ON THURSDAY NIGHT pressure mounted against all contenders to withdraw their intention to replace David Cunliffe as Labour leader. That is, apart from one: Grant Robertson.
The factions inside Labour’s caucus are manoeuvring to decide on a new leader through back-room dealing rather than see the contest go to a primary.
This strategy will be scuttled should David Cunliffe resign as leader and then issue his intention to regain party member and union backing, and re-seek the leadership. This is a risky move that Cunliffe’s own supporters are advising against.
If Robertson’s tactic succeeds and he becomes leader uncontested, rumblings and malcontent will continue to spread beyond the caucus to infect the party as a whole. And the union movement will rightly feel robbed of its constitutional right to have a say in who leads this party.
IF THE ELECTION RESULT which was dished out to Labour was not enough to incite an immediate leadership primary, then the caucus’ refusal to recognise David Cunliffe as the leader should cement it. Now is the time for a fresh-faced new leader to be chosen, the question that remains is… who?
Let’s explore that conundrum, and consider whether opportunity and progress can be constructed from such a dire situation; why a real spring-clean is needed; the credentials required of a new leader; and why New Zealand’s centre-centre-left parties should look to Australia’s right to see how a pre-election coalition bloc with one leader, one voice, one set of policies has become a political force that wins elections.
Many on the left will say the ABCs (the Anyone But Cunliffe faction) has bided its time, sitting slyly silent as the election inched forward, scenting large-scale historic defeat. And now, with an election loss of gigantic proportions in the bag, the ABC faction will use this to unseat its arch-rival from power.
So be it.
David Cunliffe himself will know that realistically he had one-shot at leading this party to victory. He will know, that one shot missed its target, that his aspirations to be prime minister will now forever be elusive. And it is a political fact that if the shoe was on the other foot, Cunliffe would be calling for blood.
David Cunliffe will know; he needs to resign the leadership to save what’s left of the party. And personally, he needs to resign to stave off a slow lingering political death. His resignation would also force an early primary contest on his opponents, who are not quite ready to run.
With David Cunliffe’s exit pending, caucus MPs will be anticipating a purge on the horizon. Many will delight in ridding themselves of the leader’s staff: Matt McCarten, as chief of staff, will certainly be first to get the sack. But that, is another story.
BACKSTORY FROM HELL DEMANDS NEW BLOOD, NEW LEADERSHIP, NEW PROSPECTS
THE PARTY… Labour must wake up and scent the air. Because from outside this once broad-tent, in the real New Zealand, springtime has sprung. People are moving on, fast. From here, Labour’s self-dissection will simply create a political latency that in turn will become Labour’s self-conceived prophesy – it risks creating a political sea-anchor that will cause the party to stall, further disengage from opposition-politics, and further render its MPs as irrelevant and cumulatively a spent-force.
We know from previous observations that Labour is notorious for its naval-gazing. Whenever a crisis occurs, those who have occupied its caucus seemingly for decades roll out the tried and true rhetoric of “oh we must examine why this has occurred” and “we must learn from our mistakes”. Well, this tradition fails to cut it when one considers the responsibility this party shoulders as the leading force of the political centre-left – irrespective of last Saturday’s failure.
Any self-examination, of what went wrong or otherwise, will only reveal what has been blindingly obvious to any independent observer over the past six years. The detachment, the disengagement, the aloofness, the tribalism, the inability of the party to attract quality candidates based on merit. That the inverse has too often been the case where selections have been based on a person’s label, their political identity, rather than on their raw ability to represent and lead.
This, in large part, has contributed to Labour’s estrangement from real contemporary New Zealand. Out here, real people aspire to progress and desire to prosper and expect the party they elect to be representative of their own values.
This will grate at many on the left: New Zealand voters today are less ideological, less tribal in their political preferences, in large proportions (especially in the cities) not born in this country and see the role of politicians and authority through a different lens than New Zealand-born voters do. People seek solutions from their politicians especially where government hinders their ability to get ahead, or operate or work in a fashion that knits with their lifestyle. There is fertile ground here for a party determined to represent people at opposition level. Advocacy and representation by opposition MPs was the culture that Labour embraced in 1996-99 – and why it was rewarded with an election win in November of that year – a win that empowered almost nine years of governance.
This is not a pure left-right axis constituency. The left’s opponents know this.
The left often criticises National for being a club, for it inciting a cult-like-culture around the Prime Minister John Key. This is all true, but it is clearly what excites almost 50 percent of the voting public.
When Labour considers its new leader, it ought to take these observations to heart.
For many Labour is guilty of having held onto the old guard; of giving in to those who burn to place identity politics ahead of class; of having advanced the interests of the ‘heir apparent’ (who was singled out for loyally serving the electorate MP or their union); for having served the interests of the political elite and the awful snobbery emitting from the supposed intelligentsia. Others speak of how Labour has lost touch with its founding purpose, criticise it for abandoning the centre, for becoming preoccupied with the left, for being too right.
Labour’s brand has become more about what it excludes rather than for what it includes. This is not all the fault of the current leader. But as he said on election night, the buck stops with him.
Labour needs to wake up to all those exclusions and select a leader that heralds a shifting of the old-guard.
In reality, this is the appraisal that Labour must overcome. It’s a challenge that only Labour can correct.
A REAL SPRING-CLEAN IS NEEDED:
If Labour truly is committed to removing institutionalised irrelevancy then it needs a complete spring-clean. This must begin with the leadership.
