Unity and democracy

Written By: - Date published: 6:42 pm, August 22nd, 2013 - 190 comments
Categories: democratic participation, Politics - Tags:

With a new leadership race there’s now a real chance to bring the Labour party together to fight the good fight against the right.

Make no mistake the vultures of the right are circling with an eye to use the approaching leadership challenge as an opportunity to drive wedges into the party. It’s up to all of us, members, caucus, affiliates, to make sure that no such opportunity is presented.

Which is not to say there shouldn’t be a robust process and a strong competition. But regardless of what happens once the dust clears we must be ready to take the right on – so much of what we want for our country depends on it.

Regardless of who stands and who you support once those nominations are made, we must use this open and democratic process as a chance to make our movement stronger. It has always been our unity that allows us to foot it against the right’s big money, and when we are not united we are weak.

In that spirit the Standard would like to offer any Labour MP standing for leadership the opportunity to post here and speak directly with the people who support you. Just get in touch.

And any of you who have let you membership lapse or have thought about joining but haven’t? It’s time to sign up.

lprent: As a retrospective, we made the same offer in 2011. These were the three guest posts then. They were published as we received them. We’ll follow the same procedures now.

David Cunliffe
Grant Robertson
Nanaia Mahuta

190 comments on “Unity and democracy ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Core_Labour_Voter (Tory troll) 1
    22 August 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Timely reminder. Very much appreciate the enthusiastic post.

    • Takere 1.1
      23 August 2013 at 10:27 am

      Well it looks like it’s up to the Greens & NZF to get rid of the Nat’s! Labours dog tucker now! Long time Labour voter, see yah! Off to Mana & the Greens! Indefinitely!! Cuntlifes worthless, he won’t connect with the 880,000 non voters and brown people don’t like him. Green voters won’t jump ship for him or Robertson.

  2. Nordy 2
    22 August 2013 at 6:55 pm

    Well put IB – discipline and purpose are essential to political success.

    • Linz 2.1
      22 August 2013 at 8:31 pm

      And also speed. John Key could call a snap election. He can probably get one of his MPs to cross the floor on something trivial, claim, like Muldoon did that he’s lost his majority, and bingo… snap election. Muldoon called his on 14 June 1984 for 14 July. One short month. Just imagine if Key decided to pull a stunt like that in the next few days?

      • weka 2.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 9:11 pm

        Muldoon didn’t have Waring cross the floor on something trivial. I don’t think even Key/NACT are that stupid to try a snap election without a good reason.

      • Puddleglum 2.1.2
        22 August 2013 at 9:55 pm

        On the snap election point, Winston Peters seems to be banging that drum too:

        “I think that it’s time for some people to reflect on where they want to go because a few months from now the political scene will change and I think will change dramatically and those parties that are in opposition need to be aware of that.”

        • weka 2.1.2.1
          22 August 2013 at 10:54 pm

          How do you get ‘snap election’ from that?

          Maybe he means: Cunliffe will be King and behead the ABCs and then Labour, GP and NZF will take NACT to the cleaners 😉 (I just made that up, I don’t think that’s what WP eas meaning).

          ie, Peters’ statement is as per usual ambiguous and intriguing in a way that serves Peters but the rest of us are left guessing. The guy couldn’t make a straight statement if he tried.

  3. BM 3
    22 August 2013 at 7:05 pm

    With a new leadership race there’s now a real chance to bring the Labour party together to fight the good fight against the right.

    How about not worrying what the right is up to, let them do their thing.
    But instead, focus more on presenting an alternative functioning government with ideas and policies that the majority of New Zealanders can relate to and get behind, political bitch fights appeal to no one and is probably the main reason people have such a poor regard for politics.

    Currently there is only one major party on the NZ political scene and that is National and to be honest that’s not a good thing.

    • IrishBill 3.1
      22 August 2013 at 7:24 pm

      That’s kind of my point.

      • BM 3.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 8:08 pm

        That’s good.
        Hopefully the next team flags the “lets just spend all our time attacking John Key because once people click that he’s actually a complete bastard they’ll vote for us ” strategy.

        Because lets face it, it’s complete shit and the main reason Labour struggles to stay in the 30% range.

  4. lurgee 4
    22 August 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Is there anything stopping John Key calling an election tommorrow? Apart from the fact it would look utterly, utterly cynical, to the point that even the rump of semi-content Middle New Zealand would see through it?

    Other than that, the Labour party (and its hangers on hereabouts) haven’t exactly modelled discipline thus far. Why should we expect a change, just because the poor sap in charge has changed? It’ll still be the same discontented, venomous, factionalised rabble. The aforementioned sap will simply cop it from a different sector, and will make minimal impression on the Key phenomenon because the sap will be drawn from the same unsppeakably shallow talent pool as the last one. Any pool where David Cunliffe seems to be the biggest fish must be very small and very shallow.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1
      22 August 2013 at 7:17 pm

      I smell fear 🙂

      • lurgee 4.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 7:24 pm

        Realism. Perhaps you associate it with fear as you live in a fantasy world?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 7:58 pm

          Perhaps your perspective is that of someone who feels constrained by their life in a provincial town.

          • lurgee 4.1.1.1.1
            22 August 2013 at 8:55 pm

            On the contrary, living in Palmerston North leaves one immune to terror. As John Cleese pointed out, it’s about as close to being dead as you can get, so the real thing holds no dread. And there’s a lot of time to think, and damn few pleasant illusions.

  5. Richard 5
    22 August 2013 at 7:10 pm

    Timely post. I look to The Standard for support and hope in these days of Tory tyranny. But way too often it looks like a bitchfight. Unite fellow lefties! Focus on the enemy, not your allies.

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      22 August 2013 at 7:12 pm

      NB Labour is an economically centrist capitalist party with liberal social leanings. Not much for the left wing on that fare.

      • Richard 5.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 7:14 pm

        Great. Took one comment for the negativity. Well done.

        • lurgee 5.1.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 7:28 pm

          Eh? Where have you been for the last 20 months. Plenty of disunity and negativity over that time.

          Funny how the squabbling factionalists immediately start calling for unity as soon as they assume their man is in like Flynn. Wait until he is again “denied” by the “ABC old gaurd” and the “members’ voices are ignored” and so on. Then see how long the unity lasts. That’s just the way it goes on the left, it seems.

          (Incidentally, as I’ve pointed out before, I supported Cunliffe the first time round. So don’t start on that. But I abhor disunity more than factional difference.)

          • Richard 5.1.1.1.1
            22 August 2013 at 7:32 pm

            Dude you’ve missed my point – it’s the disunity that pisses me off. Let the Standard be a place for those who want rid of Key and National.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1
              22 August 2013 at 7:37 pm

              CV made a statement of fact about Labour. You can disagree with him on that, but to suggest that he shouldn’t voice his opinion is to say that there should be no dissent. Which means that all Labour party members should think the same or at least keep their mouths shut in public. How would that serve the left exactly?

              Disunity would be CV, a Labour party member, doing something to undermine the party or other members.

              • Richard …
                22 August 2013 at 7:45 pm

                Who said that? Of course there are factions, varying degrees of opinion. But have you ever noticed how the trolls are absent from Standard posts where we are ripping each other to shreds (as opposed to rational debate).
                As an aside, I believe the internet was the cause of the rise of National. All the Young Nats started blogs and were never seen in public. That meant that they weren’t seen making nerds of themselves on TV at election time, and putting off anyone under 30 from voting National.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 August 2013 at 7:51 pm

                To people like Richard, the fact that I am not being a ‘good compliant follower’ is tantamount to undermining the party.

                What Richard hasn’t figured out is that Labour actually has to earn it’s stripes as a left wing party, it can no longer continue to cruise on its (increasingly ancient) left wing history.

                Also notice how Richard took my pointing out of some very basic truths about Labour as being “negativity”. You can see more of it in his follow up – the game as he sees it is about unseating Key and National, not about examining your own team’s problems too closely. Because clearly, if you don’t look at your own team’s problems critically, then no one else will be able to see that there are problems either. It’s nuts.

                In summary – Labour is an organisation which is still deeply in denial about some fundamentals, and an organisation which is unable to learn.

                There are plenty of people in the party and in caucus who are honestly and deeply surprised why David Shearer didn’t work out the way that they thought he would.

                No idea of reality outside the Wellington bubble.

                The party of the “broad church” representing “all New Zealanders” but sitting on just circa 30%-34% support.

                • McFlock …
                  22 August 2013 at 8:07 pm

                  And you have an overwhelming desire to yell from the rooftops that labour isn’t exactly the party you want it to be.

                  I shudder to think what you’d be like delivering a eulogy – the mourners would be treated to a fifteen minute diatribe as to why Labour isn’t left wing, oh and Jim was a nice bloke, too.

                • Richard …
                  22 August 2013 at 8:36 pm

                  Sigh…three more years alone on your ideological highground. Meanwhile National run riot. Would you rather have john Key in power than Labour, warts and all? I ask that question in all sincerity because I am really confused which side you are on?

                  • McFlock …
                    22 August 2013 at 8:41 pm

                    I really think he would.
                    CV’s had a ball of a time being a member of a party that he obviously despises.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 August 2013 at 11:14 pm

                      CV’s had a ball of a time being a member of a party that he obviously despises.

                      What do you care, Mr Supposedly Alliance man?

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2013 at 11:34 am

                      I note a lack of denial there, cv.
                      Personally, I prefer a non-national government over Key and the ability to whinge that the world would be better if all political parties on the left did exactly what I wanted.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 August 2013 at 8:04 pm

                      The world is turning a bit more my way recently. Time for you to get used to it.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    22 August 2013 at 11:12 pm

                    It’s not MY fault that National are “running riot.”

                    There is a Labour caucus which earns almost half a million dollars a month who get paid to act as Opposition to National.

                    Why don’t you challenge them as to why National are still “running riot” 5 years into Government. Perhaps you’ll do better with a bit less blind faith.

                    As for “ideological high ground”. I’ve got some. What the fuck do you have?

                    • Tracey …
                      23 August 2013 at 7:35 am

                      Given the Standard is constantly stating, and it’s in their policy here, that it is NOT a labour party vehicle, why shouldn’t CV voice his desire for a left wing party and claim that Labour is not it?

                      If everyone agrees all the time we get the National party..at times lacking compassion, selflish and seething, with occasional breakouts like Collins speaking our for free speech as well as voting for the GCSB. They believe that being seen to agree all the time is better than healthy challenges. They probably fight behind closed doors, I certainly hope so.

                      Anyone who thinks that Labour have magically changed because Shearer stepped down in my opinion delude themselves. It’s not for me to speak or clarify for CV but it seems to me this is what he is pointing out… You can change the horse but if you use the same cart…

                • lurgee …
                  22 August 2013 at 9:01 pm

                  “In summary – Labour is an organisation which is still deeply in denial about some fundamentals, and an organisation which is unable to learn.”

                  Would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. We don’t live in a leftwing majority country. People are not voting National because there is no leftwing alternative. They are voting National because they quite like National policies.

                  We live in a country that has consistently voted right or centre right since we lost Kirk. And even he was only a little bit of a smidgeon of an iota to the left of centre. No-one is going to suddenly discover a vast leftwing constituency that has hitherto been overlooked and silent.

                  The choice is – as ever – a defensive one. Hold the centre and preserve what we have, with the very occasional opportuntiy to make things a little bit better, or march off into the leftwing wilderness, and make the party absolutely irrelevant and unelectable.

                  • Galeandra …
                    22 August 2013 at 10:00 pm

                    Speak for yourself.

                    ‘march off into the leftwing wilderness, and make the party absolutely irrelevant and unelectable.’
                    That’s a bullshit trope and you know it.

                    There are a hell of a lot of people who understand that there’s something fundamentally wrong with NZ’s embedded poverty, inequality and social disempowerment. Look at the strong responses to the infant ‘lurches into the wilderness’ such as CGT and electricity market policy.

                    I quite agree with CV: we do need to lead the way into a future that is equitable and sustainable, in a world which is circling the vortex. The Greens have been offering that vision for several years now, and their baseline support is at least 10% of the voting public.

                    Join McFlock’s little jihad and consult your own buttocks if you want, but don’t presume to speak for me.

                  • Puddleglum …
                    22 August 2013 at 10:27 pm

                    I think you’ll find that every election in the 1990s demonstrated a majority vote for parties that promised to halt or even reverse the 1980s reforms. That started with the landslide to Bolger in 1990, sadly followed by Ruth Richardson’s continuation of the ‘reforms’ (I put the stats into a comment on a thread a few days ago – the information is on the elections website).

                    Similarly, in 1978 and 1981 Labour won more votes than National. In 1984 people did not expect a right wing government when they voted in Labour (and anti-Muldoonism went right across the political spectrum).

                    In 1987 there was an interesting apparent exception, although Labour’s line (delivered by Lange) was that it was now time for Labour to do ‘the good stuff’ after a term doing all the reforms. It was supposedly going to be back to what Labour was traditionally known for – positive change in the areas of education, health and social security … Ah, well.

                    In short, New Zealanders have traditionally voted left of centre since the mid-70s but have very often got right of centre (or worse) governments. A curious trend, partly explained by FPP, partly by various degrees of deception/betrayal from parties that didn’t act as they could reasonably have been expected to act (including NZ First in 1996).

                    • gobsmacked …
                      22 August 2013 at 10:43 pm

                      Puddleglum is spot on.

                      The election results have been pretty consistent. There is no right-wing majority – especially on economic policy. I’d like to know what Lurgee’s analysis is based on, it’s rather “unconventional” to say the least.

                    • srylands …
                      22 August 2013 at 10:52 pm

                      “I think you’ll find that every election in the 1990s demonstrated a majority vote for parties that promised to halt or even reverse the 1980s reforms. ”

                      Perhaps we can repeal the Public Finance Act so a government can cook the books like Muldoon.

                      Is that one of the “reforms” you would like to see abolished? Or we could gut the RBA Act and go back to 20% inflation.

                      Most of the population has grown up after the reforms. Anyone now under 40 can’t relate to the Polish Shipyard.

                      You are deluded.

                    • lurgee …
                      23 August 2013 at 12:25 am

                      I composed a long and beautifully written post which would have absolutely convinced you that you were a worthless, error-strewn harlot and your ownly route to salvation would be to accept my rightness in all things. Then the internet ate it.

                      In bief, I think you make the same error as gobsmacked did – I posted that NZ “has consistently voted right or centre right” and you seem to overlook the ‘centre right’ bit. Bolger triumphed on a centrist manifesto, not a particularly leftwing one. That’s been the pattern ever since, unless you are going to buy into Farrarspeak about Helegrad and the demented idea that Clarke-Cullen-Goff and the rest of them were seething trots.

                      Also some stuff about what right might mean in different contexts – neo-lib, rural conservative, Muldoonesque authoritarian madness. It was all very clever, I asssure you, and now probably being read by John ‘Muldoon redux’ Key, courtesy of the GCSB bill being passed.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 August 2013 at 1:08 am

                      Is that one of the “reforms” you would like to see abolished? Or we could gut the RBA Act and go back to 20% inflation.

                      Or perhaps we can gut the RBA Act and go back to full employment.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 August 2013 at 7:38 am

                      NZers see themselves as caring. Who likes to think they are not? We are conservative folks by nature (who likes change) who want people to think we care, and do care.

                      That’s the true “hot ” button in my opinion and it’s how Key got in. Look at Salmon’s quote from 2007 about democracy… “brighter future”… that’s what they played to.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 August 2013 at 7:40 am

                      For some reason Srylands you assert an all or nothing type mentality on reforms. Not ALL reforms need to have been bad or failed to warrant some being wrong and in need of reforming.

                      As for calling people “deluded” you are sidling toward emotional rhetoric. And you said you didn’t care enough to be emotional over politics 😉

                    • Puddleglum …
                      23 August 2013 at 3:20 pm

                      Hi lurgee,

                      I see your argument but I think what the election voting shows in the 1990s is a resistance to the continuation of the Douglas ‘reform’ process. Sometimes that meant ‘having’ to tick the ‘centre right’ box (e.g., 1990) because there was no ‘centre left’ left. This is a quote cited in a UC thesis (p. 352) from Vowles and Aimer’s (1993) book on the election:

                      “the National Government imposed yet more dramatic change [which] continued along the path of Labour’s economic policies, popularly known as ‘Rogernomics’, despite the severity of Labour’s electoral defeat on the basis of the same policies” (Vowles & Aimer 1993, p.8). National squeaked home in 1993 largely because of the FPP system.

                      As for different definitions of ‘left’ and ‘right’ – that’s true at a conceptual level. However, research has shown that people are remarkably consistent in how they place political parties on a left-right continuum, irrespective of the nominal complexity of the terms.

                      I can’t find the research on the internet but it was mentioned in Gerd Gigerenzer’s 2007 book ‘Gut Feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious‘.

                      There may have been further good argument in your lost comment but, as things stand, I would still conclude that the evidence is more suggestive of an electoral tendency – especially through the 1990s – to lean towards the centre left, whenever possible.

                • lurgee …
                  23 August 2013 at 12:36 am

                  “To people like Richard, the fact that I am not being a ‘good compliant follower’ is tantamount to undermining the party.”

                  Oh, come on, CV. Look at some of the things that have bene said about Shearer on this site over the last 20 months. Maybe not be you, perhaps, but by plenty of others – didn’t someone brand him ‘Stumblefuck’ or something similar? And plenty more besides. Continually. There’s a point where not being ‘a good compliant follower’ blurs into undermining. Not saying you are, but many have been. Probably the same ones who will be loudly demanding a ceasation of criticism, and lobbing accusations of undermining in all directions, if Cunliffe wins.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    23 August 2013 at 12:40 am

                    Nothing to do with me mate. Blogs don’t matter is what I heard from Wellington.

                  • Tracey …
                    23 August 2013 at 7:43 am

                    CV undermined Shearer??? How? By stating his opinion on a blog not affiliated to the Labour Party? Come on some of you are being a bit precious.

                    CV and I don’t always agree, but stating that his comments on a blog undermine Shearer and the Labour party???

                    I hope Shearer remains very close to the leadership of the party because I believe this is where his skills lie… all parties need a mediator, hopefully those vying for leadership have learnt this. Otherwise it will be same man, different pants

                • burt …
                  23 August 2013 at 9:57 am

                  What Richard hasn’t figured out is that Labour actually has to earn it’s stripes as a left wing party, it can no longer continue to cruise on its (increasingly ancient) left wing history.

                  Exactly right CV, most half witted folk who love the colour of the flag and have no idea of what policy actually is while they fight some imaginary battle of red v blue don’t seem to work this out.

                  I was a proud Labour supporter once. I donated my time and energy to promoting the party – then they lost their way and became focused on [being seen to be] punishing the rich while actually punishing the middle earners.

                  A left wing party wouldn’t steal from the middle to give to the rich – this is what Labour policy has achieved for about 20 years now….. All the time pretending to help the poor while actually delivering them high inflation, high interest rates and access to easy finance which has buried most of them. Meanwhile complicated tax laws that are designed to look like they punish the rich actually create loop holes that allow the high earners to scoff at the middle earners carrying the burden.

                  The lovers of power at any price have become what they fight against – a popularist party with their only objective being staying in government rather than working for the people – even if that means being noisy opposition rather than sold old government.

                  • Tracey …
                    23 August 2013 at 9:59 am

                    “Australia has old-fashioned union arrangements and needs “a dose of Margaret Thatcher,” says Mark Adamson, the British chief executive of Fletcher Building.

                    On a media call following the release of Fletcher’s annual profit, Adamson said he had been “amazed” at both the level of salaries and inefficiencies in Australia. He took the top job at Fletcher last October, having run the company’s Laminex & Panels division, based in the US.”

          • gobsmacked 5.1.1.1.2
            22 August 2013 at 7:40 pm

            Wait until he is again “denied” by the “ABC old gaurd” and the “members’ voices are ignored”

            There will be a leadership contest. Not perfectly democratic, but much more so than the old caucus coup.

            In the course of this contest, the candidates can make their case, and the voters make their choice. If the winner is Cunliffe, the “old guard” can choose between leaving in 2014 (which several are likely to do anyway) or supporting the new leader. If the winner is someone else, the Cunliffe voters can make a similar choice. I’m sure 90% would swing in behind the new leader.

            Your comparison with Shearer’s leadership is wrong. The whole point was … he wasn’t given the job the right way, or for the right reason. And so he was doomed from the start.

            • McFlock 5.1.1.1.2.1
              22 August 2013 at 7:57 pm

              If the winner is someone else, the Cunliffe voters can make a similar choice. I’m sure 90% would swing in behind the new leader.

              I’m not. And I think that assuming that was one mistake caucus made when they selected Shearer in the first place. Probably more significant than the actual selection, in my opinion.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 August 2013 at 8:04 pm

                Mate in your opinion Labour was right on track, polls trending positively, regardless of who was in the top job, cardboard cut out or whatever.

                • McFlock …
                  22 August 2013 at 8:11 pm

                  up until the 6-8week consecutive drop recently, yes.

                  • IrishBill …
                    22 August 2013 at 8:16 pm

                    I think that the new rules will mean that whoever takes the leadership next will do so with a much more clear mandate than the last leader. Which should make a difference.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2013 at 8:36 pm

                      hopefully.

                      There is of course what happens if someone gets over the line based on union and caucus votes trumping a majority membership decision.

                      Or, indeed, the die-hards who (upon discovering that their candidate has not quite the support they assumed) who decide that the bulk of the membership are “Oriental Bay Socialists” or whatever it was.

                      Sigh.
                      Peace declared in this war, on to the next one…

                  • lurgee …
                    22 August 2013 at 9:04 pm

                    That drop was looks like a Roy Morgan glitch as their recent release has indicated. Labour Green was still out polling National. Or something like that. Didn’t fully investigate the data as events have rather overtaken.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                22 August 2013 at 8:04 pm

                What makes you think a party like Labour will ever be anything other than inherently fractious?

                Especially now, as economic paradigms fail and the Pacific assumes greater global strategic importance?

              • Ant …
                22 August 2013 at 8:08 pm

                Most people swung behind Shearer and gave him a chance, but then he pulled dole fiddler on the roof and it was all over rover.

              • weka …
                22 August 2013 at 8:10 pm

                But it’s likely that the membership didn’t swing behind Shearer simply because he was crap at the job. You can’t compare the next non-Cunliffe leader to that unless s/he is also crap at the job.

                • McFlock …
                  22 August 2013 at 8:15 pm

                  I reckon crap is in the eye of the beholder.

                  I’ve no data on whether “the membership” failed to swing behind shearer, or if it’s just that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

              • gobsmacked …
                22 August 2013 at 8:10 pm

                I think the leader will be Cunliffe anyway, which would make it moot.

                But any leader elected by the new system will have garnered a significant vote from outside caucus.

                And of course, the new leader will be Not-Shearer, so less likely to produce the energy-sapping facepalms that killed his tenure. Loyalty is a lot easier if you’re not cringing.

                • McFlock …
                  22 August 2013 at 8:18 pm

                  What at least it would do is stamp on all the silent-majority arguments of “the membership [or at least me] think that …”

                  As for the cringe and the facepalms, as I said above crap is in the eye of the beholder.

                  • gobsmacked …
                    22 August 2013 at 8:27 pm

                    Well yes, but it takes quite an effort to avoid beholding what the voters behold in countless interviews, debates and general wafflefests.

                    No more Shearer on BFM, or Rhema, or Hauraki, or Newstalk ZB, and all the rest …. that’s worth thousands of votes right there.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2013 at 8:40 pm

                      Funnily enough, that’s true. I’d watch the interviews and speeches, and there never as many ums and ers as would be posted by forehead-slapping cringers . Not at all…

              • geoff …
                22 August 2013 at 8:16 pm

                The big mistake was going against the membership. If you fuck the membership off then you have no labour party, simple as that. Happened in the 80s and it has happened again.
                Put in a leader that the membership wants and dissenters in the caucus will keep their mouths shut if they know what’s good for them.

                • McFlock …
                  22 August 2013 at 8:22 pm

                  The big mistake was going against what I want (and what I therefore assume what the majority of members want)

                  Fixed it for you

                  • geoff …
                    22 August 2013 at 8:46 pm

                    I guess we will see, wont we…

                  • Lanthanide …
                    22 August 2013 at 8:58 pm

                    Honestly McFlock, I think it’s more you who are holding the “what I say is what is best for Labour” point of view with your obsessive support for Shearer, more than anyone else.

                    • Akldnut …
                      23 August 2013 at 2:13 am

                      +3

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2013 at 11:51 am

                      Support for Shearer? Show me a single comment where I’ve said that Shearer was the best leader for labour, especially in the last year.

                      I’ve tried to hold two consistent themes:
                      1) blowing shit out of proportion will not win an election, but lose it by supplying ammunition for tories; and
                      2) saying that there is only one person who can be the difference between a “neoliberal” leaning labour party and a socialist labour party that wins is a dangerous and irrational delusion that sets oneself up for disappointment.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      23 August 2013 at 12:17 pm

                      Well others are in agreement with me, that if that is what you were actually trying to get across, you did a very poor job of it.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2013 at 12:30 pm

                      Still waiting for an example of where I said shearer was the best person to lead labour.

                      Frankly, I suspect it’s another example of how people read what we expect, rather than than what was actually written.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      23 August 2013 at 12:56 pm

                      I never claimed that you said Shearer was the best person to lead Labour, so I’m not going to “produce evidence” to back up a claim I never made.

                      “Frankly, I suspect it’s another example of how people read what we expect, rather than than what was actually written.”

                      Pot calling kettle black?

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2013 at 1:12 pm

                      I included myself in that, as indicated by use of the word “we”.

                      So apparently I’ve been obsessively supporting someone who I’ve never actually said is the best person to lead labour?

                      Okay. Show me where.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 August 2013 at 3:00 pm

                      McFlock, you were the ultimate oblique passive-aggressive defender of Shearer as Labour Leader. It was funny to watch a self professed “Alliance supporter” at it quite so hard.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2013 at 3:12 pm

                      CV, yes, that must be it.

                      I was fiendishly defending Shearer by making the outrageous claim that (for example), people shouldn’t lose their rag at every poll fluctuation when the trend still indicated a likely left government (notwithstanding your passive-aggressive redefining of “left wing” to exclude the labour party if it’s led by anyone other than golden boy).

                      As for the stunning claim that publicly (and loudly) suggesting caucus members one doesn’t like are “neoliberals” (simply because they have not focussed on the single point of policy one cherry-picked) is not conducive to either assisting the party one is a member of to rise in the polls nor to having those caucus members give a flying fuck about what one suggests in the future – that suggestion was obviously also a veiled support for shearer as leader.

                  • Tracey …
                    23 August 2013 at 7:46 am

                    If you respect Shearer and he decides he is not best for Labour as its leader why wouldn’t you respect that decision and focus on the future.

                    I always believed and stated that Goff should have stayed on for 6 months after he announced he would step down to give proper time to regroup. “repent at leisure” and all that

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2013 at 11:54 am

                      Was that to me? Because it doesn’t reflect anything I’ve written.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 August 2013 at 12:48 pm

                      It was to whoever spoke kindly of Shearer and then questioned his decision to speak down. I have scrolled back up to try and find it but can’t find it.

      • bad12 5.1.2
        22 August 2013 at 8:35 pm

        Lolz, i have a slightly different take on today’s Labour Party in that i see it as a Party having grown along with it’s core support base into the comfortable middle class, therefor when it does advocate Socialism it is strictly the Socialism of, for and by that middle class,

        What leads me to this belief, Working for Families denied to beneficiaries yet payed out to families with an income of $60,000,

        The ‘flagship’ Labour housing policy which in Auckland in particular will only be affordable to new home buyers with an income of at least $60,000,

        Thank various deity that Dave Shearer has resigned, do i smell the ‘invisible hand’ of Phill and Helen here, Phill conspicuous by His absence from the leaders side as He announced the resignation, and Helen said to have shared yesterday a plane ride with the leader,

        Imagine the blood red image of the Standards pages if the other Dave doesn’t get elected Leader, it’s gotta happen i couldn’t stand another 18 months of anti next bloke off of the rank should not Cunliffe win the vote…

    • QoT 5.2
      22 August 2013 at 8:29 pm

      When a leader you didn’t choose points to a lake of fire and says “onward, chaps” it isn’t disunity to say “why the fuck is this dude leading us into a lake of fire?”

    • Tracey 5.3
      23 August 2013 at 7:27 am

      a good bun fight can clear the air and bring consensus… Admittedly Labour does it more publicly than national…

  6. lurgee 6
    22 August 2013 at 7:35 pm

    Noble sentiments which have been very scare over the last 20 months. Expect them to be trumpted for the next 4-6 weeks and then suddenly (as I do not think Cunliffe will win) forgotten.

    Sometimes I hate being a leftie.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1
      22 August 2013 at 7:49 pm

      The new leader will have been elected by a robust process. That won’t silence dissent, but it will give her or him a lot more credibility.

      • AmaKiwi 6.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 8:08 pm

        Shearer’s weakness from the start was that the people’s choice was overturned. Then it turned out the people were right. Shearer was not a gem.

        I have my preference for leader but I will accept whatever the majority of the members decide.

        1. I believe in democracy. The people decide even if they make a decision I don’t agree with.

        2. This right wing government is DANGEROUS. We MUST stop them.

        • Ugly Truth 6.1.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 9:40 pm

          I believe in democracy. The people decide even if they make a decision I don’t agree with.

          There’s more to democracy than majority rule.

          Rule of law. A legal principle, of general application, sanctioned by the recognition of authorities, and usu­ally expressed in the form of a maxim or logical proposition. Called a “rule,” because in doubtful or unforeseen cases it is a guide or norm for their
          decision. The rule of law, sometimes called “the supremacy of law”, provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws
          without the intervention of discretion in their applica­tion. See e.g. Rule against perpetuities, supra; also, Shelley’s Case, Rule in.
          Black’s Dictionary of Law, 5th edition

          http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml

    • Galeandra 6.2
      22 August 2013 at 10:08 pm

      See lurgee @ 9.01 and spot the difference………. leftie. Hah.

      • lurgee 6.2.1
        23 August 2013 at 2:44 pm

        I fail to see your point. I would love to see a properly leftwing governemtn get elected, over and over again, forever. But – as I’ve pointed out before- what I want and what is likely to happen are very different things. the world’s an imperfect place. the sort of programme I would like to see would make the party proposing it unelectable. So it isn’t an option. I’d rather have some sort of social-democratic flubber of a government than a rightwing one, so must curtail my desires.

        Or are we still living in a dream world where you only have to wish for something for it to happen?

        • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1
          23 August 2013 at 2:57 pm

          You need a mix of pragmatism and idealism to survive in politics with your soul intact.

          NZ is considered completely communist, from the perspective of US politics. Government paid for socialised medicine? Yee gods, the godless commies!

          Frankly, a lot of social democratic change can be accomplished in NZ. And yes, people will vote for that in their many hundreds of thousands.

          • Tracey 6.2.1.1.1
            23 August 2013 at 3:00 pm

            Agreed, in the US the National Government is considered way left of the Obama Govt…

            • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1.1
              23 August 2013 at 3:03 pm

              And voting for gay marriage, can you believe it. All going to hell. Right now!!!!!

  7. Outofbed 7
    22 August 2013 at 8:04 pm

    I have not felt this optimistic since 2008.
    Surely they must do the right thing

    I think Labour will now win in 2014 i might even door knock if they get the right leader

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1
      22 August 2013 at 8:05 pm

      I was thinking the same thing myself.

    • Tracey 7.2
      23 August 2013 at 7:29 am

      I thought that when Goff went. Politicians of all ideology have a recurring ability to repeat the failures history has shown us. It’s because too often they are driven by self interest while parroting care for NZ and NZers.

  8. geoff 8
    22 August 2013 at 8:08 pm

    I’m pumped!

    With a decent leader and good policy, that the membership can get behind, we’re in with a chance.

    There will be nothing sweeter than seeing the back of Key and his moronic muppets.

    • gobsmacked 8.1
      22 August 2013 at 8:19 pm

      Agree, Geoff.

      This makes it much clearer, and easier, for me. If Cunliffe wins – I’ll support Labour, unequivocally. If Robertson wins – I’ll be disappointed, probably vote Green, but at least I’ll know where I stand i.e. campaigning for a change of government, with optimism that the Greens can be there in numbers. Andrew Little? Wrong choice now, but still an improvement on DS.

      (If Shane Jones wins, I head for the Ureweras).

      I just pray that Labour members hold their nerve and ignore the right-wing shit-storm over the next few weeks. They have lost their free ticket to a third term and they will be spewing.

      • geoff 8.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 8:52 pm

        yep thats what im thinking too

      • srylands 8.1.2
        22 August 2013 at 10:24 pm

        “(If Shane Jones wins, I head for the Ureweras).”

        He is a real chance.

        • srylands 8.1.2.1
          22 August 2013 at 10:27 pm

          “They have lost their free ticket to a third term and they will be spewing.”

          Not quite. It would have been great for National to have CMF stay there but that was never realistic. Everyone saw it coming. They are hardly “spewing”.

        • felix 8.1.2.2
          22 August 2013 at 10:37 pm

          No-one in the labour movement thinks Jones is leadership material.

          N.O.-.O.N.E.

          The only people you will see raising his name are right-wingers stirring shit or looking for the next Shearer.

          • srylands 8.1.2.2.1
            22 August 2013 at 10:47 pm

            “The only people you will see raising his name are right-wingers stirring shit or looking for the next Shearer.”

            I appreciate that. But Labour would win the next election with Jones as Leader. Think about it. You just need to get 3% of disaffected Labour voters who love Shane Jones and who have gone to NZF or National to come back. OK you hate him. What you going to do? You might vote Green. Don’t matter. Comfortable Labour-Green win.

            Jones is a sure ticket to a Labour victory. National would MUCH rather see Cunners in the job.

            • bad12 8.1.2.2.1.1
              22 August 2013 at 10:53 pm

              You are coming across as doubly stupid than your normal contribution, are you drunk, take you shit-stirring low browed rubbish back to Blubber Boy, i am sure you will be the height of wit over there among the witless, gutless, brainless, and clueless…

            • weka 8.1.2.2.1.2
              22 August 2013 at 10:58 pm

              I appreciate that. But Labour would win the next election with Jones as Leader. Think about it. You just need to get 3% of disaffected Labour voters who love Shane Jones and who have gone to NZF or National to come back. OK you hate him. What you going to do? You might vote Green. Don’t matter. Comfortable Labour-Green win.

              Or, Jones as leader and Labour sheds a shitload more of its members and voters, who don’t even bother going to the GP because really what the fuck are the GP going to do in coalition with a Labour Party lead by Jones? May as well go out back and shoot ourselves in the head right now and be done with it.

              Nice try srylands, but you’d be better off astroturfing someone a bit more likely.

            • felix 8.1.2.2.1.3
              22 August 2013 at 11:06 pm

              God that’s so weak srylands.

              • Akldnut …
                23 August 2013 at 2:25 am

                Worse than weak – that’s a pathetic attempt to add discourse to the debate. That’s you srylands Pathetic

            • Tracey 8.1.2.2.1.4
              23 August 2013 at 7:49 am

              How on earth can you assert you know with such certainty what would happen with Jones????

              Hooten and others came on here touting Shearer NOT beausee they thought he was good for labour but the opposite. I see you too don’t want Cunliffe and want Jones, who may have a place in the future but given National tactics would be easy target practice.

              Those who love this govt’s policies really don’t want Cunliffe, or at least it has seemed that way since Goff resigned.

          • Tracey 8.1.2.2.2
            23 August 2013 at 7:58 am

            ” David Cunliffe is not as popular in the caucus as he is outside” Vernon Small

            IF this is true, do the Cauccus know they only get about 34 votes in total in an election??? That includes some who would presumably vote for a Cunnliffe led party?

            Anyone want to create a poster of a person on a computer with keys face peeking through the curtains? Something (legal) on the screen that you would not like being seen?

            Caucus and supporters need to come to terms with a contest, open, fair hard-fought, and some wont be happy with the outcome but you suck it up, act like a team and do your bit to contribute to the type of NZ you claim to want.

            Otherwise it will be SSDD

        • bad12 8.1.2.3
          22 August 2013 at 10:50 pm

          He is a real chance of getting a backseat on the Opposition Benches, the best i can say for Shane Jones after many years of waiting for this supposed genius of Oxford educated leadership material to in fact materialize was that on a recent edition of Native Affairs He for the first time since i listened to any number of His waffling diatribes, sounded coherent,

          Jones if He throws his hat into the ring of the leadership contest is guaranteed a position, Last…

          • Tracey 8.1.2.3.1
            23 August 2013 at 7:50 am

            At the risk of seeming paranoid he is sounding like someone much closer to the heart of politics than he would have us believe. His mask even slipped (up there) and he broke his own self proclaimed rule about not being emotional about politics when he called someone deluded.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 8.2
      23 August 2013 at 6:55 am

      “With a decent leader and good policy”

      http://thestandard.org.nz/29/#comment-539315

      I’ve not cared too much about the leader – it’s the shit policy that’s the problem first and foremost.

      I could add to my old list but seriously can Labour in it’s current guise come even close to implementing a single left wing policy such as:

      8 hour working day
      40 hour working week
      Decent minimum wage
      Increased taxation of the well off
      Increasing benefit rates to a liveable amount – at minimum putting the $20-00 per week back on benefits – you know the $20 per week they put back on super and the one they had 9 years to put back on benefits but did not
      Centralised wage bargaining forcing firms to compete on the quality of the product and service not on who can pay the crappiest wage
      Ensuring minimum salaries are say 120% of the minimum wage to stop employers getting around the minimum wage requirements
      Building more state housing and letting people live in their state houses for their entire life if they wish – you know giving people security
      Employing people with disabilites and young people in the public sector to give them an opportunity for a decent life and a good start – cause the private sector won’t and will never employ them all
      Regional development to support rural areas and not just farmers

      These things were not even “left” when I was growing up they were normal.

      • srylands 8.2.1
        23 August 2013 at 10:48 am

        The problem is that a party that had that list as their policy platform would never win office. End of story.

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 8.2.1.1
          23 August 2013 at 6:47 pm

          Yet when I talk to ordinary people of all ages and backgrounds I can find many who would support such policies and certainly there are others here who would support such policies.

          Yet previously governments have been elected on such policies.

          It’s clearly not the end of any story but it would be threatening to those like yourself who espouse both neo-liberal and TINA solutions.

          I too have no problem paying more tax to fund such programs.

          The notion that the market can provide affordable housing has been shown to be nonsense, the notion that the private sector can provide jobs for all has shown to be nonsense.

          The abrogation of state support in terms of employment in particular condemns many people to a life of poverty and despair – particularly those who are most vulnerable.

          The theft of state assets and the taking of profit for services once provided by the state compounds the problem.

          The ownership of our companies and the contracting of services abroad means our collective wealth is transferred offshore.

          Clearly though your statement confirms the view that Labour is not a left-wing party – it too subscribes to our neo-liberal notions and indeed was responsible for much of the move to the right.

  9. AmaKiwi 9
    22 August 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Door knock while you still can because these right wing dictators might outlaw it.

    Key is DANGEROUS.

  10. Lefty 10
    22 August 2013 at 8:34 pm

    I don’t quite understand how the Labour Party can fight against the right when it is part of the right.

  11. BM 11
    22 August 2013 at 8:41 pm

    To David Cunliffe

    My advice to you is to regrow your beard, you look chinless without it, not a good look.

    A beard will give you more mana and get rid of that “there’s something about that prick I don’t trust” vibe.

  12. Lorraine 12
    22 August 2013 at 8:53 pm

    David Cunliff has the brains and the experience and can think on his feet. He can make the most of the issues that we are having forced on us by an uncaring government who has only the interests of a few conservative wealthy few. He will make a brilliant PM.

    • Craig Glen Eden 12.1
      22 August 2013 at 9:23 pm

      +1 and yes Hipkins should be shitting himself after his stupid little outburst it was the most stupid thing I have ever seen a so called politician do. What it showed was he does not deserve to be their in my view. Thank goodness we the members will finally have a say in who should lead the Party.

      • bad12 12.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 11:03 pm

        That sounds good, Hipkins and Jones will look good on the back benches, Labour should promote Sio William Sua, (a) to show the large polynesian vote that He is not just some token member and they simply taken for granted cannon fodder, and (b) because in all the speeches i have seen Him give in the Parliament He delivers the punch at National with a passion and conviction sadly lacking among many others in Labour’s ranks…

  13. Richard Christie 13
    22 August 2013 at 9:05 pm

    I bet Hipkins is shitting himself.

  14. lurgee 14
    22 August 2013 at 9:09 pm

    “David Cunliff has the brains and the experience and can think on his feet.”

    This is going to be the equivalent of “He’s got an amazing backstory,” and “He’s a new sort of politician,” isn’t it? Immediately followed by the recycled Shearer staple, “Give him six more months.”

    • Lanthanide 14.1
      22 August 2013 at 9:12 pm

      No, because Cunliffe has proven his chops. Shearer never did. He’d barely been in parliament 2 years.

    • weka 14.2
      22 August 2013 at 9:16 pm

      “This is going to be the equivalent of “He’s got an amazing backstory,” and “He’s a new sort of politician,” isn’t it? ”

      Not really. Having brains and the ability to think on one’s feet are actual skills needed for being PM. Having an amazing backstory and being a new sort of politician are spins without substance designed to promote something without substance.

    • QoT 14.3
      22 August 2013 at 9:19 pm

      If only the amazing backstory and “new” politics had actually been demonstrated (aside from mango skin stories, of course) we might not be in this position today.

  15. Rodel 15
    22 August 2013 at 10:16 pm

    I think I’ll renew my membership. Wait and see…

  16. chris73 16
    22 August 2013 at 10:21 pm

    Can Cunliffe handle Key, its possible but if we look back at the scalps Keys taken ie Clark, Cullen Goff and Shearer but not likely

    I’d suggest you don’t get your hopes up because you might be a bit sad when Key takes (and lets face it history suggests he will) another scalp

    🙂

    • happynz 16.1
      22 August 2013 at 11:47 pm

      Eh? You reckon that squeaky short-fingered conman Key is a formidable politician? If so, it makes the opposition in New Zealand woeful if Key is considered a master at politicking.

