13.2.1.1

          28 August 2013 at 8:13 pm

          Is that the meeting where TV3 conducted a small poll of those attending and Cunliffe got the nod by something like 40 to 1 from the workers,

          Listen s**t-bag, do yourself a favor and do not come around here accusing people of rigging the Labour Party leadership vote,

          For 1 it’s the pathetic whine of a loser and for 2 someone is likely to be along soon to give you a small educative dose…
          • Takere 13.2.1.1.1

            28 August 2013 at 8:34 pm

            Settle down ….. no need to try and come over all tuff and threatening …. Making threats ain’t cool man/woman.
            • bad12 13.2.1.1.1.1

              28 August 2013 at 9:39 pm

              Where do you see the threat in my previous comment, i took my words to be a slightly less than friendly hint that insinuating that the Labour Party is ‘rigging’ the upcoming leadership vote is not acceptable behavior and as per the previous comment is simply the pathetic whine of a loser…
              • Takere …

                29 August 2013 at 8:54 am

                Haha! You’re the whinger, yah loser. Keep up the banjo playing.
    • Lanthanide 13.3

      27 August 2013 at 2:37 pm

      Basically the MPs vote, members vote and unions vote.

      Each block of votes is converted to a percentage, and then multiplied by the overall weighting.

      Eg say Cunliffe gets 19 / 34 caucus votes, he would get 55.88% of the caucus vote. This is then multiplied by 40%, so 55.88% * 40% = 22.35%.

      Say Cunliffe got votes equivalent of 69% of Labour party members, this is then multipled by 40%, so 69% * 40% = 27.6%.

      Say Cunliffe got votes equivalent to 41% of unions, this is then multiplied by 20%, so 41% * 20% = 8.2%

      Add up all of the final values: 22.35% + 27.6% + 8.2% = 58.15%

      So in this Scenario, Cunliffe would end up with 58.15% of the total weighted vote, which is a majority (more than 50%) so he would win.

      As it’s an STV vote, you would distribute 2nd preferences of the 3rd-placed candidate after the first round if none of the 3 candidates got over 50% on the first round. But that’s secondary to your question about how the 40/40/20 split works.
      • alwyn 13.3.1

        27 August 2013 at 2:55 pm

        Bloody Hell. Will they actually manage to finish all the calculations before the next election?
        It’s even worse than working out who the MPs will be using the Sainte-Lague formula that we have for the MMP parliamentary allocation of seats.
        • Lanthanide 13.3.1.1

          27 August 2013 at 4:48 pm

          Actually I think it’s pretty simple.

          Convert each block into a percentage of that block, eg if there are 55,000 labour party members, and Cunliffe got 37,950 of them then he’d have 69% of that block. But that block is only worth 40% of the total, so multiply by 40%.

          Sainte-Lange formula is bizarrely weird. I don’t even try to understand how it works, it just seems to be magic.
          • alwyn 13.3.1.1.1

            27 August 2013 at 7:02 pm

            Yes, I’ve reread your post and it is quite clear on how it works.
            To be fair so is the Sainte-Lague formula if you look at it carefully.
            I finally did the other day when working out exactly how many more votes Mana would have needed to get 2 or 3 seats in the house.
      • northshoreguynz 13.3.2

        27 August 2013 at 3:21 pm

        Brilliant, thanks.
        • weka 13.3.2.1

          27 August 2013 at 10:28 pm

          Yep, thanks everyone. I’ll have a proper read tomorrow and see if I can get it.
14. The Pink Postman 14

    27 August 2013 at 3:16 pm

    Are we a country of idiots .The vote goes like this.Each section has a first past the post vote /The winner is declared and the winner has %40 ‘520 or in the Unions case / End result is who has the majority regardless of the number actual ,votes cast
    • Lanthanide 14.1

      27 August 2013 at 4:54 pm

      Except you’re wrong. Maybe you should go read the actual rules for the vote. It doesn’t say anything about FPP, instead it talks about a proportional electoral college.
15. The Pink Postman 15

    27 August 2013 at 3:16 pm

    Are we a country of idiots .The vote goes like this.Each section has a first past the post vote /The winner is declared and the winner has %40 ‘520 or in the Unions case / End result is who has the majority regardless of the number actual ,votes cast
16. gnomic 16

    27 August 2013 at 7:32 pm

    According to no less an authority than Winston Peters, we may well be a stupid nation. This opinion seemed to be based on the fact that John Key is well into his second term as Prime Minister. Moreover many of the citizenry appear to cling to the delusion that the weasel is a good leader.
    • Colonial Viper 16.1

      27 August 2013 at 9:21 pm

      Lemmings or sheeple? The distinction is left to the experts.
17. jaymam 17

    27 August 2013 at 9:02 pm

    The union vote isn’t going to matter much if Labour doesn’t get into power.
    So the unions should choose the leader best able to beat John Key. That leader is not Little or Robertson. Both of those will be excellent as ministers in a Labour government.
    Labour needs to attract the swinging middle voters. Special deals for unionists should not be part of the decision for a leader.
    • Skinny 17.1

      27 August 2013 at 10:02 pm

      What you mean like a special deal National are about to launch on workers, the return to the employment contract act and some?
18. Luka 18

    31 August 2013 at 8:32 pm

    I am really concerned that the ABCs will stuff this up for us all, and if so; we are toast! Can anyone please tell me that my worries are unnecessary and that Cunliffe has got this? I really hope so. I have donate to his campaign, fingers crossed!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS