Why I’m still worried

Written By: - Date published: 8:10 am, November 30th, 2012 - 90 comments
Categories: election 2014, Left - Tags:

Labour may still be well below its 2008 election result, when it was chucked out after 3 terms, but, thanks to the doubling of Greens support, Labour+Green is level pegging with National in the latest Roy Morgan. Add New Zealand First, and the opposition is well clear. Except, that’s not an election winning scenario for the Left.

NZF would go with National in that scenario. Why would Peters play third fiddle if he can play second?

And where’s the campaign buffer? Last election, Lab+Green shed 3% during the campaign as the Greens didn’t pick up all that Labour lost. And Goff was a pretty strong debater. You have to allow at least a similar margin for 2014.

Add that together and Lab+Greens needs to be polling at about 52% going into the campaign to be confident of making a coalition after the election. That’s 7% or more above where they’re averaging in recent months.

Either Labour needs to get into the late 30%s and all but destroy National’s lead or the Greens need to go even further into uncharted territory and start polling near 20%.

Can it be done? Sure. With good policy and inspiring leadership. But it would be a fool who looks at the current polling and assumes it’ll happen.

90 comments on “Why I’m still worried ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny Kirk 1
    30 November 2012 at 8:27 am

    You are right to be worried, Zetetic. If people think there’ll be a left coalition after the 2014 election, they need to think again – and a bit more deeply.

    No-one appears to be taking into consideration the fact that there was a massive number of people who did not vote in the last election – and that these people would appear to be mainly Labour supporters – if only the Labour Party had been able to canvass them and persuade them to vote on election day. But this didn’t happen.

    Labour at the time did not seem relevant to these people, and – I regret to say – probably still does not seem relevant. Instead the Party put up a new Leader who could not tell them (or us) what Labour stood for (and still does not appear to know what Labour stands for). He has had to go around the country listening to people to find out. It would have been better if he’d read and understood the policies put up by Labour in the last couple of elections (instead of spending his summer holidays surfing at a northern beach). Labour’s values and what it stands for were very clearly spelt out in those policies.

    At the same time, while the Nats are steadily working on their plan to sell our country to their overseas interests, Labour is not making much of a dent in exposing them. And when the time comes for the next election, Shon Key will put the charm on, his strategists willl up the hype, people will forget they are opposed to sale of soes, or whatever, and the populace will be fooled once more into voting the Nats back into power.

    Its a dismal prospect. And the mainstream media, of course, are helping them. The conference I attended at Ellerslie last weekend was a very different conference to the one the MSM has reported on, as has been highlighted in other posts on this site.

  2. Craig Glen Eden 2
    30 November 2012 at 9:05 am

    Labour has big problems unless their is a full Leadership vote in February 2013 in my view. Labour will not get anywhere near National at the next election if Shearer is in charge.

    The main reason for this is many long term Labour activist I know well won’t hang round if Shearer stays. For absolute certainty I can only speak directly for three Labour activists in my family and 6 2 tick voters who all intend to vote Green with their Party vote if the current Labour leadership remain.
    Many of my friends who are long term Labour activists are voicing the same frustration with the current situation.
    This whole Labour old guard MSM media created Cunliffe leadership attempt at conference was a total beat up.As a result the most effective Labour front bencher has been moved to the back bench and is now not allowed to speak to the media in what has to be the most public example of bullying I have seen in a long time.

    I think the Greens will be the winners from this certainly in terms of their Party vote, depending on developments in the future with Labour they could also start to get some very previously committed Labour Party activists.

    • Olwyn 2.1
      30 November 2012 at 9:46 am

      I did not go to the LP conference as I was out of Auckland at the time, though I went to the meetings prior to it in which the changing role of the membership was discussed. By my reading, the caucus seems to have acted with the sort of bad faith one associates with something like the POAL/MUNZ dispute. It is as if the ABC’s said to the members, “OK, so you have voted yourselves a real say in the leadership, despite our urging otherwise. Well, we’ll make sure you have no one to vote for apart from us. Take that!” Because of this I have no trust or confidence in them whatsoever. It looks to me as if the party has once again been hijacked. So any policy they announce comes under suspicion of saying one thing but meaning another. I am also irritated by the way in which they speak as if they had authority when they do not. Their bad faith has robbed them of it. While the same configuration continues to rule the Labour Party I cannot vote Labour.

    • David H 2.2
      30 November 2012 at 11:39 am

      If they don’t sort this out, I think it will be
      the Nats get back in with Winston. And that will be the end of him, as his constituents will have a conniption fit.
      So 1st National
      2nd Greens
      3rd Labour
      4th NZ First
      5th Mana
      and the rest are all dead.

  3. vto 3
    30 November 2012 at 9:09 am

    Is it just me or is there a bit of a concerted effort at female bullying in Parliament.

    Some time ago the gardener Maggie Barry got stuck into Jacinda Adern about not commenting on motherhood until actually a mother. And now Paula Bennett having a crack at jacinda as well … ” zip it, sweetie”. Are they trying to shake Jacinda and see what falls out?

    Or is it just some rough and tumble fun in the mudpit?

    • karol 3.1
      30 November 2012 at 9:21 am

      Of course, the MSM picks up on this and not the outrageous stats being revealed  in response to the question.  Ardern just tweeted the whole incident off:

      Bennett telling me to ‘zip it sweetie’ was a first.Kids in the gallery could be forgiven for thinking they were watching a Hairspray revival

       Jacinda Ardern ‏@jacindaardern
      @leighhart70 might have noticed I wasn’t going to bother having the speaker up about it. I get the 50s charm pretty regularly.

      • vto 3.1.1
        30 November 2012 at 9:28 am

        Yep, I guess schoolyard behaviour is pretty easy to circumvent.

        What does she mean by 50’s charm? The charm of people from the 50s? Or the charm of people in their 50s? Either way that sort of dig could also be seen in similar light to the sweetie line, just from a different mangled angle.

    • felix 3.2
      30 November 2012 at 9:21 am

      Nasty pieces of work, those two.

      Nat men have always been misogynists but now they’re well advised to let the women on their side do the dirty work for them.

    • joe90 3.3
      30 November 2012 at 11:41 am

      You’d have to admit that the resemblance is absolutely Divine.

      • Rogue Trooper 3.3.1
        30 November 2012 at 1:40 pm

        that divine character crossed my mind just yesterday and the comparison I often see; Bennett is very
        very transparent, probably watched a lotta Betty Rizzo lines and Greasepaint

    • Colin 3.4
      3 December 2012 at 9:08 pm

      Jacinda Ardern is not a true Labour beliver she is just an inept career politician

  4. tarkwin 4
    30 November 2012 at 9:16 am

    As Craig unintentionally points out, the Greens are Labours real enemy. The sooner Labour realises this the better.

    • Socialist Paddy 4.1
      30 November 2012 at 9:25 am

      The greens are not Labour’s enemy.  The enemy are self serving careerists amongst Labour’s parliamentary ranks.

    • felix 4.2
      30 November 2012 at 9:25 am

      Bullshit tarkwin.

      The Greens are Labour’s only chance to ever get near government again, and if they aren’t deliberately working toward that outcome they’re dead already.

      • Sailor Sam 4.2.1
        1 December 2012 at 10:18 pm

        A Green-Labour government will be more likely, with Russel Norman as PM and David (Shearer/Cunliffe) as the leader of the minority party.
        Labour as we know it is finished it will not regain stature unless it stops hiding behind the “Rainbow Faction”.

    • fatty 4.3
      30 November 2012 at 9:28 am

      Not sure about that…MMP means they will be together after the next election, dunno how that makes them enemies. Labour’s enemy is the greed that pulses through the veins of their incompetent and out of touch inner circle. Labour’s enemy is their self-centred MPs who think they can waltz into power in 2014 with a bumbling leader.

    • Jackal 4.4
      30 November 2012 at 10:08 am

      Don’t be an idiot tarkwin. The Greens are Labours best chance at winning the next election. If Labour turns on the Greens it will not help them in any way whatsoever. They would have to adopt the same juvenile attack lines of the Nats and then the chorus of Labour lite would start all over again. Besides, there’s very little to attack the Greens on, being that Labour is mostly in agreement with them on policy matters and have shown they can already work together. If Labour was to undermine a coalition deal with the Greens by focusing on the wrong target, they will be doing their chances at becoming the next government no favours at all.

      I disagree with Zetetic’s analysis here. Firstly there’s already a buffer in place that MSM polling doesn’t recognize. Polling for the Greens and Labour is consistently bellow what they actually attain at election time. There’s also more chance that NZ First will side with a left wing coalition, being that both Winston Peters and John Key have said they cannot work together. It’s only been Key who later proclaimed he could work with Winston after it became apparent Act and United Future would be toast after the next election.

      The fact that the left lost some ground during campaigning wasn’t related to how effective Phil Goff was as a debater, it was related to the amount of coverage each side attained from the MSM. A recent study showed that John Key had twice as much coverage as Phil Goff in the countries most read newspapers. The same bias was apparent on TV as well. There is no doubt that coverage equals votes, so ensuring that bias doesn’t occur again is paramount to having a fair fight. Shearer has already demonstrated on numerous occasions that he’s a match for John Key. In fact he’s likely to utterly trounce the deluded investment banker.

      I think Labour will easily get into the mid thirties and the Greens will continue to grow their vote. They should look at a confidence and supply agreement with NZ First and the Maori party. It would be nice to see a Motion of No Confidence bringing about a snap election sometime in the near future, but it might be better for the left to wait until they’re sure to rise and have the numbers to form a strong left government focused on fixing the damage to New Zealand the neo-liberal agenda has caused.

      • weka 4.4.1
        30 November 2012 at 10:46 am

        “There’s also more chance that NZ First will side with a left wing coalition, being that both Winston Peters and John Key have said they cannot work together.”
         
        I’d rather not rely on ‘more chance’ esp when Peters’ defining characteristic is self-interest. His other defining characteristic is that he changes his mind (or lies depending on how you see it).
         
        He’s said he won’t work with the Greens, why do you believe his statement about NACT but not his statement about the GP?
         

        • Jackal 4.4.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 12:50 pm

          Do try to keep up weka… You’re making assumptions on NZ Firsts pre-election statement that they would not work with any other party. Winston Peters has more recently stated:

          GREG In 2005, you went into government with Labour, but only on the condition that Greens were not included. Do you still rule working with the Greens out?

          WINSTON Well, again, you know, if these discussions are important, the facts are important as well. We didn’t go into government with the Labour Party. We had a confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party. At the time, we could not see how we could reconcile our policies with the Green Party’s policies, and that’s what we said. As for the future, well, we’ll see how things develop.

          […]

          GREG Whatever you want to call it, though, can you rule out any NZ First-National coalition, supply, whatever you want to call it? Can you rule out any agreement with National come 2014?

          WINSTON We have never ruled agreements in or out before the public has had a chance to vote. And if I could just make this request: please do not ask Winston Peters or NZ First to start answering questions about forming coalitions two and a half years out from an election or one year out or six months out, because we have never fallen for that, and in that respect, we have been the only party who has never done that.

          GREG John Key has said he’s not going to rule out working with you. Is that not just a little bit insulting?

          WINSTON Well, I don’t really respond to what John Key says and does. He has all sorts of pretentious statements about things and values. This is someone who worked for one of the most corrupt business in the world, namely Merrill Lynch.

          Clearly Winston Peters hasn’t lied… He’s merely positioned NZ First so that they can be a part of the next government.

          Being that his comments about John Key are thoroughly negative (and entirely justifiable in my opinion), it would seem an untenable position for him to work with the National party in its current form.

          The right wing are simply desperate that NZ First will help them form a government, because they currently don’t have the numbers, which is why there is all this talk of Winston working alongside Key… A bit like chalk and cheese if you ask me.

          • weka 4.4.1.1.1
            30 November 2012 at 1:05 pm

            Leaving aside your patronising opener, Peters lied to his constituency in the 1996 election where many people voted for NZF because they thought he would form a coalition with Labour, and instead he went with National and enabled them to form government (he also undermined the credibility of the new MMP system, which we have never really gotten over). Voters left NZF in droves after that. If you believe that what Peters says is reliable, by all means do so, but it’s a risk I don’t think the left should be taking. At best he is an if all else fails option.
             
            As for his recent utterances about NACT and the Greens, he’s just hedging his bets like he always has, and I see no evidence at all that he is willing to work with the Greens. Closer to the election he might start to make noises about being open to that (without of course committing himself to anything, but (a) I still wouldn’t trust anything he says pre-election (see my first point), and (b) it’s not a risk the left should be taking (relying on him). 
             
            btw, the bits you quote support my argument not yours. The guy is not reliable.
             
            There are other reasons to be very wary of Peters, not least that the ABCs’ policies are closer to his. Which just brings us to you being more supportive of a centre left govt than those of us who want a left govt.

            • Jackal 4.4.1.1.1.1
              30 November 2012 at 2:18 pm

              The opener was slightly patronizing because you’re clearly deluded weka and trying to promote untruths again.

              Winston says:

              As for the future, well, we’ll see how things [Green coalition] develop.

              First weka says:

              He’s said he won’t work with the Greens.

              Then contradicts:

              I see no evidence at all that he is willing to work with the Greens.

              Meanwhile the Greens, Labour and NZ First have been working together on a number of things… Here’s an example that shows you’re ideologically blinded to the possibility of a Greens/Labour/NZ First coalition.

              Which just brings us to you being more supportive of a centre left govt than those of us who want a left govt.

              Get real weka… It’s not about a me supporting a centre left or left government, it’s about the left halting internal bickering and focusing on what the real problem is. Without the left focusing on National’s destructive agenda, there won’t be a centre left or left government to choose from. In other words, you won’t get a left government by undermining the centre left… It’s as simple as that.

              • weka …
                30 November 2012 at 4:33 pm

                Are you denying that Peters has previously said he won’t work with the Greens?
                 
                Saying he will see how things develop is Peters speak for I’ll jump whichever way I damn well please when the time comes. Hardly an expression of good faith to work with a potential coalition partner.
                 
                You are naive in the extreme if you think Peters is reliable.
                 
                As for the work that L/GP/NZF have done together, that’s great. It doesn’t show an intent or ability to form a govt together.
                 
                I’ve asked quite a few times on ts for someone to describe how they see a L/GP/NZF coalition working. No-one has done that yet. So by all means tell us how you see it working in real world terms: who would be doing what, what kinds of policies would be supported, what compromises etc.
                 

                First weka says:

                He’s said he won’t work with the Greens.

                Then contradicts:

                I see no evidence at all that he is willing to work with the Greens.
                 

                That’s not a contradiction. Methinks you are making shit up about my words 🙄 He has said in the past that he won’t work with the GP in a govt. And nothing he has said since suggests that that has changed in any meaningful way.

          • Rogue Trooper 4.4.1.1.2
            30 November 2012 at 1:46 pm

            I remember that interview Greg like it was yesterday; just sniffing around Jackal

          • Rogue Trooper 4.4.1.1.3
            30 November 2012 at 1:49 pm

            I remember that interview Greg like it was yesterday; just sniffing around Jackal 🙂 may be a duplicate
            rogue comment; freakin technology 😉

          • Fortran 4.4.1.1.4
            30 November 2012 at 2:06 pm

            Jackal

            Winston is Prostitute – he will sell his body to the highest bidder whatever, and the MSM will continue to give him enormous support as they did at the last election.
            I am sure that without the MSM support he did not expect to be back in Parliament.

            • Jackal 4.4.1.1.4.1
              30 November 2012 at 2:44 pm

              Winston gained pre-election media attention because he had the guts to let the public know what John Key and Banks said on a somewhat notorious tea pot tape. As far as I can tell, there was no bias in the amount of coverage NZ First attained.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.4.1.1.5
            30 November 2012 at 2:50 pm

            Being that his comments about John Key are thoroughly negative (and entirely justifiable in my opinion), it would seem an untenable position for him to work with the National party in its current form.

            And everybody thought the same in 1996 as well.

      • gobsmacked 4.4.2
        30 November 2012 at 11:25 am

        If Labour turns on the Greens it will not help them in any way whatsoever.

        Agreed. But Shane Jones has been attacking the Greens, openly and unpleasantly. With the tacit approval of the Labour leadership.

        Jones clearly hasn’t been disloyal to his leader, because Shearer is very tough on disloyalty, isn’t he?

        Polling for the Greens and Labour is consistently below what they actually attain at election time.

        Not true for Labour in 2011. It’s true that in 2005, Labour got the vote out. Different leader, different party activists, different times. Gone now.

        The same bias was apparent on TV as well. There is no doubt that coverage equals votes

        For David Shearer, the opposite is true. Labour have gone up in the polls this year when the media focus has been on Key and the government screwing up. When the leader of the opposition is Kim Dotcom or John Campbell or school principals, Labour do OK (by default). When the official leader of the opposition pops up, not so much.

        Shearer has already demonstrated on numerous occasions that he’s a match for John Key. In fact he’s likely to utterly trounce the deluded investment banker.

        And we’re jumping the shark …

        • Colonial Viper 4.4.2.1
          30 November 2012 at 1:07 pm

          And we’re jumping the shark …

          +1 what the frak is it with the Shearer Bearers?

          How is it that they think a statement like Shearer has “demonstrated on numerous occasions that he’s a match for John Key. In fact he’s likely to utterly trounce the delubded investment banker” is not going to be met with immediate and incredulous derision?

        • Jackal 4.4.2.2
          30 November 2012 at 1:57 pm

          It’s a bit confusing when you conflate two entirely separate incidents in an attempt to undermine Shearers leadership gobsmacked… Please try not to do that.

          Firstly we don’t know if Shane Jones has the support of his party or Shearer when he has attacked the Greens, it’s likely he doesn’t. Do you honestly expect Shearer to publicly chastise Jones over his statements? Get real FFS! It’s more likely that Jones is simply mouthing off, especially considering many of his statements contradict what Labours actual policy states. The same can be said about Su’a William Sio and his opposition to the same-sex marriage bill. I disagree with both of them btw, but defend their right to have an opinion and make it public if they want to.

          The problem here is that many on the left are arguing for censorship of MPs who have differing beliefs to those that the majority of their party and members support. The MSM has used this in an attempt to undermine Labour by painting it as divided, when it’s by far more cohesive and co-operative than National could ever be. Labour’s division is simply a right wing marketing campaign that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

          In terms of David Cunliffe’s demotion, the MSM and many leftwing bloggers basically gave Shearer little choice but to stamp his authority as leader of the Labour party. Wrongly or rightly the public perception was that Cunliffe was being disloyal. In fact whatever he said was manipulated and used against Labour, even when he emphatically voiced his support for Shearer and voted to retain him as leader. So don’t blame Labour, blame misreporting and deluded commentators.

          Your assertion that the polling has favoured Labour when Shearer is not in the news is blatantly false. Firstly there was a lot of negative coverage during the last round of polling that was designed to undermine Labour. This overshadowed Labours housing policy and other positive aspects of their conference, and while getting yourself in the news is usually a good thing for politicians, the purely negative coverage surrounding the supposed leadership challenge had the opposite effect and meant a reduction in support of 1%. Besides, we’re placing far to much merit in polling, which have a huge margin of error and favour the right wing anyway.

          I’m not jumping the shark either… My observation is that Shearer is a competent orator and experienced debater. He also believes in what Labour wants to achieve. John Key on the other hand still mumbles like an illiterate fool, and obviously has lost much of his drive to remain Prime Minister.

          • Sunny 4.4.2.2.1
            30 November 2012 at 3:14 pm

            @ Jackal.

            Mate, you’ve GOT to be kidding! Poor old Shearer is cringe making bad. An orator?! He’s ghastly, appalling and, as far as I can make out, tricksy!

            He makes Goff look like JFK ! And Goff was useless with his grin and his motorbike and his weird strut thing he adopted a la Pagini…Goff lost the election despite our loyalty and Shearer will lose the next one…if we let him (or Robertson) hang on to the leadership. Democracy now!

            • Jackal 4.4.2.2.1.1
              30 November 2012 at 3:47 pm

              So you’re basically saying that Labour will lose the next election no matter who is leader… I think you’re wrong! You do realize that saying Shearer is cringe making bad and also tricksy is a contradiction in terms? Perhaps you might like to work on your insults a bit before commenting further Sunny.

  5. Blue 5
    30 November 2012 at 9:35 am

    This theory is at odds with Labour’s idea that they can sleepwalk to victory doing nothing more than waiting for John Key to stuff up and hoping that Shearer will transmogrify into a fantastic political leader overnight if they wish it hard enough.

    • karol 5.1
      30 November 2012 at 9:43 am

      Yet Chris Trotter has made this claim:

      Persistent questioning would also have uncovered evidence that it was supporters of Grant Robertson, not Mr Cunliffe, who had been gauging the level of support for a leadership spill in the weeks leading up to the Conference. No hint of these alternative narratives appeared anywhere in the MSM.

      But if Robertson aims to replace Shearer, isn’t he already tainted by the way Cunliffe was taken out?

      • Blue 5.1.1
        30 November 2012 at 9:58 am

        Robertson kept his hands clean this time – Shearer’s the one who got dirty over the Cunliffe demotion.

        But if Robertson wants the job, he’s going to have a fight on his hands. Shearer’s not so much a malleable patsy as he is gifted with deluded, born-to-rule arrogance. He’s not giving the job up, so Robertson will have to knife him. And that will leave a stain.

  6. Craig Glen Eden 6
    30 November 2012 at 9:41 am

    The other thing I think we will see is some bleeding of Nat vote to NZF and the Conservatives, this is also going to compound Labours problems, because that would appear to be the vote they are trying to attract with Shearer.
    The so called left might get their but not without Winston making NZF a even stronger factor/influence than before.

  7. Matthew Hooton 7
    30 November 2012 at 9:43 am

    You should be worried. The poll at http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2012/4842 gives NZ First the balance of power. He will always prefer to be the number two party in a National-led government than the number three in a Labour/Green-led one. Plus, he is so small-c conservative he will always choose the incumbent (Bolger in 1996 and Clark in 2005). Also, National will give him anything and will agree to knight him. So Labour/Green need to hit 48% of the vote between them to be assured of governing. One proviso though – there is a (small) possibility the National caucus would rebel if the leadership sought to do a deal with Peters. If Peters responded by saying he would abstain on confidence and supply, that might hand power to Labour/Green (as long as it had one more MP than National/UF/etc). Obviously such an outcome would be a fiasco (as any outcome always is that involves Peters having power) and the better outcome for NZ is always a National-led or Labour/Green-led government over one that involves him in any way whatsoever.

    • ianmac 7.1
      30 November 2012 at 9:59 am

      Roy Morgan noted: “Ongoing leadership tensions — particularly in the main Opposition Labour Party between Labour Leader David Shearer and leadership contender David Cunliffe — appear to explain why Labour has been unable to present the united front it needs to increase its vote and close the gap with Key’s governing National.”
      And still the wranglers snipe away at Labour Leadership to assist National’s cause.

      • Jackal 7.1.1
        30 November 2012 at 10:19 am

        +1 Now they have presented the next contender for the throne in an attempt to rejuvenate a tired old and largely demented debate. Meanwhile commentators are heaping praise on Judith Collins and Jerry Brownlee as possible leaders of the National party, but there’s no talk of any backstabbing on the right wing of course… It’s all fluffy bunnies over their.

        • David H 7.1.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 11:52 am

          Collins and Brownlee??? for Leaders of the National Party?? Oh please, as they both have as much charisma, and finesse, as a Bull frog at mating time.

      • Anne 7.1.2
        30 November 2012 at 11:13 am

        And still the wranglers snipe away at Labour Leadership to assist National’s cause.

        Bear in mind who the wranglers really are.

        It’s not David Cunliffe or his supporters in caucus and elsewhere.

        Craig Glen Eden is right. It was the worst case of public mischief and bullying (by a relatively small bunch of petulant caucus members who were sorely miffed because a majority of Conference delegates dared to vote for more say in the Party’s internal affairs) that I have witnessed.

        We’ll blame it on David Cunliffe. We’ll claim it was all a set-up by him and his supporters to topple Shearer.

        In the fabled words of Tim Shadbolt… bullshit and jellybeans!

        It will be interesting to see who is ‘demoted’ come the caucus re-shuffle. Will most of Cunliffe’s supporters be vanished to the back benches too? Intelligent and able performers like Charles Chauval and Sue Moroney (to name just two of them) in the interest of spite and vengeance?

        • David H 7.1.2.1
          30 November 2012 at 12:04 pm

          Those that should go to the back are Mallard, King, & Hipkins, for starters. But if the Media is true to form in about January whispers will start. 99% chance it will be Gower at TV3 that starts them, but they will start. So a couple of things need to happen 1: Shearer needs to step down. 2: A DEMOCRATIC (No Media allowed) vote HAS to be taken and abided by. 3: The Dinosaurs (they know who they are) need to resign, and let some new blood, with new ideas in. And TV3 Need to find out the cost of their bullshit!

        • Crimson Nile 7.1.2.2
          30 November 2012 at 12:07 pm

          It has already been said by others, but when there are two significant power blocks in caucus, real leadership would find a way of bringing them together. The authoritarian approach of ‘divide and rule’ runs completely counter to the values of a left wing party.

          • Anne 7.1.2.2.1
            30 November 2012 at 12:59 pm

            So true Crimson Nile.

            It is very sad indeed that David Shearer has allowed himself to be hoodwinked by the ABC gang. I guess it’s an example of his lack of political experience. I’ve used the word before but I use it again… the whole scenario smacks of ‘paranoia’. Just like the good old days when Cold War paranoia was at it’s peak, this caucus gang (and their mates) saw a conspiracy where there wasn’t a conspiracy. They saw disloyalty where there wasn’t disloyalty. They misinterpreted any criticism – no matter how mild – as evidence of a widespread campaign to undermine them and David Shearer.

            They will never publicly admit it of course, but if David Shearer wants to mend the badly broken fences there are three things he must do:

            He must reinstate David Cunliffe to the Front Bench and with his economic portfolio.

            He must brush aside all efforts to get him to punish Cunliffe’s caucus supporters because they have done nothing to deserve it.

            He must reach out to ALL members and supporters and show us he is genuine in his desire for a united caucus and party.

            • Colin 7.1.2.2.1.1
              3 December 2012 at 9:27 pm

              All true Shearer is being set up by Grant Roberston who hopes to lead after disposing of Shearer

        • Anne 7.1.2.3
          30 November 2012 at 12:13 pm

          @ 7.1.2
          ooops… the word is vanquished – not vanished.

    • fatty 7.2
      30 November 2012 at 10:13 am

      Obviously such an outcome would be a fiasco (as any outcome always is that involves Peters having power) and the better outcome for NZ is always a National-led or Labour/Green-led government over one that involves him in any way whatsoever.

      Except of course the last time Peters was in a coalition with Labour, that was quite stable. You persistent framing of Peters as being unstable within a coalition is only true within a National led coalition. Scaremongering probably works with the simpletons, but you’ll have to do better than that here…its getting a bit tiresome
      Just because Peters walked all over National last time they were in power together does not mean it will happen again. At the moment we have the Maori Party and ACT within a stable coalition, despite their ideological differences.

      • Enough is Enough 7.2.1
        30 November 2012 at 10:50 am

        It was stable… but it is also arguable that the Peters/Glenn saga (“beat up”) contributed to the electorate fatigue of the Labour government. If Peters hadn’t been part of that government I think Helen would have got her fourth term and his stench stuck to her.

        History tell us that if Peters is in your government you will prbably be kicked out at the next election

        • fatty 7.2.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 11:16 am

          but it is also arguable that the Peters/Glenn saga (“beat up”) contributed to the electorate fatigue of the Labour government.

          Nah, National were way ahead in the polls before that happened. NZ had become sick of the (imagined) nanny-state and Helen Clark had overstayed her welcome. As a country we had experienced a sustained period of economic growth (also imagined – via a housing bubble) which meant that the public began to tire of Clarke’s authoritarian image and an easy going Donkey suited the voters. At that time the NZ public couldn’t see the impending GFC. Clark was never going to get that 4th term against Donkey, not in that economic environment. NZ’s libertarian nature came through.
          Can’t blame Winston for that, the 2008 loss was due to the public discourse that centred on shower heads, school tuck-shop regulations and lightbulbs. The 9 years of perceived economic stability meant that economic protection from the government was no longer desired by voters, instead voters wanted freedom from bureaucracy. My guess is that there were very few voters who had voted Red in 2002/2005 that switched to Blue because of Peters. It was poor PR from Labour, and exceptional PR from National.

          • millsy 7.2.1.1.1
            1 December 2012 at 12:19 pm

            IMO Labour’s 2008 election loss was probably the best thing to happen to the left. Clark had been Labour leader for too long and her government wasant all that left wing. Especially when she took on United Future as C and S partners. The next Labour government will probably be more left-wing than the last one was. It may not be as left as some on here may want it to be, but I think it will be willing to at least think about taking the knife to neo-liberalism’s sacred cows.

      • Matthew Hooton 7.2.2
        30 November 2012 at 11:07 am

        I don’t know where you get the idea Peters walked over National in the 1996-1998 government. He used to read out whatever Bill Birch put in front of him, including asset sales, just as he read out Helen Clark’s talking points on foreign policy (despite opposing her number one foreign policy objective, the China FTA, and supporting the War on Terror, which she was, at best, lukewarm on). Policywise, he delivers stability, it is just that (1) it is inherently absurd having a conman like him in high office and (2) there will always be some sort of temper tantrum or ethics scandal that will prevent the government being re-elected. I agree with Enough is Enough: had Clark won just enough in 2005 to not need Peters then I think she would have got a 4th term.

        • fatty 7.2.2.1
          30 November 2012 at 11:35 am

          I don’t know where you get the idea Peters walked over National in the 1996-1998 government.

          Because I never said from 1996-1998, I said National. Peters pulled support in 1998 and the Nat’s coalition fell to pieces. Wiki has all the details

          he read out Helen Clark’s talking points on foreign policy (despite opposing her number one foreign policy objective, the China FTA, and supporting the War on Terror, which she was, at best, lukewarm on). Policywise, he delivers stability,

          Exactly, he was stable for Labour.

          it is just that (1) it is inherently absurd having a conman like him in high office and (2) there will always be some sort of temper tantrum or ethics scandal that will prevent the government being re-elected.

          Yeah, except that never happened when he was part of the last coalition with Labour. Ethically he’s no different from most Labour and National ministers, or Peter Dunne / Act etc.

          I agree with Enough is Enough: had Clark won just enough in 2005 to not need Peters then I think she would have got a 4th term.

          thought you would, see my post above. Labour’s loss in 2008 had nothing to do with Winston.

  8. ak 8
    30 November 2012 at 11:04 am

    History tell us that if Peters is in your government you will prbably be kicked out at the next election

    Nup. It tells you that if anyone looks remotely like holding the balance of power, the no-mates gnats will either mercilessly crucify them at the drop of a hat or promise them the earth.

    Crucifixion’s out this time, the promises will have begun already. And the Hooters are paving the way. Hilarious to anyone who can remember what they did to and wrote about Winnie in 08. Sorry, Hooter, but he certainly can.

    • Matthew Hooton 8.1
      30 November 2012 at 11:14 am

      I remember exactly what I said and wrote about him in 2008. That’s he’s a liar, a crook, and thief and he should have gone to jail. BTW, anyone know how the so-called Susan Couch Trust is getting on? Did she ever get anything? Be assured, I wrote above what I think WILL happen not what I WANT to happen. And I think what WILL happen, if Labour/Green/Mana don’t have the numbers, is that he will back National and National will accommodate that (absent a backbench revolt).

      • thatguynz 8.1.1
        30 November 2012 at 11:42 am

        So given the opportunity what would you write about John Banks or Don Brash?

        • McFlock 8.1.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 12:09 pm

          lol
             
          John Banks is a fine upstanding citizen with private sector success being matched by a long history of public service and an unmatched reputation for integrity.
           
          Winston Peters a liar, a crook, and thief and he should have gone to jail.
                 
           
          Hang on, did I get those around the right way? 🙂
           

        • thatguynz 8.1.1.2
          1 December 2012 at 12:50 am

          As expected Matthew, nothing.. Stop trying to position yourself as a political commentator. You are nothing but a spin doctor and when asked to think, you shirk… I expected more but I guess more fool me.

      • ak 8.1.2
        30 November 2012 at 11:49 am

        Backbench tory revolt. To stay out of power. Ta Matto, needed that, I DID 🙂
        Sorry old son, but I can tell you now, he WON’T.

      • vto 8.1.3
        30 November 2012 at 12:46 pm

        Mr Hooton, you go on about Peters being a coork (I mean a crook) and a thief, as if this figures in your assessments of the use and integrity of people in political power.

        How do you get on with John Key, John Banks, Nick Smith, David Carter, on it goes? Thinking Ecan and the lies around the initial sacking and the extension of the dictatorship. And similarly the rort around South Canterbury Finance. There are countless examples.

        I am just curious. Do you just turn a blind eye to similar acts on your side of the political rainbow?

      • geoff 8.1.4
        30 November 2012 at 3:12 pm

        Speaking of liars and such, have you read this book, Matthew?
        http://www.thehollowmen.co.nz/

      • RedBaron 8.1.5
        30 November 2012 at 10:34 pm

        Er Matt how do you figure into your sledging of Winston, the winebox?
        Showed a bunch of right wing dirty dealings from memory and I always figured that the beat up about him around the 2008 election was somebody getting even with him over the winebox disclosures. Massive distraction that all came to zero in terms of wrongdoing.

        Must have been the right’s worst nightmare when he got back in, in 2011.

        • felix 8.1.5.1
          1 December 2012 at 12:46 am

          Hmm, there’s probably a pretty good intersection between ACT party funders and winebox actors. The crooks who looted the common wealth in the 80s are the same crooks who set up the party, after all.

  9. Brett Dale 9
    30 November 2012 at 12:12 pm

    At the actual election The Greens never get the percentage that they poll at.

    No one seems to want to admit this on these boards.