      • lurgee 16.1.1
        23 August 2013 at 12:31 am

        You’re a fool if you think he’s not a formidable performer. That’s why he enjoys such strong and enduring support inspite of being the tainted leader of a heinous smorgasboard of despicable yahoos.

        Unless you’re suggesting the NZ electorate are idiots, of course, but that’s not a very wise thing to say.

        • chris73 16.1.1.1
          23 August 2013 at 7:34 am

          No its good that the left keep underestimating John Key:

          “Hes just a gambler”, “He just has media training”, “he just runs the lines america wants him to say”, “hes just a money man”

          Its one of the reasons why he smoked Cullen, Clark, Goff, Campbell and Shearer….well that and the lefts arrogance

          • fender 16.1.1.1.1
            23 August 2013 at 12:49 pm

            No-one is underestimating the lying, corrupt bully who has more arrogance in his little finger than the whole of the left has put together.

    • Tracey 16.2
      23 August 2013 at 7:24 am

      he didn’t take Clark’s scalp, Peters/Owen and a 3 term staleness took Clark. It would be an interesting match up today for sure.

    • Murray Olsen 16.3
      23 August 2013 at 8:47 pm

      Any PM at the end of their 3rd term is vulnerable. For some reason, the electorate seems to think that change for the sake of it is a good thing now and then. That Key won against Clark is not surprising. That he could beat Goff in debates when Goff probably agreed more with Key than with the words that came out of his own mouth was also no great feat. Shearer? Anyone can kick a cripple. In this case, history is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Key is now looking like a tired bullshitter up against a man on a mission. Cunliffe will demolish him. Norman would demolish him. Key was the sellout arselicker American sycophant of the moment. His moment has gone and soon he will be too.

      • Jim Nald 16.3.1
        28 August 2013 at 1:43 pm

        “Cunliffe will demolish him. Norman would demolish him.”

        Most importantly, thanks to the reinvigorated Labour Party, many voters will turn up at the ballot boxes next year and cast out Key.

  18. Jenny 18
    23 August 2013 at 6:25 am

    The world and the country are facing a crisis like no other.

    Will the Labour Party have the courage to choose a leader who will make difference?

    Robertson – Business as usual with the added handicap of lack of charisma. Guaranteed not to beat Key. Would make a good deputy.

    Little – Who knows? A fresh face, but still an unknown quality. Possibly handicapped by a lack of experience. Despite his EPMU background and Taranaki energy capital roots, has been making muted noises about the existential dangers of climate change. But was this sincere? Could beat Key.

    Cunliffe – Has the experience and the credibility to make real changes, has the party behind him, therefore has a mandate to act, and the charisma and sincerity to be able to win the public over to the necessity of the changes needed. Has he got the steel to stand up to the fossil fuel lobby? His meek acceptance of relegation to the back benches without complaint seems to suggest not. Could beat Key.

    • Jenny 18.1
      23 August 2013 at 6:33 am

      Lynn Prentice has accused me of grandstanding, by raising the issue of climate change as a matter in this leadership contest. Let’s see how long the above comment stands.

      Will Lynn show his hand, this early in the piece. To try and keep climate change from being an election issue? As Lynn maintains, it is politics 101, that we can’t waste political capital on this issue.

      I am sorry Lynn but I missed that class. Though I am pretty sure that civilisation collapse and possible human extinction wasn’t discussed.

      [lprent: See http://thestandard.org.nz/unity-and-democracy/#comment-683606 ]

    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 18.2
      23 August 2013 at 2:11 pm

      Little: can’t even win an electorate.

  19. karol 19
    23 August 2013 at 6:51 am

    Say what? Don’t tell me Team Robertson have learned nothing and are still trying to control the leadership selection? Democracy? Unity? Ma.href=’http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9076912/Shearer-Why-he-quit’>Vernon Small this morning: While promoting Robertosn as front runner, Small says this:

    Moves were under way last night to avoid a messy leadership runoff, but the wider party may push for a contest that would give unions and the wider membership a say.

    They are taking the piss! Surely they can’t expect that only caucus will choose the new leader?

    • the pigman 19.1
      23 August 2013 at 7:57 pm

      I’d take Vernon Small’s expert inside analysis with a sack of salt or two… He is probably somewhere between Audrey Young and Colin Espiner on the reliable labour-party-insider-journalist stakes.

      And even if that might be the belief of a few in caucus, it is certainly not the message being sent out by Coatsworth, Barnett et al.

  20. Tracey 20
    23 August 2013 at 7:18 am

    A leadership change is not a panacea and can only be the beginning. To ensure NACTUNITED don’t rule the roost for another term will require passion and change.

    PASSION is key.

    FAIRNESS is Key

    Someone needs to stand up and say (with genuine passion) that they care about NZers not just NZ.

    We need international partners not masters. NZers have always been leaders, punching above their weight, in sport, in science, in education, in medicine, in arts, in music and in law and the list goes on. We stand up when others cower. When did the Prime Minister forget that? Why did we start cowering?

    We care about hard working employers who create jobs and prosperity and we care about hard working employees who contribute to prosperity. We don’t want a society where we base our fellow kiwis well-being on whether they are better off than a Somalia or Indian slum dweller. We aim higher than that because we care.

    In times of hardship and war, like the recent earthquakes in Canterbury and Wellington, kiwis didn’t divide, didn’t stop to ask who deserved help based on income or lifestyle we recognised help was needed and we provided it. When farmers face drought people help because they care. When someone runs into a fire to save someone else’s loved one we hope that would be us in the same circumstances and we admire them.

    And if someone has the balls they can add

    The fact is that those hard working kiwis who belong to a union have better work conditions and higher wages than their industry counterparts. A workplace is a partnership between employers and employees where everyone works hard and it is not a battlefield. We have to stop swinging from one extreme to another and find a balance where employers are not treated as villains and bullies and employees are not treated as lazy and ungrateful and lucky to have anything at all. We are all better than that.

    The NZ economy entered the recession in a better position than many western countries because we forge our own path. We lead not follow.

    We have a world leading education system and have produced world leading educators. We need to listen to them about how to maintain that and how to bring those who struggle to higher achievement. We wont achieve that by going to war with Principals, teachers and Boards of Trustees.

    We need to be wise about how we spend our money. Wise about where we invest our money but not at the expense of compassion. There is never one right answer but often many wrong ones.

    We are not at war with each other but sometimes behave like we are. No one has a monopoly on caring. Compassion knows no politic allegiance. A compassionate society will thrive a mean society will divide.

    • Ugly Truth 20.1
      23 August 2013 at 8:41 am

      Tracey, the following is intended to be constructive criticism, don’t take it as a snub.

      “We need” doesn’t address the underlying causes, all it does is change the symptoms of problem.

      While there is nothing wrong with being compassionate, Fabian socialism uses compassionate people to further its own agenda.

      “Why did we start cowering?”
      Because you started to rely on the state for protection.

