Willie on the unions

Written By: - Date published: 7:05 pm, February 6th, 2017 - 201 comments
Categories: accountability, Unions - Tags: ,

“Matt McCarten is one to watch. He’s developing his union. I don’t have much time for [the established unions]. I hope my mate Matt destroys them.” – 2005 – link

 

 

201 comments on “Willie on the unions ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Saarbo 1
    6 February 2017 at 7:33 pm

    Im guessing one could dig up plenty of shit on Willie, he does a lot of talking.

    He’s a great choice for Labour.

  2. Keith 2
    6 February 2017 at 7:46 pm

    I’m guessing this little dig is an anti Willie post. Which is just fantastic in election year. Unity and a solid determination to keep National along with their housing crisis, low income, sleeping in cars social programme precisely on track for three more years as recommended by The Standard.

    • Wainwright 2.1
      6 February 2017 at 8:04 pm

      When was it decided “unity” was just another way of saying “shut up and do what you’re told?” If you want mindless groupthink go join the Nats. Since he hates unions so much that might be good advice for Willy too.

      • jcuknz 2.1.1
        7 February 2017 at 9:26 am

        But the Nats are government and Labour opposition …. organised v. dis org.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 9:29 am

          Obviously the spelling and syntax guide for this week’s talking points hasn’t arrived yet.

    • Anne 2.2
      6 February 2017 at 8:25 pm

      Whoever put this up doesn’t give a damm about a Labour- led government. A childish post… we hate Willie Jackson and we’re gonna destroy him cos that’s what matters to us – nothing else.

      I have no strong feelings either way about Jackson but this is pathetic. Front up author and don’t hide behind Ns and Fs.

    • Gabby 2.3
      6 February 2017 at 8:32 pm

      Smacko Jacko has a great opportunity to be an object lesson on actions and consequences.

  3. bwaghorn 3
    6 February 2017 at 8:20 pm

    Saves old whale oil doing the hit a suppose, 2005 was a long time ago , what does he think now one wonders?

  4. Keith 4
    6 February 2017 at 8:34 pm

    Jackson was a union man and unions post Employments Contracts Act more or less made themselves redundant and I can well recall the blind stupidity of some. Modern Unions are tge future and he supported McCartens version.

    Mindless groupthink? Yep just have a full on fight in front of the public, fuck the leadership, don’t discuss anything quietly first, just go postal. All that matters is you! Honestly who the hell wants to vote for an organisation that cannot talk, cannot plan. It tells me Labour are a disorganised backstabbing bunch of idiots.

    And do you think for a single moment everybody’s personal preference in something as broad as a political party can somehow be accomodated? Not even in ACT i imagine do they think that.

    All I know is I dont have to vote National because some idiot who thinks the world revolves around them, on the left, will ensure they get National across the line anyway they can.

    So lets just put on hold for 3 more years at least any hope of housing, welfare, health and education reforms to name a few because the left will never get its act together! At least unity won’t be needed then.

    • Anne 4.1
      6 February 2017 at 9:26 pm

      It tells me Labour are a disorganised backstabbing bunch of idiots.

      The backstabbing bunch of idiots are a small minority Keith. Believe me. I’ve been
      around the Labour Party (both close to the inner circle and on the periphery) for so long I’m reluctant to admit how long. 😉

      But the time has come for someone to be made an example of… because these are the people who have kept Labour out of office more than in it.

      • Keith 4.1.1
        6 February 2017 at 9:30 pm

        I’ll take your word for it. I too really wonder if a few in Labour never want to make it to government!

        • jcuknz 4.1.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 9:30 am

          “Keith I’ll take your word for it. I too really wonder if a few in Labour never want to make it to government!”
          They prefer principles to governing LOL

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 10:02 am

            Whereas the National Party has no principles and is completely shit at governing.

            “LOL” 🙄

          • Gabby 4.1.1.1.2
            7 February 2017 at 10:12 am

            You’d like it if they were a carbon copy of nuttyanal would you ? They could do a Dutch auction on who can be less Laboury. Jacko can be Labour’s Sobbin’ Mike.

      • Darien Fenton 4.1.2
        7 February 2017 at 6:28 am

        People have legitimate concerns about the process Anne. The leader has pre announced (a) someone’s membership (which has to be approved by the council and (b) acceptance of his waiver because he’s only just joined to stand on the list and (c) his high list place (which is supposed to go through the regional conferences and moderating committee first). None of this debate would be taking place in public if there hadn’t been a media announcement – not made by “backstabbers” by the way. Remember all the fights over the constitution and the right of members to be involved in selections / leaders etc? Was that all for nothing? You sound like Kim Jong Il “someone must be made an example of.”

        • Ross 4.1.2.1
          7 February 2017 at 7:27 am

          Darien, I can only assume Labour has thoroughly enjoyed being in Opposition for the last 9 years, so much so that it wants to remain there. If you want to question WJ’s suitability for the role of MP, it’d be useful to talk to him about that.

          • Darien Fenton 4.1.2.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 10:31 am

            Well actually ; I know Willie and probably a lot better than you. Its not my job to question him. Or to put out there for all to see my experiences of him. This isn’t about Willie as I’ve said. It’s about the democratic processes of the labour party : hard fought for and won, yet shit upon in a stroke.

            • Mr Nobody 4.1.2.1.1.1
              7 February 2017 at 10:49 am

              It seems most of us agree the Andrew has (as you state) “Shit upon” the Labour Party’s democratic processes so what is going to happen?

              Is he going to be held to account by the party or are we looking at New Zealand’s Donald Trump and the process he plans to employ if he becomes Prime Minister?

              And if he can’t follow his own Party’s democratic processes how can “mainstream” New Zealanders trust him to follow their country’s democratic processes?

              • Darien Fenton …
                7 February 2017 at 1:19 pm

                Im desperate on behalf of union workers for a change. But it can’t be at any cost. I well remember the 1980s when the excuses were similar : shut up or put at risk a Labour Government. Some did, some didn’t. I know who paid the price. I’m keen to support a Labour led government and will do everything I can, but don’t expect everyone to shut up when our values cross the line.

        • marty mars 4.1.2.2
          7 February 2017 at 8:27 am

          So it is Andrew little that has dropped the ball? What did he say when you told him that?

          • marty mars 4.1.2.2.1
            7 February 2017 at 10:57 am

            Oh sorry – andrew little has shat upon the democratic processes of the labour party? Jeepers another SHIT year coming up for lefties i sense.

            • red-blooded 4.1.2.2.1.1
              8 February 2017 at 8:01 am

              Hey guys, Little hasn’t pre-announced a high list ranking; he’s made it clear he’d like one. There’s a difference.

              I’m not Jackson’s greatest fan – he’s said some stupid things in his time. Having said that, talkback radio depends on the hosts being a bit extreme and provoking a reaction. I think perhaps we all need to calm down a bit and those of us who are members can participate in the party’s process. Fighting in public doesn’t help anyone (or not anyone we want to help, anyway).

        • Anne 4.1.2.3
          7 February 2017 at 10:26 am

          I think you have mistaken who I am calling the “backstabbers” Darien. I was not referring to a single group of identifiable Labour people, but rather a succession of individuals over many years who have seen fit to go hiving off to journos or whoever (often incognito) with the sole purpose of publicly criticising/ demeaning some other person because of an obscure personal grudge.

          If the complaint is a worthy one – and sometimes they are – then there are avenues within the system that should be extensively used instead of going down the public road.

  5. The decrypter 5
    6 February 2017 at 8:54 pm

    Look – All our own work- Labour lemmings.

  6. Paul 6
    6 February 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Is the Standard trying to ensure Labour loses the next election?

    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/identity-politics-social-justice

    • weka 6.1
      6 February 2017 at 9:29 pm

      What does that have to do with the post? I’m genuinely curious.

      • Paul 6.1.1
        6 February 2017 at 10:20 pm

        I think you can work that out. Stop being disingenuous.

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          6 February 2017 at 10:28 pm

          From your link,

          The second challenge is to realize that in the current moment, the attack on what is termed identity politics arises precisely from those who wish to diminish the centrality of struggles for social justice It is those who believe that there is some sort of race-neutral progressive populism that can unite us all who fail to understand the profound lessons of U.S. history. The struggle is not linear; it never has been The struggles against economic injustice frequently overlap with various struggles for social justice. If we want to win, a strategy must be constructed that recognizes that the system is multidimensional and cannot be challenged on one front alone.

          Good to know you are on board Paul. Still not clear how that relates to The Standard machine ensuring that Labour loses the election though. Maybe you should take it up with Lynn, he does the programming. Nor how it relates to the post.

          • lprent 6.1.1.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 9:34 am

            I’d don’t know. I suspect that Paul is just being a bit of a Trump. Mindless activity flailing around and hoping to connect with reality.

          • Carolyn_nth 6.1.1.1.2
            7 February 2017 at 10:12 am

            Ah. Interesting. That’s the second time I’ve seen on TS, when an anti-“identity politics” commenter posted a link that supposedly supported their views. In fact, the link explains the complex intersection of and interaction between economic and social justice; between the class struggle, and struggles again other oppression (often focused on race and gender, but also sexuality and disability).

            The people posting each ink don’t seem to have read much more than the headline. If they had read the full content of each article, they don’t show they have understood it.

            Thanks for the, Paul. It provides a very good explanation of the interweaving of structural racism, patriarchy and capitalism, tracing the historical roots and the shifts to the present day.

            Too many quotable sections in the article to chose one. However, the article raises the issue for me about how much terms (such as “identity politics and attacks on it) and issues are lifted from US sources, without reading them critically, or thinking about their relevance to NZ.

      • jcuknz 6.1.2
        7 February 2017 at 9:32 am

        [Weka on Paul] It strikes me as being a natural inference from comments here by Standardistas … not assigning the thread to Weka though.

        • weka 6.1.2.1
          7 February 2017 at 10:47 am

          Paul said “Is the Standard trying to ensure Labour loses the next election?”

          The Standard is a machine. How is it losing the election exactly? Do you hold Lynn responsible seeing as how he does the programming?

          If instead you (or Paul) mean the authors, then be specific about how that might be happening. Say which authors and how they are working to lose the election. (yes, you can do this without attacking authors). I’d love to hear how you perceive this.

          But perhaps Paul (and you) meant that the commentariat are trying to lose the election. Because they are as much a part of this place as the authors.

          Myself, I see in Paul’s comments (here and elsewhere) that women, gay people, Māori (unless sanctioned by the establishment), disabled people, etc should stfu for the good of the cause. Is that what you think should be the kaupapa of TS?

          • lprent 6.1.2.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 1:05 pm

            Exactly. My instinct (which I am fighting off at present in the interests of debate) is to simply start banning anyone who wants to shut any one else up.

            The Standard platform is a place for robust DEBATE.

            We moderate on behaviour.

            Now I can understand this kind of foolishness from shouting authoritarian idiots like Bomber. But I thought that by now most people reading this site would have caught on to the fact that we don’t censor opinion except where it causes issues for the site.

            Moderators constrain behaviour..

            I would point out that I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I do need to start dealing with the behaviour of ignorant dickheads attacking weka.

            • weka 6.1.2.1.1.1
              7 February 2017 at 2:56 pm

              Have at it Lynn.

              The irony here is that despite what some think about my moderation I spend quite a bit of time explaining not just why I am moderating but how moderation works in general. Not to mention that some moderators here, myself included, give the people they disagree with politically more leeway so as to not appear to be being partisan.

              So seeing long time regulars here choosing to attack not just me but all the authors is an eye opener. My conclusion thus far is that some here have no interest in the wellbeing of the site, don’t take any notice of how it is being run or the work involved in that or how moderation is done, and generally treat the place as a personal portal for pushing their own politics without regard for the collective good. And then think they can blame other people for the failure of the left. Either they still don’t get the difference between moderating for behaviour and political censoring, or they don’t care. And they still won’t make the effort to criticise a post but instead choose to attack the people who provide them with this space.

              Fuck ’em, I’ve had enough.

              I’ve got things I want to do in the back end, and then I’d like to be writing posts. I think it’s sad that the author who spends the most time in the community would be pushed to this, and I’m sorry for the people that will inadvertently get caught up in harsher moderation, but I think the worst thing that can happen here now is for authors to be put off at the expense of individual commenters (and for the people who haven’t been paying attention, authors being way more important than commenters is a long term, stated core principle of the site).

              And because I apparently can’t get rid of my namby-pamby liberal ethics, I would encourage the people who are paying attention and who do care about the site to keep building bridges and as Anne says keep communication open with people you disagree with. It’s possible to criticise a post without attacking authors (and to criticise a comment without attacking the commenter). And please start supporting the people who make this place possible, authors and regular commenters. Talk about what you like and what works as much as what doesn’t.

              • adam …
                7 February 2017 at 4:24 pm

                Nope weka I’d say about time. lprent hands out the harsh at times, and people pull their head in (me included). I don’t think you should feel bad at all.

                I almost swore at the computer reading swordfishes comment and now Paul’s. I have not commented, becasue both made me feel really sad we have to watch this medieval like macho posturing. I hope they will take some time to look at their comments, and reflect on what they said.

              • gsays …
                7 February 2017 at 5:18 pm

                hi weka,
                fwiw, i applaud your efforts in respect to authoring,commenting and playing your part in this community.
                i find your moderation to be even handed and fair.

                i also get if you’ve had enough, you’ve had enough.

                in respect to wider moderation i would rather see folk who are here to merely agitate or overly pedantic in their debate style given the long walk off a short pier.

              • lprent …
                7 February 2017 at 7:26 pm

                I’ve got things I want to do in the back end, and then I’d like to be writing posts. I think it’s sad that the author who spends the most time in the community would be pushed to this, and I’m sorry for the people that will inadvertently get caught up in harsher moderation, but I think the worst thing that can happen here now is for authors to be put off at the expense of individual commenters (and for the people who haven’t been paying attention, authors being way more important than commenters is a long term, stated core principle of the site).

                I know the feeling. I got there nearly a decade ago.

                Fortunately I just have a wide angle of outright anger aggression that I feel obliged to share on the odd occasion. Being a responsible adult I like to share it with anyone who I consider is a troll and idiotic misogynist political imbeciles like Bradbury.

                So be warned that :-

                1. This is election year, and I always allocate more time for this site in election year.
                2. I only have one trip this year offshore for work thus far and it is only two weeks.
                3. I consider September 24th to be a good end date for moderation.
                4. You appear to have removed my only current constraint.

                I must say I do like the times when I have no other mods around. I get to pick and choose which pompous arseholes I persecute.

                Since there have been 800 comments published since I announced out 1.2 millionth published comment, I have a selection of idiots upstanding citizens to select from.

                Let the good times whine.

                Writing posts

    • Carolyn_nth 6.2
      7 February 2017 at 10:24 am

      The piece of that article, most relevant to the post, is to do with unions. The article explains how racism (especially chattel slavery) was built into US capitalism with colonisation, occupation and settlement from Europe.

      For NZ, the development of a capitalist system was an integral part of colonisation and patriarchy. I understand that women and Māori were present in late 19th and early 20th century union activity. However, there was an on-going struggle for equal treatment, and against discrimination within unions.

      A relevant section of the linked article deals with this in the US context:

      A progressive or radical class politics—that is, a politics rooted among workers—actually has more to do with who is on the side of the oppressed. The U.S. has a significant history where white workers have been more than willing to battle employers, but then would turn against workers of color. An infamous case in point was that of the International Seamen’s Union (late 1800s-mid1930s), led by Andrew Furuseth, that was rhetorically radical but vehemently anti-Asian. The fact that a politician, union or some other individual or institution raises the clarion call of economic justice does not, ipso facto, mean that they are embracing progressive class politics. They may just as easily be engaged with right-wing populist politics.

      Now, while I’m no fan of the Tamihere-Jackson support of rape culture on radio and in other areas of the media, there could well be significant reasons why Jackson has developed some dissatisfaction with unions. So, I would like to read more about his views on unions.

      Does Jackson for instance, feel that unions have been contexts where Pākehā workers have actively been encouraged to attack, or discriminate against Māori and/or other ethnic groups? What is Jackson’s view on unions today?

      I can’t really form a view on this til I know more.

  7. swordfish 7
    6 February 2017 at 9:30 pm

    It appears you’ve changed your name to Notices and Features, Weka.

    While I’m not an enormous fan of Jacksons, this is starting to look uncomfortably like the beginning of a fully-fledged character assassination campaign. Supreme sectarian self-indulgence in Election Year (and after 3 successive election defeats for fucksake)

    [this post has absolutely nothing to do with me. I didn’t put it up. I’ve only just seen it and like others I’m still trying to figure out what the point of it is.

    As a moderator note, I’m going to ask people to reread the Policy, especially the bit about what The Standard is and who writes here and why. Also note that there is a general rule on not attacking authors.

    Assuming this post was put up by me or that I knew anything about it says something about the people making that assumption. Please stop and think about what you are doing here. I’d suggest critiquing the post for what it is, not what you are projecting on to it.

    Swordfish, the only reason you are not getting a substantial ban is because I have a lot of respect for what you bring to TS. But this was completely and utterly unwarranted.

    I’m also going to suggest that the commentariat takes a good hard look at itself and thinks about why there are no feminist authors on TS. This shit points to precisely why. Any discussion of this needs to go to Open Mike as it will be off topic here – weka]

    • Leftie 7.1
      6 February 2017 at 9:37 pm

      “this is starting to look uncomfortably like the beginning of a fully-fledged character assassination campaign. Supreme sectarian self-indulgence in Election Year (and after 3 successive election defeats for fucksake)”

      +100 Swordfish.

    • swordfish 7.2
      6 February 2017 at 10:31 pm

      I which case, I take it back and genuinely apologise for my mistaken assumption, Weka.

      • weka 7.2.1
        6 February 2017 at 11:22 pm

        More of a concern for me is why you would make that assumption about me in particular, and then even if you did wonder if it was me why you would think it’s ok to attack me as an author rather than asking if it was me and what was I doing. Seriously, wtf is going on? Not just you btw.

        One thing I am noticing is that some people are choosing sides and then attacking other people who haven’t picked a side but are perceived to have. The first set of people are then blaming the second set of people for costing the left the election by being disloyal or disunited. That’s right, some lefties are attacking other lefties and blaming them for not being united. It’s daft.

        If people don’t like what is going on, start talking about it. Stop attacking people and build bridges and alliances across disagreement. If you don’t want to do that, then write a guest post or do something else that is constructive. If you think that people’s behaviour is a problem, then name it and address it, but be kind if that person is your ally. Talk strategy and if you don’t like what is going on, offer a different strategy and make your case. There is no such thing as left wing unity, we’re all mad as fucking hatters for the disagreement and dissent, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work together.

        The really sad thing for me about this weekend is that so few people bothered to comment on the Waitangi Day post. I think that says a lot about the current state of the commentariat on TS.

        As for this post, it’s a post, not a declaration of anything. Is the person who put up the post trying to make a point about something? I have no fucking idea. What does the actual post say?

        In the past Willie Jackson supported the kinds of unions that Matt McCarten does, and opposed the older style ones. That seems a relevant topic to discuss on a left wing blog that is broadly organised around the labour movement.

        Does Jackson still feel that way? I would have thought that was relevant also.

        Are there all sorts of politics going on around and within Labour that are obscure. I have no doubt. How are we going to respond to that?

        • lprent 7.2.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 1:07 pm

          Yeah I am getting fucked off with those kinds of idiotic presumptions as well.

          I figure some educational bans until September 24th are in order.

      • greywarshark 7.2.2
        7 February 2017 at 2:32 pm

        swordfish
        You are usually very reliable especially on analysing the political scene but also in other subjects. I think that 2017 is going to be very difficult and like you I support the site, that it is here at all is a little wonder of the world, and I think those of us who appreciate it will do well to withhold negative opinions about it and authors unless critically provoked.

        The left being fearless about offering criticisms that diminish the left is like young troubled people ‘cutting themselves’ in a sort of modern flagellation. I think, we should make 2017 the year of living closely even when some in the group are a bit fragrant. We mustn’t get fractious and fracture ourselves, it’s the left’s weakness that must be avoided. Anyone else agree with me on this?

        • weka 7.2.2.1
          7 February 2017 at 3:00 pm

          I agree with the last two statements, and appreciate the framing, it’s a good analogy. Thanks.

          • the pigman 7.2.2.1.1
            8 February 2017 at 2:08 am

            So if you agree with the last two points, you presumably agree that this dirty little political hitjob was a very reckless deployment of the N&F author name?

            It really is just grist for the righty “TS is a left wing hivemind” mill.

    • Anne 7.3
      6 February 2017 at 11:01 pm

      Comment to weka:
      I did not believe it was you who put up this post. In fact I made a comment to the effect people shouldn’t speculate but inadvertently deleted it. 🙁

      Having said that not all the negative commentary here and on the other post are anti -feminist. There are others whose views are similar to mine and they also are not aimed at feminists as such. We come from a different view point which is largely to do with our concern at the over-all impact these ructions have on the Labour Party’s fortunes and indeed the Greens.

      For example, there is no reason why groups of Labour members – be they an electoral committee or a special interest group – can’t write to the leader and the president of the Labour Party expressing their concerns. All such letters are read and discussed with their respective colleagues (in particular the governing body, the Labour Council) and are responded to in writing at the earliest opportunity. There was absolutely no need to go public either on facebook or online somewhere else and give our political foes yet another stick to beat us with. That is what has made me so angry because it happens time and again and these matters have a far better chance of being sorted satisfactorily if they remain in-house.

      • weka 7.3.1
        6 February 2017 at 11:35 pm

        No problem with that at all Anne 🙂 and one of the things I appreciate about TS is that LP members talk here from their perspectives (you and Jenny amongst others).

        I agree with your points about not all negative commentary around the Jackson issue being anti-feminist and I definitely saw that yesterday too.

        There is unfortunately an anti-feminist vein in the left and here on TS. People who oppose intersectional politics risk aligning themselves with it. Attacking the only regular woman author on TS, who can’t write posts as a feminist because it’s not safe to, is a political act IMO whether intentional or not (swordfish and I have crossed swords in the past over identity politics). I saw this stuff play out long before I became an author, so it’s not about me. I think commenters need to think about what they want from TS. Lines are being drawn and it’s not looking pretty. You and I disagree on feminist issues sometimes but that doesn’t mean we can’t work to the same goals. I saw some of your comments yesterday that I disagreed with, but I don’t have a problem with that because you know how to express your opinions as your opinions and you make efforts to build bridges.

        Thanks for the first sentence too, I appreciate that.

        • Brutus Iscariot 7.3.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 9:45 am

          “can’t write posts as a feminist because it’s not safe to”.

          Define “safe” – do you mean “without criticism or disagreement”?

          • weka 7.3.1.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 10:36 am

            No, I don’t. Don’t be fucking thick and don’t start this here. I’ll define safe when enough of the men here start taking a genuine interest in creating a safer space for all people instead of running snowflake memes or thinking that safety = no disagreement (or worse, running that line when they know it’s not what is meant). Online safety is an actual thing, I suggest you do some research.

            • Carolyn_nth 7.3.1.1.1.1
              7 February 2017 at 10:55 am

              Yep. Agree with weka. As a participant in online discussions since about 1995/6, I have had numerous experiences of, or been witness to, some very nasty online abuse of women, and even nastier ones of lesbians.

              The emotional toll can be enormous. I know of one instance where a woman with an online presence, was stalked, first online, then offline. And that was a pretty scary experience for her.

            • Macro 7.3.1.1.1.2
              7 February 2017 at 11:11 am

              I’ll define safe when enough of the men here start taking a genuine interest in creating a safer space for all people instead of running snowflake memes or thinking that safety = no disagreement (or worse, running that line when they know it’s not what is meant).

              I completely support you here weka. I am very disappointed in many of the comments here, and elsewhere, by some people who obviously have leftist tendencies, but who completely fail to understand the culture that is very dominant in NZ (and elsewhere) of denigrating women and feminists in particular. One of the fundamental platforms of the left, is the promotion of social justice for all; and that includes all women.

            • greywarshark 7.3.1.1.1.3
              7 February 2017 at 4:23 pm

              Weka
              I liked this that you said particularly, as how to show a good attitude to the matter of women’s concerns, not only that of feminists, whichever perspective taken.

              You and I disagree on feminist issues sometimes but that doesn’t mean we can’t work to the same goals. I saw some of your comments yesterday that I disagreed with, but I don’t have a problem with that because you know how to express your opinions as your opinions and you make efforts to build bridges.

        • Anne 7.3.1.2
          7 February 2017 at 10:03 am

          Yes weka, I accept there is an anti-feminist vein that rears its ugly head here. Its hard work trying to walk the narrow line between… wanting the best chance for a Labour/Green government come the end of September… and having to face yet another mess because someone in Labour has apparently seen fit to go public about what is essentially an in-house matter.

          So long as we all don’t start talking past one another… 🙂

          • Macro 7.3.1.2.1
            7 February 2017 at 11:46 am

            Anne – as someone who has been observing this issue from afar – may I say just how disappointed I was to hear of the proposed parachuting of Willie Jackson into the top Labour line-up. I, as much as anyone from the left here, want to change the government, and to that end I am working hard within our electorate to that end, as are my whole family.
            But my family are also working full time on programmes that are aimed at helping our young people to change from the rape and sexual abuse culture that is so prevalent in NZ society. Many here may not understand or appreciate just how prevalent it is, but I can assure them that if they were to take the time to look closely at it they would be astonished and dismayed to find just how widespread and sick it is. Whilst Willie Jackson may have “apologized” for his outburst on Radio wrt the stupid and insensitive remarks he made; essentially he disqualified himself there and then, from ever holding political office again in my humble opinion. Remember that all the women MPs on the left, and some of the men walked out of the Chamber after Key began using NZ’s rape culture to denigrate them. How can any Labour or Green or NZF woman MP work with someone who has obviously held similar views?
            If there is to be any progress on improving this festering boil on our society (and believe me, it is a running sore and getting worse) then the treatment not only needs to be to relieve the symptoms, but also to treat the source. MPs must be exemplars in this regard.
            BTW I am not a Labour voter and have not been for over a decade. I am a Green Party member. However I am as anxious as you are to see Labour prosper, and I look forward to our victory in September.
            No matter what the strategic advantage of parachuting Jackson into a safe list position might be, I do not think that that should override principle.

            Sorry weka – I realise that this is off-topic wrt to his position on the unions – a matter with which I also hold similar reservations wrt to this “anointment” – I shall not comment further.

            • weka 7.3.1.2.1.1
              7 February 2017 at 1:42 pm

              “Remember that all the women MPs on the left, and some of the men walked out of the Chamber after Key began using NZ’s rape culture to denigrate them. How can any Labour or Green or NZF woman MP work with someone who has obviously held similar views?”

              This.

              (I wouldn’t worry about being offtopic, I think the thread has become so generalised now and the person who put it up can moderate if they think it’s a problem. I will still moderate here if I see people posting against the rules or in ways that are exclusionary of others.)

            • Venezia 7.3.1.2.1.2
              7 February 2017 at 9:04 pm

              Macro – thank you for articulating these points. Whether TS commentators like it or not these are valid arguments that need to be aired by healthy democratic parties of the left. Since Jackson has been announced as a possible candidate, I have spoken to three women who are questioning Little’s overriding agreed upon processes of selection as well as Jackson’s suitability as a candidate. Plus, Jackson has a well established reputation as a loose cannon.

  8. marty mars 8
    6 February 2017 at 9:50 pm

    Andrew little must be pulling his hair out, sholdertapped by the leader – come on labour ffs

  9. adam 9
    7 February 2017 at 12:27 am

    I’m trying to work out what is wrong with Willies comment, and quite frankly I can’t find one. The NZ trade union movement is a weak and pathetic excuse for worker representation. It has only produced one exceptional person in the last 35 years, and sadly she is no longer with us.

    • lprent 9.1
      7 February 2017 at 1:09 pm

      So discuss that.

      • adam 9.1.1
        7 February 2017 at 1:34 pm

        OK let’s start with weak. Two fold argument here, because it was supported by the state, it’s foundations were weak. So by the time of the neo-con revolution it was on very shaky ground. Secondly, the trade union movement in NZ has had a defensive mind set since the introduction of the Employment contracts Act. Or another way to look at it, it has become reactionary (in that it react to events rather than pushes forward an agenda), plus it has had to fight to hold onto what it has got. While some just folded. It also has not been able to support some of it’s members.

        I’d argue it is the model of trade unionism itself which is at fault, not the people involved. Hence my comment of producing people of note, it’s just not capable of doing that. I really think Helen Kelly would have been exceptional, no matter what structures were in place.

        As for pathetic, again it is a issue of mind set and the very limits of structure I have a issue with in the trade union movement in NZ. Very much like the craft guilds of old, they have fallen into many of the same traps. And can have the same criticisms thrown at them – the ‘closed shop’ mentality, a hierarchy that does not listen, a old boys club. To name a few. Do I need to point out the lack of Maori and Pacific in leadership rolls, when they dominate membership?

        The older I get the less I want to struggle against structures and system which won’t change. The union movement in this country had to change, and radically change 30 years ago, it has not and probably will not, it is in perpetual decline. Hence why I agree with Willies statement.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 3:03 pm

          Nice one adam. Having come from a pro-union (mainly because the PSA) but inactive family I’ve not had a good understanding of union politics. Comments like that are bloody useful.

        • Richard McGrath 9.1.1.2
          8 February 2017 at 6:05 pm

          “Do I need to point out the lack of Maori and Pacific in leadership rolls, when they dominate membership?”

          So you’re saying there is institutionalised racism at the heart of the NZ trade union movement?

          • adam 9.1.1.2.1
            9 February 2017 at 6:40 pm

            Nope I’m saying racism is alive and well all across NZ, including the libertarian movement.

    • gsays 9.2
      7 February 2017 at 1:58 pm

      hi adam, i have been wondering what a future (5-15 yrs) union looks like.

      i figure helen kelly’s observation of ‘be kind to each other’ would be a cornerstone.

      a collabaritive, inclusive approach to negotiations,
      perhaps providing other strengths/resources eg food/gardens, childcare, aged care education..

      the unions, from my sketchy recall, grew from adversity.
      the employer, having such atrocious conditions, created the environment for unions flourish.

      my bones tell me the way we are headed as a society, an organisation may be needed as a source of strength and resilience, like church or unions used to be.

      • adam 9.2.1
        7 February 2017 at 2:44 pm

        I agree gsays, we are in a time when many structures are in decline. And I think it is wise to look back at what worked for people. So yes, a restructured union movement with more control by members and a church who is responsive to it’s flock seem to me to be the way of the future.

        • Jenny Kirk 9.2.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 3:06 pm

          The unions have re-structured, but I don’t suppose that makes good news these days, and as far as I can tell they’re being led by younger, intelligent, articulate people who care about the conditions under which their workers are employed.

          • adam 9.2.1.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 4:13 pm

            Come on Jenny, they have restructured within a very specific set of ideas. None of which have done much to radically change them. When, as time is my friend on this, has shown trade unions are now virtually useless at representing workers interest. Who are the unions doing anything?

            If you say Etu I’m going to laugh my head off, as they seem to be doing the governments job for them, and are helping killing off the n.g.o sector with their policies.

            I don’t care how much people care, it’s about working people protecting themselves, and feeling like they are doing that – that is not happening. As declining trade union numbers show, year after year.

            • BJ 9.2.1.1.1.1
              8 February 2017 at 10:17 am

              What unions are doing things? First and Unite sure are. Willie was right at the time, and Unite’s influence in the trade union movement has been important in shaking up old bureaucracies and showing a different way things can be done. But I think it’s unproductive to shit on unions in general, when First and Unite (at least) are growing in members and running strong, successful, community based campaigns.

              • adam …
                8 February 2017 at 4:58 pm

                So where are these great number improvements? Any facts to back it up? Plus in the context of Willie comment, I would have thought unite would have been excluded, as that was the shake up that Willie was talking about.

                But, it’s not enough, unite has done well, but not been able to generate great reversal in the fortune of trade unions. Which in my opinion is never going to happen. The model needs to change.

                If you can’t see that I’m advocating a different approach to unionism, then sorry for you.

  10. McFlock 10
    7 February 2017 at 1:10 am

    It is mildly interesting how the march of time makes strange bedfellows.

    But I suppose that the other thing it illustrates is that smart people know when to be on the outside pissing in and on the inside pissing out – sometimes when you’ve achieved as much as you can doing one, you can achieve more switching to the other.

    Why Jackson is a problematic choice for Labour is discussed in other threads. To me, this comment doesn’t strike me as being much of an issue: both sides seem to have gotten over it, otherwise he wouldn’t be joining Labour.

  11. Leftie 11
    7 February 2017 at 3:35 am

    Does this go here or on the other thread?

    In defence of Willie Jackson
    By Martyn Bradbury / February 6, 2017

    “The last 24 hours has seen an explosion of Professional Twitter Liberals making all types of vile character assassinations against Willie Jackson, hell I even had my own Facebook page invaded by Wellington Stormtroopers trashing TDB and attacking Jackson last night.
    Some of the things being said about Willie Jackson are simply purposeful manipulations by people who want to be offended and outraged.
    It’s embarrassing watching your own side be so alienating.
    Here are the facts:…”

    <a href="http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/02/06/in-defence-of-willie-jackson/

    • weka 11.1
      7 February 2017 at 10:49 am

      Bradbury is basically now firmly in the camp against intersectional politics and solidarity. He’s saying that women, Māori, gays etc should stfu for the good of the cause (which happens to be the cause as defined by white men). Is that what you are supporting?

      • Macro 11.1.1
        7 February 2017 at 12:08 pm

        IMHO Bradbury has about as much political nous as a can of fish. I used to read his blog – now I seldom go there – the comments by many are even more loonie than some of the posts! – poor Frank Mac has his work cut out.

        • weka 11.1.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 12:19 pm

          That’s one good thing, that the commentary here in TS is still relatively good even with the problems it has.

          There is a shit fight going on between Bradbury and some lefties commentators, often on twitter. It’s not pretty and looking at Bradbury’s posts and tweets in recent months I think it’s clear where he’s aligning himself in a post-Tr*mp world (anti-IP and pro-himself). I think this is going to be a bigger and bigger issue in NZ until we sort it out. And likely to get nasty and cause harm.

      • Leftie 11.1.2
        7 February 2017 at 1:54 pm

        Don’t shoot the messenger. I didn’t post any opinion on it, and given the range in discussion, thought others may want to have a look at it.

        • weka 11.1.2.1
          7 February 2017 at 2:30 pm

          Yes, you didn’t post an opinion, which is why I asked you for one. I notice you still haven’t given it..

          • Leftie 11.1.2.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 2:59 pm

            You asked me for my opinion based on how you framed it. I don’t have one. Given the discussion I just posted the article. People can make up their own minds.

    • Darien Fenton 11.2
      7 February 2017 at 10:53 am

      This bit is appalling :

      “At some stage the Union bosses who employ many of these Professional Twitter Liberals are going to have to be sat down and asked how effective they think they’re being right now.”

      So this blog is now promoting the idea that union staffers should be sacked.

      • Carolyn_nth 11.2.1
        7 February 2017 at 11:26 am

        Meanwhile, one Maori union tweeter claims to have had 3 twitter accounts trolling him yesterday, while a number of anonymous accounts on twitter were attacking anyone tweeting pro-maori stuff.

        And that union tweeter is one who has no truck with rape culture, who ever promotes or re-inforces it. And i don’t think he’s on Bradbury’s Xmas card list.

        NB: Not mentioning names cause I don’t want to encourage more trolling of that twitter account.

      • BJ 11.2.2
        8 February 2017 at 10:23 am

        Darien, at unions more than anywhere else people shouldn’t have a lifetime guarantee of a job. Unionists aren’t paid out of the bosses pocket, they’re paid by the hard earned dollars of their members. It’s a privilege to work as a representative of the workers’ movement, so if organisers, comms people or even admin staff at unions aren’t doing a good job at representing the interests of their members they should be let go. I don’t have an opinion about the people Bomber is talking about, but it shouldn’t be sacrilege to speak about underperforming union officials losing their job.

    • McFlock 11.3
      7 February 2017 at 11:03 am

      There’s something odd about bomber being a chicken little yelling that the Labour sky is falling apart, when by doing so he exagerrates the supposed divisions within Labour and tries to turn a disagreement into a crisis

  12. Skinny 12
    7 February 2017 at 7:21 am

    This is a disgraceful saga being played out, I’ve had a spring in my step thinking Labour is positioned nicely to end this terrible regime in power. And we get this carry on being aired in public. Wise up people and keep to the big picture stuff.

  13. Ross 13
    7 February 2017 at 7:37 am

    Noam Chomsky said:

    “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise….With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky

    I think it’s great that WJ has freedom of speech. May he continue to speak.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      7 February 2017 at 7:48 am

      🙄

      The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    • Andre 13.2
      7 February 2017 at 7:56 am

      Doesn’t look to me like anyone is arguing against Willie’s freedom of speech.

      Looks to me like the disputes are about whether it’s a good idea for Labour to welcome Willie back and give him a high profile and high list placing. And whether other senior people in Labour have handled the question well.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1
        7 February 2017 at 7:56 am

        I note protesting Ross doesn’t seem to care for Poto Williams’ freedom of speech.

        • Andre 13.2.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 8:03 am

          Possibly it’s a case of not understanding that free speech has consequences. One of which is that other people will exercise their equal right to free speech.

      • Jenny Kirk 13.2.2
        7 February 2017 at 8:40 am

        That’s it, in a nutshell, Andre.
        And instead of going to privately to the leadership and NZ Council about their concerns, some Labour people are expressing their dislike in public. Like Anne, and Skinny, this sort of behaviour makes me feel extremely angry – and frustrated.

        Labour is on the cusp of pushing this nasty government out, and our own people are destroying that possibility. Its time for them to pull their heads in and have a good internal think to themselves about what it is, they are actually doing.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.2.1
          7 February 2017 at 8:51 am

          If Labour doesn’t want public selection processes it makes sense not to announce them.

        • Gabby 13.2.2.2
          7 February 2017 at 10:16 am

          Maybe they didn’t like the prospect of a fait accompli being presented to the public.

        • Darien Fenton 13.2.2.3
          7 February 2017 at 10:35 am

          As you well know Jenny : this was a public announcement from the leader. Perhaps a bit of foresight about consulting members, including council members and even members might have been wise.

          • Anne 13.2.2.3.1
            7 February 2017 at 11:10 am

            Well, we know he discussed the matter with Poto Williams in advance. I can’t imagine Andrew Little making such an announcement without fairly extensive consultation beforehand.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.2.3.1.1
              7 February 2017 at 11:30 am

              In that case, it’s difficult to imagine why they didn’t anticipate and pre-empt the reaction.

              • Leftie …
                7 February 2017 at 2:15 pm

                Maybe they were given the impression that there wasn’t going to be any reaction.

                • McFlock …
                  7 February 2017 at 2:36 pm

                  Maybe they were given that impression, but didn’t credit any reaction as worthy of being taken seriously.

                  Maybes are wonderful things.

                  • Leftie …
                    7 February 2017 at 3:05 pm

                    There’s a hell of a lot of “ifs” and “maybes” going on. We are all assuming things, and “maybe” that’s part of the problem.

                    • Jenny Kirk …
                      7 February 2017 at 3:12 pm

                      And maybe they did think there would be a reaction, but that it would remain in-house.

                      By the way, Two brief video media interviews with Andrew Little today 7 Feb 2017, at approximately 1.45pm before Parliament resumed.

                      One is about medicinal and recreational use of cannabis, the other is the Willie Jackson saga

                      If you cannot listen to these videos, the basis of the chats were as follows :

                      On medicinal cannabis, Labour would enable its use as soon as it had the privilege of becoming govt. On recreational cannabis, Andrew Little and other MPs have concerns about the use of cannabis by young people – whose brains are not fully developed until they reach their mid-20s, and whose brains could be damaged by the use of cannabis. Much more information and research is needed before such a decision could be made.

                      On Willie Jackson – yes, Andrew Little was aware there would be concerns, but Willie Jackson would bring into the Party the facility to help Labour connect with urban Maori and disadvantaged Maori – which has not been easily achieved before. He also said Labour is a Party of values and those values include redemption for someone who has done wrong (those were not his exact words, but he talked about Jackson “redeeming himself” and he thought the Party should give him the chance to do so).

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=171135

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=171132

                      and apologies for going off-topic with the cannabis one, but I cannot remember now which video is which – and I copied them both onto the same bit of paper. I think the WJ one might be the second one.

                    • Leftie …
                      7 February 2017 at 3:34 pm

                      Thanks for that Jenny. And btw, good point.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2017 at 3:48 pm

                      Thanks for the links Jenny.

                      The point about redemption is reasonable in general. In this case there will be many people for whom the original remarks were so hurtful and destructive as to require an extraordinary level of forgiveness.

                      I don’t think that’s been adequately acknowledged by Little or Jackson. As for whether Jackson’s subsequent actions meet the standard generally, I’d like to hear Louise Nicholas’ and other women’s opinion of that.

                    • weka …
                      7 February 2017 at 4:08 pm

                      “And maybe they did think there would be a reaction, but that it would remain in-house.”

                      In which case they misjudged. The public were already reacting days before Williams’ statement.

                      I think to Williams’ credit she explicitly left the way open for redemption not just for Jackson but for Labour too.

            • Leftie 13.2.2.3.1.2
              7 February 2017 at 2:14 pm

              +100 Anne.

        • Leftie 13.2.2.4
          7 February 2017 at 2:02 pm

          Agree with you Jenny, Skinny, Andre, Anne, Keith et al that have voiced the same.

          • keepcalmcarryon 13.2.2.4.1
            7 February 2017 at 7:50 pm

            plus another one
            Made headline news tonight I see and some wayward souls were reportedly told to pull their heads in by Little. Righly so, thought he looked convincing.

            People make mistakes, Jackson is prone to stupid utterances, hes sure not the only one, no doubt he will get the pull your head in speech at some stage himself . Roast busters doesnt make him a rapist as a radio shock jock he was surely encouraged to create drama, hes smart enough to have the ability to get over himself -lets hope he does.
            The Standard machine still must have been short circuiting to post the above inflammatory quote. Not smart.
            Final thought, can you imagine what Helen Clark would have done to those speaking out publically on this?

        • The Fan Club 13.2.2.5
          7 February 2017 at 7:23 pm

          Then tell Andrew Little not to pre-empt private conversations in public…

  14. kiwikeith 14
    7 February 2017 at 11:08 am

    I work for the L.P. on a voluntary basis to get labour elected at the next election.
    I don’t think we need to be airing our dirty laundry in public. By doing this we are doing nationals job for them.

    I think it is very poor judgement by Poto Williams to put this issue in the public arena.
    Cant you hear the voters saying Labour are a shambles cant even get their house in order.
    Williams has every right to air her views but for christ sake do it in house. I don’t want my voluntary work to be in vain once again.

    As for Poto Williams saying she wants an apology for something Willie Jackson has apologised for already on several occasions makes you wonder who Williams thinks she is

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1
      7 February 2017 at 11:32 am

      He didn’t apologise. Like if I said “I’m sorry for your failure to grasp that”, that would be insulting and insincere, eh.

    • Reality 14.2
      7 February 2017 at 12:02 pm

      Hear, hear Kiwikeith. Commonsense comments. Why is Poto Williams wanting a personal apology to herself. I have never seen or heard of her speaking out on women’s issues before.

      For about the first time ever I agree with the Daily Blog on this issue and feel very disappointed at the lack of unity and support for Labour here.

      • weka 14.2.1
        7 February 2017 at 12:49 pm

        “Why is Poto Williams wanting a personal apology to herself.”

        She isn’t. You just made that up.

        • Reality 14.2.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 1:21 pm

          I did not “make that up”. That is a mischief-making response Weka. I was following on from Kiwi Keith’s post which mentioned an apology being asked for by Poto Williams.

          Would you like to respond to my comment about Poto Williams’ very low profile supporting women’s issues previously. We have all heard of Louise Nicholas’ work on behalf of women but not Poto Williams.

          [you have until the end of the day to exact quote and link to where Williams has said she is wanting “a personal apology to herself” (your words not Keith’s), or to withdraw your comment and acknowledge you made it up. Otherwise expect a ban – weka]

      • Venezia 14.2.2
        7 February 2017 at 9:17 pm

        Reality… Poto Williams has continually spoken out on Women’s issues and is the LP spokesperson on Family and sexual Violence. That’s her brief.

    • Leftie 14.3
      7 February 2017 at 2:06 pm

      +100 KiwiKeith

    • Adrian Thornton 14.4
      7 February 2017 at 4:48 pm

      I completely disagree, if Labour doesn’t want it’s ‘dirty laundry’ aired in public, then it should stop making dirty right wing skid marks everywhere.

      Also, I am not sure if you have noticed, but the western centre left neo liberal project is pretty much done and dusted, and these ideologically driven free market parties still blindly chasing the centre and centre right votes instead of the left and centre Left are destroying or are about to destroy them selves one at a time.

  15. weka 15
    7 February 2017 at 11:36 am

    Katie Bradford Verified account
    ‏@katieabradford

    Andrew Little says caucus will this morning discuss the Willie Jackson issue & Poto Williams decision to speak out publicly against him

    https://twitter.com/katieabradford/status/828715236811104257

    Monday morning political commentary on RNZ just now didn’t discuss either Williams’ statement or the internal Labour issues. They did talk about the Māori politics involved in Jackson joining Labour and the Mp/Mana agreement over the Māori seats.

    Google news search suggests that other MSM aren’t that interested in the Williams issue or the internal issues. I’m putting this down to Little’s evenhanded approach over the weekend, and that it was Waitangi Day. I guess that might change depending on what Little does next.

    • weka 15.1
      7 February 2017 at 11:44 am

      Am hoping Tiso is wrong, but I suspect not,

      Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso 1h

      Giovanni Tiso Retweeted Katie Bradford

      Uh-oh.

      Giovanni Tiso added,
      Katie Bradford @katieabradford
      Andrew Little says caucus will this morning discuss the Willie Jackson issue & Poto Williams decision to speak out publicly against him

      Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso 59m

      I can tell you the outcome already. A couple of highly placed MPs will speak highly of Jackson after the meeting. 1/2

      Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso 58m

      Williams will be quietly reminded of the need for party discipline in an election year. No-one will speak of Young Labour’s letter.

      Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso 54m

      It’s classic authoritarian leadership: Little announced candidacy and list placing before the council had an opportunity to debate issue…

      Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso 53m

      …leaving them with no option but to fast-track Jackson as the loss of face for the leader so close to the election would be catastrophic.

      Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso 41m

      And while Little makes reassuring noises about “reasonable concerns”, the conservative left gets to have a go at Wellington liberals…

      • McFlock 15.1.1
        7 February 2017 at 12:03 pm

        That framing does sound like one way of stomping on the embers. Guarantees a flare-up later on, though.

        Especially problematic is that Williams was fulfilling the brief she was given – if the issue hadn’t been satisfactorily resolved internally, publicly was the way to go. And, all things considered, her comments were moderate and reasonable. They should be met with a moderate and reasonable response.

        In that case, Little should clarify that any announcement he or Labour has made was of course subject to approval of the democratic processes within the Labour party and sorry that wasn’t made explicit, and Jackson should show a little bit of humility to people’s valid concerns about his statements.

        At least mel gibson was drunk.

        • weka 15.1.1.1
          7 February 2017 at 12:15 pm

          Yep, and Williams’ statement left an opening for both Little and Jackson to do the right thing and Jackson to join Labour. The thing I’m with is how much I still think that Labour might do something good here 🙄

        • Leftie 15.1.1.2
          7 February 2017 at 2:29 pm

          “But Labour Party president Nigel Haworth said Willie Jackson’s candidacy wasn’t a done deal.

          Mr Haworth said he would have to go through the same selection process as any other potential candidate.

          Mr Jackson will need to join the party and then get a waiver because he hasn’t been a member for the required period.

          He will also have to go through the party’s moderation process, where his application will be considered by 22 people made up of the council and three caucus members.

          That process takes place in April.”

          <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/323829/willie-jackson-to-stand-for-labour

      • Brutus Iscariot 15.1.2
        7 February 2017 at 12:55 pm

        Sounds like Little may in fact actually have some real political nous.

        Part of political leadership is actually the ability to ram things through without getting bogged down in endless debate – it’s been that way forever.

        • xanthe 15.1.2.1
          7 February 2017 at 2:22 pm

          “Part of political leadership is actually the ability to ram things through without getting bogged down in endless debate”
          oh my GAWD, rodger douglas is back in the house … We are setting ourselves up for another rogue Labour Govt… looks like another three years of Nats would be better option now .. eeeeeeeccckk

          • Leftie 15.1.2.1.1
            7 February 2017 at 2:32 pm

            Drama queening much Xanthe?

            Andrew Little is nothing like Roger Douglas. There is no similarity there whatsoever.

            • Xanthe 15.1.2.1.1.1
              7 February 2017 at 2:47 pm

              David lange was nothing like rodger douglas either. My point is , winning is actually not the first priority, and there are much worse outcomes than loseing

              • Leftie …
                7 February 2017 at 3:51 pm

                And Andrew Little is not like David Lange either. Kicking National out is a priority imo. Can’t think of anything worse than this current National government remaining in power, can you?

                • Anne …
                  7 February 2017 at 5:39 pm

                  Hey Leftie, you’ve been on fire lately. Keep it up.

                • xanthe …
                  7 February 2017 at 6:42 pm

                  “Can’t think of anything worse than this current National government remaining in power, can you?”

                  yes I can !
                  For instance a labour government a la 1984 roger douglas that “ram things through without getting bogged down in endless debate” and impose ultra right agenda without any mandate to do so!

                  the most important thing is to be able to govern!
                  thats actually more important than getting hands on levers!

                  Sorry but the aquisition of willie and greg makes me think these thoughts and i am sure i am not the only one.

                  • Leftie …
                    7 February 2017 at 8:49 pm

                    No, you would not be the only one, but others may see “the acquisition of Willie and Greg” as a tactical move that is part of the strategy to oust out National.

                    Andrew Little and the current Labour party are not the “Labour government a la 1984 Roger Douglas” though.

                    But in order to govern, don’t you need to get your hands on the levers first?

                    • xanthe …
                      7 February 2017 at 9:01 pm

                      “But in order to govern, don’t you need to get your hands on the levers first?”
                      Well that is arse aboot in my book.
                      If not able to govern then please step away from the levers would be my advice.

                      the evedince (willie and greg) is that they havent a clue. I do not trust them with any levers thanks

                    • Leftie …
                      7 February 2017 at 11:41 pm

                      But if you are not able to govern, you wouldnt be near the levers in the first place. In regards to Willie and Greg, others may or may not hold your view.

                  • Venezia …
                    7 February 2017 at 9:24 pm

                    Xanthe – I agree 100%.

  16. xanthe 16
    7 February 2017 at 1:59 pm

    History repeating!
    the 1984 labour govt voted in because “change the govt”
    and fucked the country

    2017 labour govt
    minister of Justice rt hon willie jackson
    minister of police rt hon greg oconnor

    yay we won !! :0 $%
    hint.. nat knows this one is lost! the fight now is for control of the labour party and they just about have that in the bag!

    • Brutus Iscariot 16.1
      7 February 2017 at 3:30 pm

      Completely unhinged…

      • xanthe 16.1.1
        7 February 2017 at 6:37 pm

        yes thats right!

      • AB 16.1.2
        7 February 2017 at 6:50 pm

        Not completely. National do know that they will inevitably lose at some point. They and their business and media supporters put great effort into influencing what an incoming Labour-led government will feel inclined or able to do. For instance the 2000 bogus ‘winter of discontent’ manufactured by Fran O’Sullivan, the championing of David Shearer as a replacement for Goff run by Matthew Hooten, the vicious lies/distortions about Cunliffe and Donghua Liu from John Armstrong. It is Important to National that the structures of privilege are not unpicked while they are out of office – then when they get back in they can double down.
        Sorry off-topic somewhat

    • Richard McGrath 16.2
      8 February 2017 at 6:12 pm

      WTF… the Rt Hon designation is not for new MPs still wet behind their lugs

    • red-blooded 16.3
      8 February 2017 at 11:02 pm

      xanthe, you’re getting mischievous now. How likely is it that people so new to the party would be immediately given ministerial duties?

  17. the pigman 17
    7 February 2017 at 7:11 pm

    Contrast the reception Willie has received from the NZLP brass as a non-Labour member grandstanding vs the chilly brushoff Laila Harré received when she mentioned she was rejoining Labour.

    All in the name of a bit of utu against the Maori Party and Tuku Morgan.

  18. kiwikeith 18
    7 February 2017 at 7:13 pm

    Poto Williams makes her statement all about her in repeatedly using the first person. for example I am yet to hear that he understands, I am yet to hear that he wishes to work on putting that right and apologise for his behaviour, I welcome the opportunity
    to support Jackson in apologising and making those changes.

    The fact is he has apologised on several occasions but obviously this is not good enough for Poto Williams.

    I wonder if i receive an apology from Williams for underminig the traction that labour had gotten in the last few weeks

    • Ross 18.1
      7 February 2017 at 7:27 pm

      Andrew Little will have told her in no uncertain terms that if she has a problem with someone, she needs to talk to that person, not to the media. And that applies to everyone in caucus and to aspiring Labour MPs. Complaining to the media about one of their own is a mug’s game.

      [lprent: You really are a bit of a silly fuckwit. She didn’t “complain to the media”. She put it on her Facebook page. Banned for 2 weeks for lying and general inaccuracy. Please lift your game. Being a STUPID troll is unacceptable. ]

      • Sacha 18.1.1
        8 February 2017 at 1:54 pm

        Newshub is now reporting that Ms Williams hired a private PR firm who circulated her statement to some media organisations before she put it on Facebook: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/02/poto-williams-hired-pr-firm-for-willie-jackson-ploy.html

        If that’s true, I’d expect to see her firmly punished for actively lobbying her own party via the media. Not OK at. any time, and certainly not in an election year.

        • Anne 18.1.1.1
          8 February 2017 at 4:18 pm

          If its true then it tells me she did not have majority support for her stand in the caucus…

          There’s a small group of young(ish) brats individuals – most of whom live in Wellington – who I understand have been fomenting mischief behind the scenes on and off for a few years now… mostly for what they perceive to be in their mutual interest. Some of them are even parliamentary staffers or at least they were in the past. Shame, because the vast majority of young folk in the Labour Party are a credit to the party and to their generation. One of them, who goes by the pseudonym ‘The Fan Club’ (TFC for short) popped up on this site yesterday after a lengthy absence, and had a nasty dig at Andrew Little. No coincidence in my view. Andrew Little will know who they are, and their machinations will come to nought while he is leader. 🙂

        • lprent 18.1.1.2
          8 February 2017 at 8:40 pm

          I’d expect to see her firmly punished for actively lobbying her own party via the media. Not OK at. any time, and certainly not in an election year.

