Warming to Shearer

Written By: - Date published: 10:40 am, May 13th, 2012 - 88 comments
Categories: david shearer, leadership - Tags:

The recent beat-up over an imaginary challenge to Shearer’s leadership is well and truly behind us. Recent coverage has been quite positive, such as this anonymous editorial from a couple of weeks back:

Editorial: Labour leader shaping up as quiet achiever

They say Leader of the Opposition is the worst job in politics. It requires unceasing, carping criticism of everything the Government does and a relentlessly negative outlook on the country’s condition and prospects under current policies. Somehow this hapless individual is supposed to be popular too.

David Shearer, elected leader of the Labour Party after the last election, has clearly decided this job description is not for him. … Mr Shearer is clearly not a tub-thumping politician. He seems a normal, thoughtful, cautious and fair-minded citizen. The public has seen enough of him to come to that assessment. If he adopts a different manner now it will not ring true. People do not follow leaders who lack the confidence to be themselves.

The country is watching Mr Shearer with more interest than he may know. …

Shearer was chosen to lead Labour largely in the expectation that his real-world experience and well rounded character would be appealing to the electorate. That Shearer would be someone we could identify with. Time will tell, but I think it’s working. Over time the contrast with Key, who is now well and truly just “another bloody politician”, will be more and more pronounced.

Anyway – that blather is all just background excuse really, an excuse to steal this clip from Red Alert. Something different for an idle Sunday morning – David Shearer Unplugged:

88 comments on “Warming to Shearer ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Anne 1
    13 May 2012 at 11:30 am

    It was no coincidence that the two people who offer the most hope to the Labour Party – and indeed the country – were the two who were locked in the leadership battle last December. It was a tough call for most of us and quite distressing in a way. We recognised and applauded the talents of both, but we could only vote for one of them.

    David Shearer and David Cunliffe are different people, but they believe in the same things and in my view nicely compliment one another. Shearer’s strengths are now showing through and his innate ability to relate to people across the board is a huge plus. I know some people have criticised him for that, but I think it is very important. A prime minister who can take a cross-section of NZ society with him all the way is going to to be vital for the future prospects of this country.

    • seeker 1.1
      13 May 2012 at 6:34 pm

      “It was a tough call for most of us and quite distressing in a way. We recognised and applauded the talents of both, but we could only vote for one of them.

      David Shearer and David Cunliffe are different people, but they believe in the same things and in my view nicely compliment one another.”

      Well said Anne. Distressing it certainly was. And now I’m a little more put out- I love “Classical Gas”,especially unplugged, and it looked like David S.could really deliver, but the clip ended. Blast!

    • CnrJoe 1.2
      13 May 2012 at 8:23 pm

      he plays the guitar – enough 

      • seeker 1.2.1
        13 May 2012 at 9:28 pm

        lol
        Not so enough, he surfs too! Don’t nag Cnr Joe, it is mum’s day and I’m a mum reminiscing.
        PS love David C. for his mind, knowledge and ability, still waiting to see David S’ mind, so don’t panic. “california dreaming on such a windy day………….”

  2. Te Reo Putake 2
    13 May 2012 at 11:40 am

    I might just be buying into a righty meme, but the first bit he plays (around the 20 second mark) sounds a lot like Hesitation Blues to me!

  3. TightyRighty 3
    13 May 2012 at 11:41 am

    So stolen board papers showing arguments regarding internal policies about party members are indicative of a nat civil war? But shearer muzzling his finance spokesman from speaking on his portfolio can be ignored because a paper regularly derided by all left commentators on the standard writes an editorial that is at best a back handed compliment and it’s subject can play the guitar. Well kum-by-fucking-yah civil war averted.

    • Tom 3.1
      13 May 2012 at 11:58 am

      Have a Bex, a cup of chai, and good lie-down before firing up the grey matter and engaging the motor nerves driving your keyboard.

      “Stolen board papers” ?

      “muzzling his finance spokesman” ?

      “a paper regularly derided by all left commentators on the standard’ ?

      I doubt that it passes the test of common sense.

      R0BINS is probably enjoying your provocation, but we could at least be civil to each other in the last island chain before Antarctica.

      • TightyRighty 3.1.1
        13 May 2012 at 12:52 pm

        Board papers are hardly likely to be leaked with the recipients name all over them, where was dc on the nation this morning and the herald is frequently referred to as granny, a right wing mouthpiece and other ephitets designed to give the impression that is right leaning. Except when it presents an article that is positive about something the left holds fear, then it’s ok to reference it. How about showing some comprehension ability before just aimlessly quoting me and accusing me of lacking common sense? Another peasant to join cv. Incidentally, is cv robinsod after moving to Auckland? I miss that guy

        • Jackal 3.1.1.1
          13 May 2012 at 1:21 pm

          TightyRighty

          The herald is frequently referred to as granny, a right wing mouthpiece and other ephitets designed to give the impression that is right leaning. Except when it presents an article that is positive about something the left holds fear, then it’s ok to reference it.

          LOL How could you not notice that commentators on The Standard reference articles that are from both sides of the spectrum? There is also the contention that many rightwing bloggers think the NZ Herald is a leftwing mouthpiece… so I guess in that respect they’re getting things about right.

          Personally I would like to see some new talented writers, being that many of the crusty old white contributors such as Paul Holmes, Fran O’sullivan and John Roughan are well past their used by dates and seem more intent on filling word counts instead of having anything pertinent to say.

          Hard left views have no voice at all in the NZ Herald, with most so-called leftwing correspondents always careful to frame their arguments to appeal to a rightwing market. This is in some ways understandable being that our MSM is largely controlled and dictated to by the neo-liberal agenda.

          If Key displayed any musical talent you could bet your bottom dollar he’d be headline news for instance.

          • TightyRighty 3.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2012 at 2:52 pm

            I agree that when both sides accuse a third party of favouring the other, the third party is usually pretty fairly balanced. Hard left views have as little a place in mainstream media as hard right views do. Could that be because it’s mainstream? The idea though that our media is dictated to by those with a neo liberal agenda is pretty laughable. I find those that subscribe to that view also take the view the public have been conned and cant think for themselves. Or that labour not winning is because of some great con job, not because the public can see they aren’t fit to govern. Whether or national are is beside the point, the electorate chose what it viewed as the party that best suited
            It’s idea of what is needed to govern effectively at the moment.

            • Jackal 3.1.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2012 at 3:13 pm

              You’re either trying to be funny TightyRighty or you’re a bit deluded! While we have articles like this one by Paul Holmes claiming that Waitangi day is “a bullshit day. It’s a day of lies. It is loony Maori fringe self-denial day,” that is obvious race baiting hate speech… and thinking this isn’t racism or part of the hard right agenda is simply ridiculous! Such articles aren’t isolated instances either… so I’m left wondering what planet you’re on?

        • Tom 3.1.1.2
          13 May 2012 at 1:55 pm

          cd .. dunno. “granny herald” ? That’s a weak argument, and I’ve never used the term.

          Comprehension ability ? I don’t need to prove anything to you or anyone else.

          Me, a ‘peasant’ ? I think that says more about you than anyone else.

          Finally, I have no idea if cv is robinsod.

          Could you please be more explicit ?

    • Te Reo Putake 3.2
      13 May 2012 at 11:59 am

      As I know you are a person of principle, TR, I have no doubt at all that you aren’t making up that claim about ‘muzzling’. Especially so, as you are comparing it to actual physical evidence of a split in the Nat ranks. But others might be more cynical than I, so would you mind putting up your evidence?

      • TightyRighty 3.2.1
        13 May 2012 at 12:45 pm

        Watch the nation this morning? See David Cunliffe on it? Hear Duncan garner talk about it. He was invited, I would have thought a platform such as that would be a perfect opportunity for labour as a party. Can’t see why shearer would want to forbid his appearance.

        • Te Reo Putake 3.2.1.1
          13 May 2012 at 12:52 pm

          “can’t see why Shearer would want to forbid his appearance”
           
          Me neither, which was I was hoping you had something to back up your statement. But you’ve got nothing, have you?

          • TightyRighty 3.2.1.1.1
            13 May 2012 at 12:58 pm

            Duncan garner talking about it? Much as you hate them both, someone high in labour is leaking to either whaleoil or dpf. They’re both saying how weird it is that dc would be forbidden by senior labour party cabinet members to appear. The commentators on red alert? criticism in cabinet of dc is one things, but preventing public appearances is rather weird. Especially as dc’s speech contained a rather wide range of sensible points that would resonate with the wider voting populace.

            • Te Reo Putake 3.2.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2012 at 1:07 pm

              Wow! Garner, Farrar and Slater, that’s all the evidence I need, TR. I stand corrected, you are absolutely right, humble apologies for ever doubting that you’d have the facts at your fingertips!

              • TightyRighty …
                13 May 2012 at 1:41 pm

                The problem with your argument is that you are demanding facts on what is essentially an internal command given. No labour mp is going to come out and say “shearer said no to Cunliffe going on tv.” there are enough corroborative sources for what I am saying to make it true. And if the fact the opposition finance spokesperson didn’t appear on a nation wise televised political show even though they were invited to do so isn’t corroboration enough for you then you may as well give up arguing about politics at all with anyone. Your argument is invalid, but keeping sticking your head in the sand and demanding “evidence” because that will make it more valid.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  13 May 2012 at 1:47 pm

                  So, finally, you admit there is no evidence to back up your claim. That wasn’t so hard, was it? Shall we move on?

                  • TightyRighty …
                    13 May 2012 at 2:56 pm

                    No, the evidence is their. Not meeting your obviously exacting standards for what constitutes evidence doesnt make the evidence less damning. I don’t see you crying out for evidence when other commentators make statements that fit with your idealogy that are base in corroborate statements. Try be consistent. Jokes, couldn’t expect that from someone who cheerleads for such a hypocritical party.

                    • felix …
                      13 May 2012 at 3:10 pm

                      “Not meeting your obviously exacting standards for what constitutes evidence doesnt make the evidence less damning.”

                      And what were those “exacting standards”? Oh yeah, being able to show that any such evidence exists.

                      Jeez VoR, what a taskmaster you are.

                  • TightyRighty …
                    15 May 2012 at 10:18 am

                    How about Chris trotter in this mornings press? Shit, the evidence and proof is piling up. No wonder you’ve run away. Must hurt to get what you demanded in such a comical fashion

                • Hami Shearlie …
                  13 May 2012 at 6:15 pm

                  FYI, David Cunliffe is not the finance spokesman – David Parker is! David Cunliffe is the Economic Development spokesman.

              • TightyRighty …
                14 May 2012 at 5:15 pm

                How is Brian edwards for you?

          • Ad 3.2.1.1.2
            13 May 2012 at 1:04 pm

            The problem is when the ‘factoid” from Garner starts, facts afterwards get less material. From there, into the echo chambers of whale oil and kiwiblog, the actual damage – beyond any reality – is done.

            Garner can’t be blamed either – in the piece he claimed pretty authoritative high ranked Labour caucus sources.

            The base fault them is mismanagement within the Leader’s office, with the lesson: turn down Duncan Garner at your peril.

            • Vicky32 3.2.1.1.2.1
              13 May 2012 at 6:38 pm

              Garner can’t be blamed either – in the piece he claimed pretty authoritative high ranked Labour caucus sources.

              And Garner is known for his truthfulness? 😀 😀 😀 Yeah, right….

          • Vicky32 3.2.1.1.3
            13 May 2012 at 6:33 pm

            Me neither, which was I was hoping you had something to back up your statement. But you’ve got nothing, have you?

            If he has, I’d like to see it, and no, Garner’s word is not enough! He’s hardly the most unbiased or honest commentator…

            • Ad 3.2.1.1.3.1
              13 May 2012 at 10:13 pm

              Problem with that is that for the MSM, reporters get to define truth pretty closely, unless someone better actually fronts up and redefines truth. What Garner said was the truth … because Labour let him. I would hope Shearer’s office get now that politics abhors a vacuum.

            • TightyRighty 3.2.1.1.3.2
              14 May 2012 at 8:40 pm

              Brian Edwards? Hardly the biggest cheerleader for the right.

      • Bill 3.2.2
        13 May 2012 at 1:05 pm

        TRP. A fair few comments about Cunliffe being muzzled here… http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12052012/comment-page-1/#comment-470796

        I don’t actually care one way or the other (Was he, wasn’t he?). I’m just pointing out the discussion.

        Meanwhile, Labour leader gives us ‘The Blues’? Kind of appropriate, don’t you think? Okay, cheap and easy shot.

        More substantially, in the quoted editorial it is claimed that the job of opposition requires ;

        a relentlessly negative outlook on the country’s condition and prospects under current policies. Somehow this hapless individual is supposed to be popular too.

        Em. What about vision? What about formulating an attractive vision for the future and developing policies that would take ‘the country’ in that direction?

        Hmm. Guess we can’t expect that from a

        normal, thoughtful, cautious and fair-minded citizen.

        And I’m saying that because the implication is that he is a well adjusted individual. And that’s fine…all things being equal. But all things aren’t equal. The systems, instititional structures and behaviours, as well as the social norms he happily exists within as a ‘well rounded individual’ are radically fcked up.

        So if he’s a ‘normal, thoughtful, cautious and fair minded citizen’ he won’t be capable of discerning what it is that is fcked up. And so, with that in mind, he arguably gets mired in a rather pathetic and ineffective ‘lets be civilised and talk about it fairly and reasonably’ mindset when interacting with the current government or economic/social centers of power. And his prescriptions, because they rely on peoples’ mythical inherent reasonableness are only ever going to be ‘wet’ prescriptions for more of the same.

        John Key is a radical, cunning and manipulative bastard who has successfully ridden the wave produced by our radically fcked up socio/economic system(s). He epitomises ‘normal’. Shearer is ‘a nice guy’… someone who ‘has faith in human decency’ and is probably genuinely somewhat aghast at some of the things our socio/economic system throws up….except he cant see the systemic nature of the problem. He only sees people not acting as nicely as they might.

        Or at least, that’s the impression he gives and where his history as aid worker points to. Seems he couldn’t appreciate the systemic root of the problems he sought to alleviate through aid. Or if he did, he kept and continues to keep very, very quiet about it. Seems he thought that bad things happened and simply doing some good things in the midst of those bad things would eventually see everything turning out alright.

        The guy’s a waste of space in the current context where the market, more than a few governments and financiers have gone (for wont of a better term) feral.

        • s y d 3.2.2.1
          14 May 2012 at 11:28 am

          lol bill…after reading your comment the picture in my head….john keys at the top of the cliff throwing ****’s off, shearers at the bottom wringing his hands, asking john to not throw them so HARD…

  4. Ant 4
    13 May 2012 at 12:05 pm

    I was pretty disappointed in his qualifying of support for gay marriage. It was pretty weak to be honest, how much detail do you really have to see to grant gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples?

    • Vicky32 4.1
      13 May 2012 at 6:41 pm

      I was pretty disappointed in his qualifying of support for gay marriage. It was pretty weak to be honest, how much detail do you really have to see to grant gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples?

      Me, I thought it was reasonable, but then I would, wouldn’t I? Much better than Key and his “me-tooing” Obama! 
      Gayb marriage is a better distraction than bene bashing, at least here… where identity politics trumps sense.

      • felix 4.1.1
        13 May 2012 at 7:19 pm

        “here… where identity politics trumps sense.”

        Serious question. Do you think it makes “sense” for the state to recognise all consenting adult couples, gay, straight or whatever, as equal at law?

        Note, I refer only to the state and the law, not the church and doctrine.

  6. dave brownz 6
    13 May 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Shearer is warm
    Tsipras is hot

  7. ianmac 7
    13 May 2012 at 1:08 pm

    What may mark out to David Shearer’s long term credit, is that he doesn’t sound like a typical politician. Would we prefer the style of a Brownlie, or a Key, or a Joyce?
    No. Much prefer the humanity of Mr Shearer.

  8. BillODrees 8
    13 May 2012 at 1:12 pm

    All the Labour and Greens peoples I talk to in West Auckland want Shearer and his team to be successful. He deserves time to grow into the job. I don’t believe he squashed David Cunliffe being on television with Ryall. He respects Cunliffe, otherwise he would not have made him the spokesman for Economic Development. Cunliffe is one of his best speakers. I saw him at Blockhouse Bay and he gave the correct type of speech for a Labour spokesperson.

  9. gobsmacked 9
    13 May 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I might like Shearer as leader. I might not. I’m sure I’d like him a lot as a person, but as Labour leader, I can’t say, because I have no idea why he wanted to (a) join Labour, (b) lead the party or (c) become Prime Minister.

    It would be nice if he could tell us some time (and “to make a difference” isn’t an answer).

    Yes, Key will probably become more unpopular and Shearer (therefore) more popular, but so would Clark or Goff or Cunliffe or Robertson if they were leading the opposition to a government that is screwing its people, including its own voters.

    I hope we can set the bar a bit higher than “not Key”.

    • Blue 9.1
      13 May 2012 at 2:06 pm

      My impression is that, having been an aid worker for a long time, he wanted to do something else, and thought politics might be the answer. The fact that he is friends with Phil Goff, and Phil no doubt kept asking him to do it, probably sealed the deal.

      I’m not sure how much consideration he gave to whether he is actually suited to politics, or what he thinks he can achieve if he does become Prime Minister.

      • Tom 9.1.1
        13 May 2012 at 3:38 pm

        Didn’t he work as a parliamentary researcher for Labour .. for Goff ?

        • Anne 9.1.1.1
          13 May 2012 at 6:59 pm

          I believe so, but it was well before Goff took over the leadership reigns so he is unlikely to have been directly working for Goff. He also stood as the Labour candidate in Whangarei before he went to work for the UN. Must have been well over 10 years ago now.

          So, he wasn’t exactly a political novice when he returned to NZ and stood in the Mt Albert seat.

  10. Dr Terry 10
    13 May 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Only time will tell.I worry when I see right wing press talking up Shearer. Sorry, but whoever becomes leader is most unlikely to be God.
    Why must people never bother to consider leadership potential within the Greens?

    • alwyn 10.1
      13 May 2012 at 4:08 pm

      I suspect that they look at the current Green party leadership and ask.
      My god, if Meteria Turei is the answer what on earth was the question?
      If she is the best the party has got they don’t have any leadership potential to consider.

    • Vicky32 10.2
      13 May 2012 at 6:51 pm

      Only time will tell.I worry when I see right wing press talking up Shearer

      And that’s never going to happen! I worry that the left (real or faux) is constantly talking him down…

  11. Tom 11
    13 May 2012 at 2:08 pm

    My problem with Shearer is that he was essentially parachuted into the position, unlike some who have done the hard yards and picked up a few skills, street credibility, and nous. He will always
    have that hanging over him until he proves himself. Learning on the job can be painful for all concerned.

    • alwyn 11.1
      13 May 2012 at 2:24 pm

      The thing I am most curious about at the moment is how he will handle having to give a speech about the budget immediately after Bill English has presented it and with only the time it takes for English to give the speech in which to prepare.
      From his appearances on the various TV interview programs I think he is going to struggle. He behaves as if he simply hasn’t been around long enough to have mastered the art of presenting a reasonably rational argument off the cuff. Say what you like about Key he did manage that rather well.
      If Shearer runs to form it will come across as a stuttering performance with him looking desperate to come up with anything relevant.
      I think Shearer has been thrown in to the bearpit of a senior opposition role too soon to show up as a plausible leader. In this he is overshadowed by Norman and even by the old roue Winston.

      • Tom 11.1.1
        13 May 2012 at 2:37 pm

        Agreed. Mind you, much of what I have said above also applied to Key ..

      • Ad 11.1.2
        13 May 2012 at 4:18 pm

        Ah, but he will be able to play the guitar.

        This ain’t Bill Clinton and his saxophone.

        Just a nice dude with some O.E.

      • felix 11.1.3
        13 May 2012 at 5:07 pm

        “Say what you like about Key he did manage that rather well.”

        When was that? All I ever saw him produce off the cuff was nasty, bullyish sneering and screeching.

        ps notice how people are starting to talk about Key in the past tense already?

        • alwyn 11.1.3.1
          13 May 2012 at 5:50 pm

          I was talking about the speeches he made immediately after Cullen’s budget speeches when Key was Leader of the Opposition. You obviously can’t have listened to them.
          You may not have registered it yet but John Key is the Prime Minister so one obviously talks about his time as Leader of the Opposition in the past tense. That’s the same tense used for Phil Goff’s term and shortly what we will use for David Shearer.

          • felix 11.1.3.1.1
            13 May 2012 at 7:54 pm

            Yeah those were the speeches I was thinking of, don’t remember anything particularly rational about them.

            Maybe I’m misremembering but as it turned out, his supposed financial prowess didn’t amount to much and in the end he left NZ’s economy much worse than he found it.

            (See? There it is again.)

            • alwyn 11.1.3.1.1.1
              14 May 2012 at 1:15 pm

              Now I understand. When you say “notice how people are starting to …”
              you mean “Look everybody! FELIX is talking about Key …”.

      • Craig Glen Eden 11.1.4
        14 May 2012 at 7:34 am

        Sadly Alwyn everything you have said is true, watching Shearer is like watching a train wreck, the only thing thats worse is watching Mallard make an idiot of himself when ever he gets on TV, which he is very good at in my view.

  12. Olwyn 12
    13 May 2012 at 2:14 pm

    I have not warmed to Shearer, largely for the reasons outlined by Bill and Gobsmacked: there is something either dumb or disingenuous about continuing to be amiable and “reasonable” when the feral aspects of the market are tearing lives apart. And I am deeply suspicious of a non-committal, so-called “centrist” stance in a Labour leader, along with attempts to obscure that non-position with “nice guy” imagery. Key’s cultivated image of transfigured mediocrity seemed designed to dupe the middle class into accepting a right wing agenda. Similarly, I cannot lose the suspicion, exacerbated by the rumour of Cunliffe’s being gagged, that Shearer’s image is designed to reassure the middle class that everything is still OK while the poor etc are abandoned, and BAU continues unabated. Shearer could dispel that fear, which I am sure others share, but he seems determined not to.

    Shearer got the LP leadership against the wishes of most of the members. He is an adult in a job that requires a thick skin. It is up to him to win people’s trust, and not up to them to abandon their critical faculties in salute to his “niceness.”

    I sometimes wish the right wing of the Labour Party would form a break-away group called something like “The People Who Still read the NZ Listener Party.”

  13. captain hook 13
    13 May 2012 at 5:25 pm

    david shearer will make a very good prime minister as you will see in 2014 if not before if kweewee should happen to spit the dummy.

    • Fortran 13.1
      14 May 2012 at 1:58 pm

      Yes, David Shearer will make a good Prime minister in 2014, but what will he have to concede to the Greens to get there ?

  14. vto 14
    14 May 2012 at 8:12 am

    Too many umms and arrghs and too much humility.

    More straight shooting, more vehemence, more confidence.

  15. bomber 15
    14 May 2012 at 1:18 pm

    You are kidding right?

    Gagging Cunliffe is the most inane political self mutilation of the year – http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/gagging-cunliffe-is-most-inane.html

    • Hami Shearlie 15.1
      17 May 2012 at 3:05 pm

      Totally agree with you Bomber! All of the crazy Nact policies coming out and what are Labour doing? Scrapping with each other about who gets the limelight! We’ve got to ask ourselves, are they worthy of our votes and support? Who are the Caucus really thinking about? Obviously themselves, and their future aspirations, certainly not the lives of the ordinary working people of NZ! And in the meantime, Jonkey is trading once again, not with other peoples’ money this time, but with our country(not his – he won’t be staying to see the devastation he and his mates have caused here). Key’s boss at the moment is Big Business America. What they say goes! After all, most of his personal wealth is tied up in the Bank of America.

  16. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16
    14 May 2012 at 1:28 pm

    I am so confused. I thought the civil war was in National.

  17. Raymond A Francis 17
    14 May 2012 at 6:53 pm

    And then we get two statements on TV3 with:
    a/ Shearer say the it was Mr Cunclffe’s decision to not appear on the show
    b/ Cuncliffe saying it was a decision by the Labour “top team” not to appear
    Someone is lying or at least being economical with the truth, neither looks good in a government in waiting

    • just saying 17.1
      14 May 2012 at 7:29 pm

      Someone is lying…..

      Shearer is really catching up with this being a politician thing. He’s on a roll now.

    • Olwyn 17.2
      14 May 2012 at 7:54 pm

      Not necessarily lying. It could have been Cunliffe’s decision to abide by the top team’s decision. Since you cannot expressly forbid anyone from going on TV, he could always have done otherwise and faced the consequences.

      • OneTrack 17.2.1
        15 May 2012 at 12:29 am

        So David Cunliffe was lying when he said it was a decision of the “top team”?

        • Olwyn 17.2.1.1
          15 May 2012 at 9:11 am

          No. Neither were necessarily lying. It may be true that it was a decision of the top team, and also true that Cunliffe could have done otherwise, but thought it prudent no to.

    • Pete George 17.3
      14 May 2012 at 7:55 pm

      What was interesting from TV3’s report tonight that I hadn’t heard before – Labour said they offered David Parker to appear instead because they thought he was a more appropriate spokesperson for the topic.

      But TV3 must have decided Cunliffe or nothing – nothing, that is, apart from their story on Cunliffe suppression, which they must have thought would be more attentioin attracting than Parker.

      I think this puts quite a different complexion on it. Does it show TV3 trying to dictate the narrative?

      • Colonial Viper 17.3.1
        14 May 2012 at 8:03 pm

        That’s actually a fair question – why didn’t they show Parker?

        • just saying 17.3.1.1
          14 May 2012 at 8:31 pm

          I understood the purpose of the item was to discuss Cunliffe’s recent speech. Have I got this wrong? Because if not, getting Parker on to discuss it would be kinda ridiculous. Or maybe interesting in itself…

          • Pete George 17.3.1.1.1
            14 May 2012 at 9:04 pm

            It all started last Tuesday with The Nation approaching Mr Cunliffe to come on the programme.

            On Wednesday Mr Cunliffe says he is interested but says it must stay on economic issues.

            The Nation agrees in writing to that deal.

            Garner also said the same last night – that both him and his producer agreed not to ask anything about the speech and to stick to economic issues.

      • rosy 17.3.2
        14 May 2012 at 8:12 pm

        Good spotting Pete. That does appear that TV3 is setting it’s own agenda. I wonder why?

      • Pete George 17.3.3
        14 May 2012 at 8:28 pm

        Here it goes from tonight’s news:

        On Wednesday Mr Cunliffe says he is interested but says it must stay on economic issues.

        The Nation agrees in writing to that deal.

        But Mr Cunliffe says he has to run it by the “Labour’s media and top team”.

