Shane Jones resignation: Labour dodge a bullet & the Greens smile


Best Friends Forever now

Thank God Shane Jones is selling out and taking a job for National…

Shane Jones to leave Labour, set to work with Murray McCully
Shane Jones is quitting Parliament and the Labour Party, and there is a job already lined up for him – a job offer from the National Government.
Nothing is signed and sealed, but the job is as ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’ – a position created by Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully. Prime Minister John Key is also aware of the job offer.

…my personal fear with Jones was always that at some stage (probably 2 weeks out from the election) some nasty right wing blog would leak some of the rumours that were always swirling around Jones over the Bill Liu case. With Jones leaving, he’s National’s problem now.

“But Shane was a colourful sexist anti-green porn watching machine, Labour will be devastated!”, Yeah-nah, I think Labour will do just fine.

The other positive here is for the Green/Labour relationship. Jones’ love affair for picking fights with the Greens was one of the largest impediments to that political relationship working, with Jones gone, the Greens and Labour can work on being friends again.

The claims by right wing pundits that this is a huge blow to Labour’s working class cred is just wishful thinking. Working class people know the relief of a haemorrhoid being surgically removed, losing Shane Jones is no different to that.

The negative is to Jones himself. Knowledge that a senior ranking Nat donated to his leadership campaign on top of this puts his last year with Labour in question in terms of his ultimate loyalty. Was he disruptive on purpose? Was he unbelievably sexist just for shits and giggles? Was he picking fights with the Greens on purpose? Was he purely a destabilising element?

Good riddance I say.

TDB Recommends

PS – Dear Murray McCully – please give Trevor Mallard a job as well.


  1. This is just another step in Labour’s journey to extinction as it wraps itself in hard-left ideology, and relinquishes any semblance of claim to the centre of NZ politics.

    • Don’t be silly IV. A Labour party must have identifiably pro-social policies or its membership will not support it.

      It’s a bit like ACT and incest – the party is obliged to cater to the peculiar preferences of its membership, rather than those of their opponents.

      • ‘A Labour Party’ can be whatever it likes, so long as it wants to spend eternity in opposition. If, on the other hand, it ever wants to become a credible political force anytime soon, it must appeal to the centre, where the vast majority of votes are. Jones is in that space. Sadly, not many others in Labour are.

        Also, what exactly is pro-social? Are you suggesting some political parties have ‘anti-social’ policies?

        • “Are you suggesting some political parties have ‘anti-social’ policies?”
          IV, are you serious?
          Umm…. the raft of current policies that has 250,000 children growing up in poverty would fit the anti-social description would they not? The majority of families that applies to were PUT there by antisocial policies.
          As for prosocial it means …oh never mind…

        • “Labour… must appeal to the centre” is a MYTH, this is demonstrably false.

          Labour must appeal to the 800,000 who didn’t vote last election, as Jones himself was fond of saying. However, he had no clue who that 800,000 are. They are not the “centre”. They are generally down the bottom of the heap, and need progressive policy to help them out from under.

          They need empowerment.

          They need to know their vote will count.

          They don’t need “centrist policy”.

          • I would argue Shane Jones’ pursuit of Countdown was probably the most non-voter energising thing Labour has done this year.

            That’s not to say someone else in the party couldn’t pick it up, but it was Jones who got people to pay attention.

            • Yes, but he got media support. Compare how his issue was nursed by the MSM, while the somewhat larger Labour forestry initiative got buried on page 21. The supermarket duopoly is a good issue to raise – but he hasn’t resolved it yet. The media were trying to purchase his goodwill and shoehorn him into the leadership.

              Consistently in democracies, an honest attempt to fairly represent the people will do better than a ringer for corporate elites, both electorally and in terms of performance.

            • Mana is relatively new to many voters. Hone has matured significantly taking on the role, but it was not so long ago that he was taking junkets to Europe and then goofing off instead of doing what was expected of him. Those of us who follow politics might know that, less interested folk might not have learned it from the MSM, who tend to serve Murdoch in the UK and the US, and Gina Rinehart (through her control of Fairfax) in NZ.

              • Mana is not Hone Harawira though (unless you are implying it is). Mana surely represents the values that many on the left believe Labour should be advocating for. If these policies are in fact attractive to the non voters then there should be nothing stopping Mana hoovering up the support of these people.