          Ummm. This appears to be exactly the same thing that Andrew Little was doing as well. I seem to remember a few standups where he made a few claims about what he was doing for Willie. Tell me, was his peremptory action approved by caucus, the shadow cabinet, or the Labour council after the usual due process?

          Which is of course what should have happened on question of a list selection. And yet you seem to have a different standard for someone making a statement on her allocated area of expertise and as an elected MP to voice disapproval of the attempt to bypass process and talk to media. She did it without sneaking around in the middle of the night shoving envelopes under press gallery doors, and with her name attached.

          Do I sense a double standard? Incidentally if I was wanting to get a statement out to media and didn’t have TS to do it, then I suspect that a PR firm with expertise and a mailing list would probably be an effective way to do it.

          • Sacha 18.1.1.2.1
            8 February 2017 at 10:02 pm

            Little deserves a telling-off from his party President – and Williams from her caucus leader. Plus whatever needs to happen to make sure this does not repeat itself this side of the election. Please.

      • Richard McGrath 18.1.2
        8 February 2017 at 6:17 pm

        Perhaps “complained via social media” would have been more accurate. Outcome similar.

    • McFlock 18.2
      7 February 2017 at 7:34 pm

      Pretty reasonable in the context: she outlines what her role is in the party and how that obliges her to speak out on domestic violence and on this occasion in particular.

      She then carefully explains the situation as she sees it:

      I appreciate that Mr Jackson may regret his comments, but I am yet to hear that he understands his attitudes and views are highly offensive to many New Zealanswrs. I’m yet to hear that he wishes to work on putting that right and apologise for his behaviour.

      That gives everyone an out. Maybe she missed a genuine apology from WJ. Maybe he can treat it seriously and apologise with a straight face. She’s not demanding he apologise to her, she’s demanding that his apology be as public and as comprehensive as his original statements, and that he genuinely communicate that he knows why what he said was wrong.

      And when there is a nationwide campaign to get people to speak up about domestic violence, and the party allegedly opposes domestic violence, surely at the very least the caucus spokesperson on the issue of domestic violence is required to be seen to speak up?

      • Venezia 18.2.1
        7 February 2017 at 9:27 pm

        McFlock……..Yes. Exactly.

      • weka 18.2.2
        8 February 2017 at 5:15 pm

        Him starting another apology by telling the media that he’s apologised all these times already, and then still not giving an actual apology… it’s not wonder so many people don’t believe him.

  19. bomber 19
    8 February 2017 at 1:33 pm

    [lprent: You really are a bit of a silly fuckwit. She didn’t “complain to the media”. She put it on her Facebook page. Banned for 2 weeks for lying and general inaccuracy. Please lift your game. Being a STUPID troll is unacceptable. ]

    Ummmm no, she hired a PR company to write and seed it with the media.

    How come the Standard can dredge up a 12 year interview with Willie Jackson, but can’t notice a story breaking just 2 hours ago that Poto Williams hired a PR team to write the attack on Willie Jackson and that they seeded it with media before hand.

    You’ve all been taken in like chumps, but refuse to admit it.

    This unbelievable division is why Labour can’t win elections.

    Well done folks

    • lprent 19.1
      8 February 2017 at 3:39 pm

      Perhaps you should look at the dates and times. You appear to be confused about them.

      You are looking at a story that apparently got released today, and then apparently telling me that Ross knew about it yesterday. This is possible I guess. But I and other authors don’t spend our work time reading news.

      Now I have no idea if you actually work for a living or if you are just a parasite on The Daily Blog. But I know that I do, and so do almost all of the authors at TS. That is why the site is voluntary. It is also why we let comments through without having to manually release them and why we ban people who break our rules and trust. Unlike you we treat commenters as adults until they prove themselves not to be.

      It is also why we have far more comments and readers. We do not censor under the covers like you do.

      Quite how you can think that I can moderate yesterday based on story from today is a mystery. But you do appear to be somewhat confused about most things.

      Edit: I also put this comment with a minor variation on TDB. It will be interesting if the thin-skinned avenger will publish it… Bets anyone.

    • Paul 19.2
      8 February 2017 at 8:48 pm

      Agreed bomber.

  20. bomber 20
    8 February 2017 at 4:35 pm

    Oh Lynn, you sad old tyrant – what about Ross – can we free Ross from your ban?

    Come on champ, you’ve been chumped – let’s get back to the actual issue which is Poto hired a PR firm to slag off Willie Jackson and in turn undermine Little leadership – you claimed (falsely it turns out) that she didn’t contact the media.

    Now – can we just let poor old Ross comment on this horrendous blog you host (I’m nt sure why Ross would want to do that) but maybe you could just imagine that your anger was misplaced and you could give Ross a break Lynn?

    You were after all completely fucking wrong.

    • Richard McGrath 20.1
      8 February 2017 at 6:32 pm

      This point is critical and needs sorting – did Poto Williams use a PR company to contact the media? And therefore was Ross not lying after all, and does he deserve an apology and reinstatement?

      • lprent 20.1.1
        8 February 2017 at 7:38 pm

        See my comment below.
        https://thestandard.org.nz/willie-on-the-unions/#comment-1297343

        If you want to persist in violating the site policy, then I’d be happy to demonstrate a few of the sanctions we use to dissuade in stupidly questioning moderation.

        After all, you don’t have anything like the level of skin in the game if we get it wrong and publish defamatory statements.

        And aren’t neo-liberal barbarians like you all about taking the responsibility for your own actions and demanding the authority to take it. Mind you I have never actually noticed it really happening. I rather think it is simply another idiotic myth by a small group of whiners..

        • Richard McGrath 20.1.1.1
          9 February 2017 at 4:25 am

          Please note I wasn’t making claims, Bradbury did that. I was suggesting that his assertion needed to be confirmed or refuted. You claim to have done that and I will accept it. BTW I wear the neoliberal (i.e. libertarian) label with pride.

          • lprent 20.1.1.1.1
            9 February 2017 at 9:10 am

            What I was saying from the start of the typically logic free bradbury braying was that the claim was completely irrelevant to the moderation.

            I can only look at what is in front of me at the time I moderate. That means what is in the comment and (if I am generous) what is in the news at the time. The legal obligation that I have under defamation law is based around knowingly publishing false fact.

            Most people are pretty good about not doing that. Those who are not, in my view, don’t deserve to maintain their commenting abilities here. In practice most of them will learn from experience.

            Some like Bradbury appear to be a bit defective in the learning department.

    • lprent 20.2
      8 February 2017 at 7:33 pm

      You were after all completely fucking wrong.

      Ah no. Why? Because you are completely wrong and somewhat stupid about thinking on moderation – as I have pointed out several times before.

      Unless he could show me yesterday how he knew then that something that only came out today, then he lied yesterday. That was what he was banned for.

      The behaviour of directly lying about someone and not offering up proof or backing is both morally reprehensible (although I notice that you never seem to get too worried about it) and legally precarious across a number of civil and even criminal acts.

      The offense in civil defamation law is not about what I (or Ross) learnt after the event. It is what was known at the time.

      But I suspect you are a bit too self-adsorbed with yourself to understand the finer points of legal principle. Do you EVER bother to think when you write things down?

      Putting this site in legal danger is something that I take very seriously because if the fucker did it once then they will do it again.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.3
      8 February 2017 at 7:54 pm

      “The actual issue”.

      Meanwhile, on Earth, “the actual issue” isn’t your People’s Judean Front purge fetish.

      Blow harder, Bombast.

    • Morrissey 20.4
      8 February 2017 at 8:43 pm

      While you’re here, Bomber, have you reconsidered your indolent—and wrong—habit of referring to racists, sexists and bigots in general as “rednecks”?

      • lprent 20.4.1
        8 February 2017 at 8:48 pm

        Especially as he doesn’t apply the label to himself. Some of the stories that his female ex-authors tell would tend to indicate that he is at least two out of the three.

        Perhaps he is so hot on Willie because in reality he favours the interview style that Willie used in the RoastBuster interview of a young woman talking about a rape culture in schools.

Links to post