    • felix 9.1
      30 November 2012 at 12:39 pm

      Hey Brett, do you remember what you were predicting for the Greens last time?

      About 7% wasn’t it?

      • Crimson Nile 9.1.1
        30 November 2012 at 12:46 pm

        There are Labour activists in Wellington who feel that the Greens can’t possibly go higher than 14% or at a push 15% in 2014, even in an extreme circumstance. Not sure if that’s based on some kind of substantial analysis, or simply vain hope.

        • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 12:57 pm

          Assuming the Labour party gets it’s act together, I think that’s a reasonable belief to hold.

          However if Labour doesn’t get their act together, which at the moment they don’t look like they will, then it’s a vain hope.

    • Lanthanide 9.2
      30 November 2012 at 12:56 pm

      Neither does National. Or NZ First for that matter. What’s your point?

    • lprent 9.3
      30 November 2012 at 1:09 pm

      Huh? I point that out regularly. What do you read me saying?

      The typical drop is in the order to 1-2%

      I also regularly “admit” that National regularly polls 2-3% above what they receive on the day. NZF will often get a few percent more than they poll on the day. Labour is usually pretty close.

      These are all systematic and long standing biases in the polls.

    • millsy 9.4
      1 December 2012 at 12:22 pm

      They got a lot more than they got at previous elections.

  10. lefty 10
    30 November 2012 at 12:57 pm

    No coalition could survive having the enormous egos of both Winston Peters and Russel Norman in it.

    And would a coalition of Shearer, Peters and Norman be left of National?

  11. kiwicommie 11
    30 November 2012 at 1:20 pm

    I would be more concerned about the polls in mid 2013, then will be a pretty telling sign of whether the Key cult has lost its popularity.

  12. Treetop 12
    30 November 2012 at 1:54 pm

    When I hear Labour in the house speaking passionately about a policy issue in a news item I feel good about the Labour party. King did this, this morning about city councils now being restricted. The Labour party have to get the media behind them, they have to bring Cunliffe back as finance minister and put forward at question time a lot of economic questions.

    Labour get the big guns out, ask the big policy questions and complain loudly if there is media bias.

    Shearer needs to take up a portfolio which is suited to his work at the UN and if he does not shine, dump him in mid 2013 as then I will be convinced that he does not have what it takes to be leader.

    • RedBaron 12.1
      30 November 2012 at 10:36 pm

      Given the media are in right wing pockets Labour might have more success if they had the blogs behind them!

  13. michael 13
    30 November 2012 at 2:55 pm

    If a rump Labour caucus, comprised of members in the safest seats and at the top of the list, has to do deals with NZ First and the Greens in order to move into the Beehive, it can continue with “business as usual” and won’t have to implement the policy changes the membership want. I concede that the Greens are likely to drive any changes that do take place, but “Labour” can always point to Winston as its excuse for not introducing them. All Winston wants, apart from the baubles of office of course, is a bit of xenophobia from the ninth floor, to scare foreigners away (and their money, too). The Greens don’t want foreigners raping and pillaging what remains of the environment, so they’ll probably go along with it, leaving Labour to run the ship of state on autopilot, with the helm set somewhere to the right of dead ahead.

    • kiwicommie 13.1
      30 November 2012 at 3:24 pm

      National wants to turn NZ into the Japan of the 19th to mid 20th century.

      • the pigman 13.1.1
        1 December 2012 at 2:26 am

        Fuck knows what you think you are talking about. Meiji Era Japan was a manufacturing paradise that, throughly highly interventionalist government policy, pursued the expansion of trade, the import of raw materials to supply all of Asia with manufactured goods.

        Actually, I’m not sure you know, either…

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1
          1 December 2012 at 7:04 am

          The Japanese also ended up supplying all of Asia with advanced tanks, destroyers, aircraft carriers, bombers,…

    • George D 13.2
      30 November 2012 at 5:21 pm

      Exactly. A Labour-Green government could mean real change, if Labour have a leadership that is actually inspired by change, rather than simply governing, and if NZFirst’s reactionary constituency have no influence over policy.

      Otherwise, we’re back to the last term of the 5th Labour Government, which was certainly better than the alternative, but lacked the ability to inspire anyone. It’s no wonder they lost so spectacularly.

  14. princess 14
    30 November 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Bit shy about making a comment, but certainly hope Labour get as many votes as possible at the next election. Amen.

    • r0b 14.1
      30 November 2012 at 11:09 pm

      Welcome princess, please don’t be shy. If you’ve been watching a while you know there’s all sorts of people here. Don’t let the loons upset you, talk to the interesting ones….

    • Treetop 14.2
      1 December 2012 at 4:13 pm

      I make heaps of spelling mistakes and see them after I comment, so I remind myself it is not a spelling bee.
      I have my ups and downs with content, some days my brain works better than others.
      I have my favourite subjects, some subjects bore me.
      The laughs are free, I like a good laugh even at myself.
      I don’t let anyone upset me with a smart arse reply, the smart arse could be a neighbour or a relative and next time I see them I could be greeted warmly.