                • It may yet – but media bias plays an enormous role for Mana.

                  The public know a great deal about ACT, including some policies I imagine they wish they had not speculated about- a party polling well under 1%, but Mana is poorly and often negatively reported.

          • You have no idea how the 800,000 would even vote. There is no evidence they would vote Labour, or that they will be more inclined to do so if Labour continue to move to the left. NZ’ers are primarily in the political centre. John Key recognises this. Helen Clark recognised that, which is why she kept the rainbow, man ban, van ban and other silly factions away from front and centre of the party.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:
              April 23, 2014 at 12:46 pm

              You have no idea how the 800,000 would even vote. There is no evidence they would vote Labour, or that they will be more inclined to do so if Labour continue to move to the left.

              Because, my naive friend, there’s one thing you can say about the Right – they understand the power of the Vote, and they will use it to their personal advantage.

              National has a core 25-30% of support amongst rightwing/conservative voters.

              The balance is made up of “swing voters”, who jeremy anderson succinctly referred to below in his April 22, 2014, 8:34 pm post .

              The 800,000 who did not vote is made up, most likely of disaffected Labour/Left/working-class voters.

              They are the ones most likely to be discouraged for any number of reasons.

              If those disengaged voters – plus swing-voters – can be convinced to vote for a better alternative, we will see a change in government on 20 September.

            • Quite right IV – those 800,000 might be shy ACT voters scared off by other parties’ judgmental attitude to their relationships.

              Judith Collins certainly has a bit of that Cersei Lannister air about her…

              • They might be, although I doubt it. But as I said, you have no hard evidence for how the 800,000 would vote, so it’s all pure speculation.

        • Pro-social, for persons like IV who could swim all day in the sea of knowledge without getting wet, means for the public good.

          There is this thing called google you know, that allows even folk raised by wolves or Treasury pit vipers to learn a few things…

        • The really great thing about the intrinsicvalues of the world is that their beloved free market dogma is dying before their very eyes.

          • How so? Seems to be going ahead in leaps and bounds to me. More people are living under free market systems and benefiting from them than ever before.

          • You joking, right? The free market, in it’s various forms, is the system of choice for the vast majority of the western world. Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia…

            • It has been some years now since we passed the high water mark for the memes you so dearly love.

              Yet still you desperately cling to the corpse of neoliberalism as it drifts inexorably towards the black hole.

              All the money in the world can’t halt the death of a very stupid idea. One day you’ll realise that.

              • I was answering your comment about the free market, not neo-liberalism. We don’t have neo-liberalism in NZ, never have. Meanwhile, the free market continues as the basis for most modern economies across the planet.

                • You have much to learn IV. Start with Leo Strauss and dark Platonism. Then see what the real Plato scholars make of that particular plutocratic fiction.

                  • Nah, let’s just stick with the facts. NZ has ever had neo-liberalism. And our version of free market economics continues to deliver value to NZ’ers.

                    • You’re just a troll, you are only here to make trouble.

                      Denying neo-liberalism won’t make it go away – I wish it did.

                      It’s a childish response, but I guess it’s all you have left 🙂

                • unfortunately what you call the free market is far from that. Instead it’s a cover-up ideology that no one really understands but the big players. The masses are still affected by it as power hungry greedy bastards continue to milk the planet dry (including all it’s populations of humans, animals. mineral resources and plants… oh let’s not forget the oceans and atmosphere) before they the simply float away in some virgin space ship. Of course, the actual labour is done by those who would like to vote for people who care, but it seems these are as rare as them hen’s teeth.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:
              April 23, 2014 at 12:47 pm

              You joking, right? The free market, in it’s various forms, is the system of choice for the vast majority of the western world. Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia…

              Things change, IV, things change.

              Meanwhile, in Wall Street…

  2. A few more questions and far fewer answers.
    Is this more evidence of Tory backroom deals by National’s Hollow Men and the capitalist cronies?
    Were the Hollow Men trying to exert influence in the Labour Party’s Matua Shane Jones through Sir Wira Gardiner (Mr Hekia Parata) or ‘tribal allaince’, or to support an unelectable alternative to electable Cunliffe to give Key a third term?
    Is this similar to the 80’s when the extreme right ACT Tories hijacked their way into Labour because Muldoon had gone ‘socialist-rogue’ on the oligarchy NACT’s Brave New New Zild?
    Will Big business Countdown, be pleased that Jones is permanently stymied from further scathing attacks now that he has a Tory sinecure?
    Why won’t the Kiwi public see the nasty Tories and more people want a change of government than a third term for the tricky Tories and their coalition partners?
    When will Labour call for a Ministerial Inquiry into how a “Mission for Matua” (sometimes called “Jobs for the Cronies” in Pakeha vernacular) is magicked out of thin air?
    Is calling Matua Jones a “painful haemorrhoid’ insulting to haemorrhoids?

  3. Hard left – most of you guys wouldn’t know hard left if it was rammed up your jacksies!

    Anything slightly to the left of where you’re standing is always decried as hard left – even if, from where everyone else is standing, it’s still solid right!

    • “Hard Left” (or even just left) is right-speak for “I don’t like it”. For some, broccoli is hard left. OMG what am I saying, of course broccoli is hard left, I mean it is green after all, isn’t it?

  4. This is a huge step forward in Labour’s journey to being an important part of a new progressive government as it cleanses itself of its centrist neo lib ideology, and relinquishes any semblance of claim to the stagnant irrelevant centre of NZ politics.

  5. What’s the job description for this Designed by McCully position that Jones has scored?

    What’s the budget? And his personal pay? And his likely career path from here?

    What has the Pacific done to deserve this?

    How do we measure his success in the position? Who else was in line for it? Is there performance pay?

    Why him? Why now?

    Will this departure encourage les autres in Labour who are dithering on the brink of being driftwood on the outgoing tide? Will Cunliffe take the opportunity to make this a deep cleanse? Names come to mind…

    Will this take Collins off the agenda???

    Ponder. Ponder. Tricky. Very very tricky.

  6. The question I have for those of you celebrating Jones’ retirement from politics, is do you think that the Labour party is (or should be) a broad based party. It seems to me that it is narrowing its appeal, and trying to solidify its left flank (in conjunction with its support partners) but this may be at the expense of middle NZ – whatever that means

    • “do you think that the Labour party is (or should be) a broad based party”

      I don’t. The ‘broad church’ is a silly label that gives room to pleasing those who will forever hate Labour. It’s pointless, ineffectual, and probably based on focus groups.
      Ironically, a broad section of NZ society need left-wing policies, so broad church is inevitable at the moment – even if they do narrow to the left flank.
      A coherent narrative is far more attractive than a position on a moving spectrum – the former will attract swing voters, the latter will turn them off.
      The idea that we can define the political centre objectively is silly – that’s why Intrinsicvalue keeps talking about it. The so called centre has existed between Labour and National for years, if Labour moves to the left, then the centre moves to the left. Unfortunately, Labour have shifted the centre to the right over the past 30 years – bring on the lurch, we’ve been waiting…

      • “…if Labour moves to the left, then the centre moves to the left.”

        Complete nonsense. The centre doesn’t shift because a political party does. The centre doesn’t shift at all. The proof of this is evident in the fact that Labour has shifted to the left, and no-one’s gone with them!

        • Intrinsicvalue says:
          April 23, 2014 at 7:43 pm

          “…if Labour moves to the left, then the centre moves to the left.”

          Complete nonsense. The centre doesn’t shift because a political party does. The centre doesn’t shift at all. The proof of this is evident in the fact that Labour has shifted to the left, and no-one’s gone with them!

          Actually, it does.

          New Zealand’s political realignment since the 1980s is pretty much proof-positive.

          Take for example the concepts of free tertiary education and state-owned electricity generation and supply, as two examples.

          Once upon a time they were considered the norm – centrist policies.

          Post 1984, as the entire NZ society, economy , and political environment moved to the Right, what was once considered centrist is now considered left-wing.

          In terms of external politics, what was once left-wing politics is now centrist, embraced by the Nats as well as the left. I refer, of course, to NZ’s nuclear-free status, which even the centre-Right are wary of touching.

          So the center does move around quite a bit and any study of the last 50 years will show that quite clearly.

          • The basis for your argument is that the reforms of the 1980’s were right wing, and that state provision and ownership is centrist. I disagree.

            The reforms of the ’80’s moved NZ from what had become an increasingly command economy to a conventional mixed market model.

            State provision of free services such as education is not centrist. The mixed model we currently have (where the vast majority of the cost is born by the state, and were there is a private sector involvement) is. Public education is affordable for all, and private education available for all.

            The economic and social model we have in NZ today is entirely orthodox, and absolutely centrist, and today that is where most NZer’s inhabit, which is why the vast majority of people in NZ agree with the direction the country is going in.

            • “The economic and social model we have in NZ today is entirely orthodox, and absolutely centrist, and today that is where most NZer’s inhabit”

              It’s astounding that you really think like that Intrinsicvalue – especially since in the same post you note that we moved from a command economy to a mixed market model.
              Things change, ideologies come and go. Our politics of ecology is relatively new – environmentalism was laughed at just a few years ago by the majority – now it’s readily acknowledged by right wing politicians (even if only in rhetoric and not policies at the moment).
              The economic centre swings around too. If you keep an eye on what is coming out in the academic world across all its disciplines, you’ll notice a re-emergence of some aspects of Marxist theories (such as the critique of capital, not predicting the future through historical determinism). Over the next 20 years there will be a shift to the left in economic thinking throughout the West, particularly as we see the BRICS countries rise and our relative quality of life decreases.
              The critique of capital that is coming out of academia is becoming mainstream and only ignored by the ideologues who keep their head in the sand – like yourself IV. The reason you don’t want to engage with this view is because your identity is tied to your ideology (kinda sad really).
              The centre of economics will move to the left, simply because continuous growth is now acknowledged as impossible. The two most prominent critiques of capital at the moment come from David Harvey and Thomas Piketty…you really need to read outside of your econ 101 textbooks

              • “The economic centre swings around too.”

                No, it doesn’t. The economic centre is orthodoxy, mixed market economies.

                “The centre of economics will move to the left,”

                If it moves to the left, then it isn’t in the centre. Popular opinion may move to the left, but that doesn’t change the fact that we identify it as ‘to the left’.

                “The critique of capital that is coming out of academia is becoming mainstream”

                Really? Academia is generally captive to the left, and in the real world they are treated with the healthy scepticism they deserve.

                • “No, it doesn’t. The economic centre is orthodoxy, mixed market economies.”

                  But the economic centre was a “command economy” 40 years ago. You said it yourself before.
                  What we consider today’s orthodoxy / centre will not be the centre in 25 years time. This is pretty basic, I really hope you are trolling or you are incredibly stupid.

                  Even if you tried to define an objective centre (which is very problematic), communism is far left and laissez-faire capitalism is far right, therefore, a party like MANA would be centre right – because they still operate well within capitalism – private property still exists (albeit restricted), wages are still earned, private enterprise allowed etc.
                  However trying to objectively define the ‘centre’ is a waste of time and pointless, but you go for it if it makes you feel better.

                  “Academia is generally captive to the left, and in the real world they are treated with the healthy scepticism they deserve.”

                  You sound like a Fox News broadcaster. All ideology comes from academia – where do you think our current ideology came from? Do you think it’s natural?
                  Everything you think is true about economics is nothing more than a theory which was formulated in a university years ago by academics everyone was sceptical of at the time…now people like you take his thoughts as gospel. The problem is you have no idea why his theories are not applicable anymore, nor do you fully understand them…you just keep repeating them like a moronic robot.

                  • “But the economic centre was a “command economy” 40 years ago.”

                    No it wasn’t. It may have been in vogue, but that doesn’t make it the centre.

                    “You said it yourself before.”

                    No, I didn’t.

                    “What we consider today’s orthodoxy / centre will not be the centre in 25 years time.”

                    Yes it will.

                    What you don’t understand is that the centre is not determined by an opinion poll, it is determined by an objective analysis of economic policy. The more Govt. intervention the further you move to the left, the less, he more you move to the the right. The centre is inhabited, and always will be, by a mixed market approach as we currently have in NZ.

                    Public opinion and Govt. policy may shift, but the economic and political centre doesn’t. You just don’t seem to understand this.

                    • Oh I get it. You define ‘centre’ by combining Peter Dunne’s position with your econ 101 textbook…I made the mistake of assuming you had the ability to think laterally.

                      So on your ‘objective’ (lol) spectrum, communism exists off the scale to the left somewhere. You are blinded by ideology to the point that you think economics never existed prior to the 1990s

  7. Takes a special kind of integrity to present yourself as a candidate for leader, while simultaneously plotting your defection to the opposition.
    He should fit right in.