      • Tracey 20.1.1
        23 August 2013 at 9:01 am

        “WE NEED” IS A CALL TO ARMS OR ATTENTION. yOU CANNOT “WIN” THE PEOPLE OVER BY LECTURING THEM ABOUT HOW YOU WILL ACHIEVE YOUR ENDS. I ENJOY READING ABOUT THE how BUT ALL MY OBSERVATIONS OF THE LAST 40 YEARS OR SO SUGGEST THAT DESPITE WHAT I LIKE/WANT, THE ELECTORATE RESPONDS TO RHETORIC MORE THAN SUBSTANCE. however YOU MUST HAVE THE SUBSTANCE AS WELL.

        Shit, caps lock, sorry. [lprent: I should hope so. ]

        We cower because we believe that the US business interests will feather our bed. That money will flow to us if we make them happy. However the US still has some of the largest number of protectionist laws to protect its own indsutries and markets, while people scramble to throw theirs away to get a free trade agreement with them.

        When we (NZ) weren’t cowering, we also relied on the state for protection.

        I don’t take it as a snub, but appreciate (genuinely)you letting me know you weren’t attacking me.

        I wanted Shearer because I liked his style but despite NZers still regarding pollies as villains, and bemoaning that they can’t trust them, they don’t elect people who don’t act like villains speaking with forked tongues.

        I don’t know what the answer is, but leaders engage people, make it hard to not follow them, their actions and integrity and substance ought to reward that trust.

        People say they want to know the “how” but the media rarely repeats it…

        I was surprised to not see a more concerted effort by Libertarianz to rally against the GCS legislation.

        • Ugly Truth 20.1.1.1
          23 August 2013 at 11:46 am

          “We cower because we believe that the US business interests will feather our bed.”

          I see that as the “money (or the love of money) is the root of all evil” argument. The problem with this argument is that if you don’t have security then your money means very little as it can be taken from you at any time.

          “People say they want to know the “how” but the media rarely repeats it…”

          Heh. Best not get me started on the MSM. The interactive nature of social media can be valuable, for example this exchange between Mark Hubbard and MP Paul Foster-Bell on the GCSB.

          http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/gcsb-bill-today-national-act-and-uf.html

          If you know the “why” then the “how” is relatively easy to figure out. Knowing the “why” typically involves some digging into the history of geopolitics, something that most people don’t have the time or the inclination for.

          “I was surprised to not see a more concerted effort by Libertarianz to rally against the GCS legislation.”

          Libertarians can have fundamentally different ideas about what liberty is. When they see it purely as civil liberty they become locked into the standard political paradigm, which seriously constrains the options available to them.

          • Tracey 20.1.1.1.1
            23 August 2013 at 12:04 pm

            Thanks for your comments.

            I mentioned libertarianz because the ones I have read online ARE big on intellectual and actual freedom yet that group or even parts of seemed to stay out of the debate.

            It’s easier to have values than to actually live them I guess.

            “I see that as the “money (or the love of money) is the root of all evil” argument. The problem with this argument is that if you don’t have security then your money means very little as it can be taken from you at any time.”

            Couldn’t agree with you more.

  21. burt 21
    23 August 2013 at 9:59 am

    Democracy from a party that thinks the business of government is what government define it to be – good luck with that !

    • Tracey 21.1
      23 August 2013 at 12:01 pm

      It’s got national this far burt…

      I for one would like to see that change BUT National has taken it to new heights indeed.

      • burt 21.1.1
        23 August 2013 at 1:52 pm

        Tracey

        Are you mad ? Clark was quoted as saying the business of government is what government define it to be – democracy being by the people for the people …. spot the incompatibility ….

        Now stop talking about National doing it too – this thread is about unity and democracy in the context of Labour – not about unity and democracy compared to National.

  22. Winston Smith 22
    23 August 2013 at 12:27 pm

    I predict (and hope) Little will be the next leader of Labour

  23. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 23
    23 August 2013 at 1:12 pm

    With a new leadership race there’s now a real chance to bring the Labour party together to fight the good fight against the right.

    Good luck with that.

    Really.

    • burt 23.1
      23 August 2013 at 1:55 pm

      I look forward to a Labour government bringing back compulsory unionism so that low paid workers are forced to support the Labour party…. that will be their crowning achievement. That and tax law changes that allow massive distortions…

      Oh don’t forget low quality government spending causing inflation and high interest rates which are great for wealthy people with cash but devastating for low income earners and people with mortgages.

      The cycle will repeat – the economy will appear to boom then it will crash and we will be back to national dishing out the medicine… and then we go around again.

      • Tracey 23.1.1
        23 August 2013 at 3:04 pm

        cos bashing and deriding the unions has really worked well in increasing minimum wage and living wage rates for Nzers lower earners.

        • burt 23.1.1.1
          23 August 2013 at 3:31 pm

          Unions that lobby the government are good – unions that have partisan support for a single party – they are just fund raisers for the party. I don’t agree that fund raising should be done from low paid workers – theses are the people the union apparently exists to serve – not the other way around.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 23.1.1.1.1
            23 August 2013 at 6:02 pm

            And since union members get paid more, your concern seems born of ignorance.

  24. Jacobin 24
    23 August 2013 at 3:56 pm

    The only one that can actually win is Cunliffe. He also has contra-neoliberal policy. Who cares if he is a cunt in person, John Key is a cunt, this is the game we are in. Now lets get moving.

  25. tricledrown 25
    23 August 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Burt logic 101 the business round table should be funding labour instead.
    Unions formed the labour party to put an end to serfdom.
    Pathetic attempt at cynicism.

  26. Venezia 26
    23 August 2013 at 9:42 pm

    That link to David Cunliffe’s speech does not work. “Your access to this site has been limited” etc

  27. xtasy 27
    24 August 2013 at 3:20 am

    If only people in NZ would damned WAKE up and read and be informed, we would NOT have the crap that goes down, Oh so desperate I am, I am close to committing suicide, I am really thinking like that!!!

    http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15264-welfare-reform-the-health-and-disability-panel-msd-the-truth-behind-the-agenda/

  28. Belladonna 28
    24 August 2013 at 6:41 am

    Hang in there xtasy, Labour will hopefully get their act together with a new leader. Beneficiaries need people like you to fight against this terrible persecution they have to endure at present. Stay strong.

    • xtasy 28.1
      24 August 2013 at 4:53 pm

      Belladonna – thanks, some days are a real “struggle” for me, but I am hanging in there. The day Shearer announced his resignation was a day I started to see a shimmer of light and hope at the end of a long dark tunnel.

      I keep my fingers crossed that the party, the affiliates AND the caucus get it right this time. We need a strong opposition, that also is united enough and work together, to address all the injustices imposed on the most unfortunate and weakest.

      Re welfare I think that Ardern needs to get a wake up call and address the issues more vocally and directly, or that portfolio should go to someone who shows a bit more initiative and drive. But maybe her ambitions were also being “dampened” by the older ones in caucus, wanting to please potential middle class swing voters, who have for years been misinformed by the appalling mainstream media about what really goes on.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgNo2Nyp-TY

      This link shows a bit of discussion on what has been going on in the UK by the way.

  29. jim 29
    24 August 2013 at 7:36 am

    Labour has/had notable and saleable talent in Shearer/Parker/Cunliffe. Robertson’s fingerprints are all over the reasons why they did not work together.