        He did and by Thursday last week – they stopped him appearing, saying David Parker was the man to speak to about Budget and economic issues.

        But Mr Cunliffe says it was a team decision and Mr Shearer says it was Cunliffe’s.

        “I consulted – we reached a team decision we offered our finance spokesman to talk about Budget issues it appeared to be a broader interview than economic development,” Mr Cunliffe says.

        “I didn’t stop David Cunliffe appearing it was his own decision,” Mr Shearer says.

        http://www.3news.co.nz/Row-over-Cunliffes-absence-on-TV-show/tabid/415/articleID/254232/Default.aspx

        TV3 kept running their The Nation promotion, stopping Cunliffe appearing and different interpretations on who made the decision, Cunliffe or the Top Team.

        And nothing about why TV3 wouldn’t take Parker for the interview.

        • rosy 17.3.3.1
          14 May 2012 at 9:22 pm

          Garner’s conclusion about leadership aspirations is spin. My spin from that clip would be that if it’s about the economy the Finance Spokesperson fronts, if it’s about economic development the Economic Development spokesperson fronts.

          Badly handled though.
          (and I do wonder how real Cunliffe’s ‘Real Labour’ might become if this stuff continues)

      • Socialist Paddy 17.3.4
        14 May 2012 at 8:30 pm

        Geez I watched the clip and I got the really strong impression that one of them was telling the truth and one of them was spinning it.

        But Shearer I thought you were going to be different, a politician who was not a politician and not going to lie for advantage. Do you really expect us to believe that Cunliffe refused to front? If he is such an aggressive focused and driven careerist do you really expect us to believe that he would have given up a major TV slot? 

  18. Adele 18
    14 May 2012 at 8:25 pm

    I had the misguided idea to comment on Red Alert (Shearer Unplugged). I am not impressed with the level of debate in that forum. Admittedly, I may be biased by the interactions I have here, at the Standard.

    I couldn’t even be bothered flourishing a parting sarcasm. A wasted effort on the mind numbingly dull. The emphasis of Red Alert is not to discuss or debate important issues in a frank and open manner concerning Labour. No, its purpose is to soft sell Labour and Shearer.

    He’s inarticulate but that’s okay because he can play the guitar! How fucking twee is this party – very.

    • Jim Nald 18.1
      14 May 2012 at 9:02 pm

      You are not alone, Adele.
      If I were you, I would not bother with RA these days.

      Btw, after Annette King posted that stunningly wonderful Shearer guitar thingy, I posted the following which was awaiting moderation … and has not appeared … guess the comment got ‘moderated’ off:

      Jim Nald says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      May 12, 2012 at 5:23 pm

      I am not sure why I visit this site these days.

      Oh well, better things to do and off to Youtube next.

  19. BillODrees 19
    14 May 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Giving speeches in the Electorate to any size audience is one of the basic tasks any and every MP should fulfill.
    Giving speeches that cause for many people to think, debate, argue and slag is what every MP dreams about.
    I find it incomprehensible that a Labour front-bencher would be barred from making speeches in his or her electorate. Something is wrong at the top of the party. Is it to do with the staff changes? Is it to do with Grant Robertson’s ambitions?

  20. Anne 20
    15 May 2012 at 10:57 am

    Where does David Parker fit in to this jigsaw? Did he have a fit of pique when he learnt David Cunliffe had been invited on to the programme and not him? Did anyone in the ‘top team’ make any effort to find out TV3’s reason for approaching Cunliffe before hitting the ‘stop’ button?

    I am not impressed with the handling of this matter!

  21. Olwyn 21
    15 May 2012 at 11:07 am

    Sorry, his answer is from TV3’s perspective, not the Labour Party’s. I read your post too quickly.

    • Anne 21.1
      15 May 2012 at 11:23 am

      Thanks for the pointer to Brian Edwards Olwyn. Will read it later.

      Jim Mora’s Panel discussion at 4pm is with Brian Edwards and Milchelle Boag today.