    • I must need new specs. I read defection as defecation which is quite the irony as that’s what Mr Jones has been doing on any that didn’t agree with his beliefs for quite some time.
      Happy Earth Day 🙂

  8. What is this crap I read here about Labour being past it and washed up. 9 years of a Labour led government. Fiscally prudent and the major policies of that tenure have not been reversed. I presume people on this thread take notice of NZ politics generally so here is the news. Governments in this country, at least since 1984 are eventually voted out not in. After 9 years Labour got voted out not because National are better but because we feel like a change. Got that, we get sick of them or they are corrupt or useless fuckers and we throw them out. We do not vote governments in we always vote them out. We will do the same thing in September. Shane Jones, good riddance you were never suited to parliament and you were always in the wrong party.

    • “Fiscally prudent and the major policies of that tenure have not been reversed. ”

      Increasing taxes to fund massive growth in Govt. expenditure is not ‘fiscally prudent’, no matter how you stretch the definition. Spending almost $1b on a train set is not fiscally prudent. Inducing votes with massive bribe (e.g. interest free loans to students) is not fiscally prudent. Leaving a massive hole in ACC’s balance sheet is not fiscally prudent. Bequething 10 years of deficits to an incoming Govt. is not fiscally prudent. Shall I go on?

  9. A person who worked at a high level for the Labour Party told me after the departure of Helen Clark that there were now very few among the younger Labour ministers who seemed to have any appreciation or awareness of history, the real meaning of Left and Right Wing… Any real idea of what Socialism and Capitalism mean.

    Just social-climbing career people. Like National. It strikes me that Shane Jones could well be one of those.

    No loss.

  10. “Don’t let the door hit your generous backside on the way out,” was heard from Cunliffe’s office.


  11. Jones was certainly one of the main “irritants” in hte Labour caucus as I saw it. Yes, it is better that he is gone, and Paul Henry and others, all these “fans” of the rather “blue” Labour MP on their list, they are of course pretending this is the beginning of the end for Cunliffe and Labour as a whole.

    While Jones may have appealed to some voters, in other quarters there may be new voters Labour may get, and others that may come back. So we can expect less nasty back stabbing and attacks against the Greens then, which should help mend some ill feelings that may have been caused here and there.

    It did not surprise me to hear that a National supporter, and apparently the partner of Hekia Parrata was “donating” towards Jones becoming Labour leader. And there were donations from the oil industry too. That will certainly have sped up the decision making process of that at times rather rude character from up north (other Northerners, please take no offence).

    So much for “loyalty” to Labour, and then accepting a job with Murray McCulley, hah!

  12. Somehow the idea that a man imbued with Ivy League pomp and a blustery ego to match would simply walk away from the epicenter of political power seems incredulous – especially when the trade off could be a perhaps – less illustrious job managing fishing quota in Nukualofa or Suva. It doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

    Which makes me think the story of Shane Jones’ retirement is yet to be fully told. In relation to his privileged attacks on Countdown NZ, I sympathize with producers / suppliers and Countdown workers, who seem to have been nothing more than pawns in Jones’ and Labour’s game to attack National – an approach which was bungled from the outset because they couldn’t get their house in order. And now Jones is doing a big runner, leaving others to sort out the supermarket mess he leaves behind.

    • More to this story? I think you’re right.

      The mere fact it came hard on the heels of his funder mini controversy had me wondering

  13. If the aging neolib dinosaurs follow suit, the party will have the potential of being more progressive and sincere. Or is a political asteroid required to wipe them out?

  14. It would appear now that we have the corrupt v the left, gee I know which way I am heading with my vote.
    I hope every single one of you who decried Labour for “job creation” will get really angry with this cynical, corrupt move.
    Jeez so much corruption, so little time to deal with it all

  15. John Key will be very very happy to have this most effective and charismatic man removed from the oppositions ranks. He may be an overweight misogynist sex ape, but he has more charisma and appeal to the everyman in his little finger than the entire party has in aggregate.

    I understand his leaving though, he has no future in the party, which is a bit of a disaster for a labour that wants to get elected (I equate the gimcrack of awakening the missing million with the offering of eternal life of the jehova’s).

    We have five months of watching declining polls under the leadership of a phony and oily narcissist – watching the party abase itself to the populist (and in my opinion racist) winston first who lets be honest will sell out to a high polling national party for a nighthood and deputy leadership and treasurer roll without blinking – he will blame the devil greens for his decision as he blamed the lemon sucking alliance 20 years ago.

    Although without shane jones Im thinking National will almost certainly cobble togeather a coalition with act/UF and we will finally see the end of NZ first and the vile winston peters – maybe shane jones leaving is not a bad thing after all.

    • jONES WAS CHARISMATIC??? He was as fake and as arrogant as they come…. glad to see him take a walk. The Labour party just gained back a little credibility!

    • You clearly do not understand how much of a liability Shane Jones was to Labour. If I were John Key, I would be more than happy for him to have stayed with Labour, where he would be destabilising and undermining their efforts to get rid of national. Yes, Jones has charisma and appeal, but it is all self-serving aggrandisement. Those of us who want to see a united and strong Labour party that is committed to a left wing ideology are very happy that he has gone. It is no loss whatsoever. A few more of them need to follow the same route.

      • If you want to implement change you need power, to get power you need votes, Jones may have been offensive to the left but the lefts dont stack higher than about 20% of the population – you need to win the center (dont bother with the magic pixie dust of the missing million Id rather hear about eternal life), cunliffe may have the brains and ability to be a stellar cabinet minister – as a leader he is a failure. Jones oozes charisma in a badboy woman hating way – not someone the hard left will love – but necessary for labour to get in the votes – without him they will dip to 25% and will be praying for winston to get them over the line – never going to happen.

        Im interested in seeing the post election line up – Grant Robertson and Adern – could be a united caucus after all, will they allow the members to elect a leader or will theyre be a blood bath – interesting days ahead.

        Shane is a self loving, woman hating sex ape, hostile to gay people, but jeepers labour needed him soooo badly to reach out to the like minded blue collar guys and gals whos votes are so vital for the red machine to win in 4.5 months time.

        • I don’t agree that Jone’s appeal is widespread. He might have some support from some redneck guys but he has lost the support of women voters, and men and women who want a more unified Labour that is more true to its roots, and a more unified opposition. He is divisive, and for these reasons he is no loss to Labour.
          However I understand your comments re David Cunliffe, but I think it is too soon to call him a failure. I and many others hope that he soon starts to fulfill the potential that saw him get elected in the first place. If this doesn’t happen, then expect 3 more years of slash and burn and hard-right with a smiley face.

          • Your wrong about Jones, educated left leaning feminists may hate him, but socially conservative working women and men (the type who read the womans weekly) love the guy, he reminds me a lot of John Tamihere – a bit of a bad boy, politically incorrect not much appeal for white liberal hysterics – but big pull with uneducated socially conservative blue collar voters – thats my take and nothing you can say will detract from it (its also the dominant view of MSM so your out on a limb denying it buddy).

            Cunliffe promised great things, hes articulate and very clever and has a strong performance record in cabinet (he was the guy who oversaw local loop unbundeling which is very complex).

            As a leader hes been laughable, the guy comes off as phoney greasy and narcissistic, Jones comes off as a likeable and genuine bad boy, Cunliffe has had months at the top and is not getting any better – hes failed end of story and there will no longer be a Jones option if things sink really low (robertson wont grab the poisoned chalice) – this election will be an unmitigated disaster for the left – Im not really looking forward to the blood bath in the labour party which follows it.

            • I don’t understand lauding Jones while panning Peters. They are cut from exactly the same political cloth. Self-aggrandizing, bigoted, opportunist, bounty bars the both of them. I don’t really care whether or not it’s good for Labour, but it’s certainly good news to anyone who wants to stop the ecocidal fossil fuel mining in this country.

        • @ Taupata: “Shane is a self loving, woman hating sex ape, hostile to gay people, but jeepers labour needed him soooo badly to reach out to the like minded blue collar guys and gals whos votes are so vital for the red machine to win in 4.5 months time.”

          Jeez, gimme a break! Of course a woman-hating oik’s going to attract the female vote – a big catchment in the political landscape. Have you forgotten National’s 2005 defeat under the leadership of Don Brash? That defeat was in no small measure due to female voters being turned off by him.

          We’re only too well aware of the woman-haters in our society; that they hold such pernicious views does them no credit. Nor should such people expect to have those views validated by the leadership of any party, let alone Labour.

          Misogyny may well be an unlovely fact of life in some sectors of society, but it by no means follows that such views should get any traction at all in political parties. Get over it, or crawl back under the woodpile.

  16. This gets more interesting how long before his new best mates dump on him big time? Once he ceases to be of any further use to them is my guess. That will be when they realise that his defection has hardly caused a ripple, in fact they have done the Labour Party a service and have created much rejoicing and harmony (well it will do as soon as a few other tories depart)

  17. The political sentiment that seems to prevail, or at least makes a lot of noise, is old, male, misogynistic and homophobic.
    They may do better in Brunei now that they have introduced Sharia law

  18. Good on Shayne Jones he knows that any Government labour trys to form will be with the Greens. The Greens are Labours greatest enemy they are in fairyland with many of their ideas. Their approach will be to alienate Labour from the Centre voters. No Government can be formed without the support of the Centre. Unfortunately for those at the Standard and the hard left not enough New Zealanders support your communist or Marxist ideas to form a government

    • This is Crosby-Textor key messaging. If National can’t win, their puppetmasters want Labour to have committed themselves to exactly the same business-as-usual policies, in pursuit of the mythical “centre” vote. Crawl back to your handlers Rob, and tell them their time is nearly up.

  19. Not until the last river is polluted, the last fish is gone….
    The last tree is cut down, & no more bird song….
    As your children curse you for the world we have left
    Maybe the denialists, ,with a tinge of regret
    Will shake off their blinkers & finally get
    That the air they’re smelling is cow shit pong
    And that the fucking Greenies were right all along.

  20. @ Taupata: Further to this “Shane is a self loving, woman hating sex ape” meme, I assume that, since he hates women, he isn’t having sex with them?

  21. Alot of talk about neo liberalism and the free market. It seems that alot on the right and a lot on the left keep making the same mistake -without mentioning just what it is, and more importantly…what was there before.

    Very broadly ..this country has since the 1930’s practiced Keynesian economics. It was this economic ideology that pulled the world out of the great lip service to its forms of classical neo liberalism and indeed practices Keynesian economics.

    Classical neo liberalism,was developed during the 19th was the basis on which the west approached its monetarist policies..however…with the 1929 stock market crash ..the flaws in this ideology came home to roost.

    John Manyard Keynes, from Cambridge ,England developed an economic model which although incorporated elements of classical neo and large supplanted it as the dominant economic theory..all of Europe…and later America adopted it in various forms and the results were the same..those that did..pulled free of the Depression in around about 6 months.

  22. Now…around 1947-49….a group met in Switzerland ..calling themselves the Mont Pelerin society..named after the mountain retreat it was held at. This was a group of bankers,diplomats, thinkers,strategists and industrialists who …watching China fall to the communists ..devised ways to preserve western capitalism.

    Essentially..yes it did contain neo liberal monetarism as its core economic ideology. This group were also hostile to the teachings of Keynesian of their most well known public speakers was Milton Freidmann…

    Basically,..they advocated as far as possible the totality of the free/open markets..and a removal of tariffs and any form of protectionism.

    What this means is that industries and workers (both )are out competed by countries with large populations working for extremely low rates of pay. Hence the reason why large businesses move offshore- to those very same places.

    I do not have to go into the 1984 Labour government and the following National governments and what transpired ..most of you are well aware of the on going social destruction and impoverishment these monetarist policies have caused to not only the working classes but now the middle classes in New Zealand.

    It is an unbalanced ideology , and serves only the very top elite..the trickle down affect is a mirage. We were once a nation with among the most envied standards of living globally…now we rank around 32nd…with Mexico,Spain,..and eastern European nations.

    If you wondered why there was so little dissimilarity between Labour and National – particularly during those might interest you to know that Roger Douglass and Ruth Richardson were both board members of the Mont Pelerin society…and both ministers of finance.

    It was a concerted effort aided also by the business roundtable to remove all obstructions to facilitate the dismantling of the successful Keynesian model which we had followed- the same model the modern states of Scandinavia follow to this day.

  23. I think Im getting a better idea of why Labour are in such trouble.

    Reading through the comments above and noting what the apparent labour supporters are saying, something became obvious.

    You are all running in different directions – Idealogically. It seems that there is no agreement on anything, and if this is an indication of how the party membership thinks – then there is no hope.

    Its sort of like ‘All roads lead to the Centre’ – but unfortunately they dont.

Comments are closed.