Despite David Cunliffe’s ability to have taken on John Key in the pre-election leaders’ debates (a feat performed well, and a feat all others within the 2011-14 caucus would have failed) it is time for realism to ascend.
Out here, life is hard. No one gives a loser a second chance.
Shearer has been there, done that, and failed. But he is relevant in seeding a realisation among the media, the public, and his faction’s opponents, that he represents a loyalty shift within the party’s power-base.
Labour needs new blood. It has been starved of innovative inspiring representatives for too long.
But within its current caucus there is opportunity. It will be risky, courageous, even untested within the beltway, for some of you you will guess where this argument is going.
For those who hate the ABCs, let them speak their opposition here, in the comments below. And I realise there will be many who choose to do so. My challenge to you however is to come up with a real alternative.
Consider this.
Labour needs a new generation of representative to rebuild what is tired and tatty.
- a person who can inject a passion, an enthusiasm into the leadership role;
- a leader who will demonstrate the courage and conviction necessary to breach Labour’s institutionalised tribalism;
- a leader who is able to unshackle Labour from its first-passed-the-post narrow-mindedness, to lead not only Labour as an entity committed to apply advocacy-politics to the legislature but also leadership to all the other parties that occupy the opposition benches in the 2014-17 term.
Let me ask you at this juncture: who could lead such a new and brave movement?
First answer: no one among the 2011-14 caucus.
For many on the left, what I am about to write will cause considerable unease and anger. So be it. So let’s be frank.
- The new leader must be able to demonstrate a winning campaign, a formula that has proven to get results against a high-tide, against a strong nationwide swing to National.
- This person must have achieved success through a campaign founded on solution-based politics.
- The success must have been achieved based on personal merit, electorate-specific solutions, and, popular appeal – as opposed to party interference.
- The new leader should demonstrate an ability also to create a swing for Labour in the urban seats, like was achieved for Labour in Epsom in 2005 when the candidate pulled in a party vote tally for Labour of 9915 – the highest number of party votes for Labour in this National-stronghold at any time under MMP.
- And the new leader must demand uncompromising standards… the same relentless hard-working door knocking commitment that sets the benchmark by example.
That list excludes almost all. So let’s focus on inclusions.
MY ARGUMENT HERE is the centre-centre-left bloc needs a leader that can rise above the entrenched tribalisms that flare between the centrists and those of the left.
The left also needs to explore how it can work within such a community of interests, to recognise that large proportions of New Zealanders are resistant to abstracts, ideologies and the irrelevancies that such polarising utterances ensure.
With respect to Labour, the ‘hard’-left must realise it is without representation in this parliament. It must decide whether it can embrace a politic, or at least work with a movement, that drives a narrative which openly pursues pragmatic solutions, economic and otherwise, while prioritising socially centre-left principles.
Labour’s next real leader will need to bridge these divides that dominate the public sphere – contributing manipulations of micro-groups, agendas driven by strategists, commentators, pundits and political elites. But beyond this, the new leader must occupy and counter-balance that cultural space that threatens to continue to divide provincial New Zealand against the cities.
The next leader must be a person who understands the necessity of regional development in the provinces, and how the business of commerce, economic progress, housing and real estate can, when left rudderless, impact on the livelihoods of those living in the cities and the nation as a whole.
And… in addition to all of this, Labour’s next leader must embrace the notion of a broad-church coalition of parties that forward-commits to being a solid cohesive-bloc not just after an election is held, but well in advance, throughout the entire term while in opposition.
Who among the current caucus has this passion burgeoning and burning inside her/his belly? Who among them has a youthful continence, an exuberance that is contagious?
Who can take it to Labour with a zest necessary to expel the has-beens and smarten the party up to a condition where it can convince voters (and Labour loyalists) that the days of tatty and tired thinking have passed?
In my view the ‘old guard’, and the more ‘recent old guard’ need to stand aside, resist the temptation of putting in a caretaker transitional leader, and do something brave and outside the square.
But let the warning be clear: Like Cunliffe, the party has one shot. Once a change has been made at the top Labour’s members of Parliament need to exude a collective courage to dig in and accept they must rid the party of the boring conservative culture that has plagued it for much of our voting lifetimes.
They need to reconfigure what Labour has become, and connect it to what it can offer the other parties in the Legislature of the centre-left; what it can really offer a new generation of New Zealanders, rather than fall back on the already tried and failed culture of identity politics, vanilla, and bland.
New Labour needs simply to stand upon the ideals of meritocracy rather than settle for mere representatives of stakeholder groups and divisive agendas.
What is needed is for all the centre-centre-left parties to consider how they can maintain their respective brands, the strengths of their own idiosyncrasies, connections to their own prized and coveted constituencies, while forming a broad-church opposition bloc that is firmly cemented into the New Zealand way – an alternative coalition, just as the Australian-right has done in the generation-long-commitment between the Liberal Party and the Nationals.
In Australia, without that pre-election commitment between the regionally-strong Nationals and the urban and beltway savvy Liberals “the coalition”, as it is known across the ditch, would never be able to take on the broad-church Australia Labour Party.
In New Zealand, we have the flip-side in evidence.
Here National is the all consuming party. Over the past two electoral cycles the National Party has consumed all of its coalition partners unto itself. Where ACT was once an economically right neoliberal reformist party aspiring to over 12 percent of the popular vote, it is now simply a parody. United Future reached its zenith campaigning on family values and centrist economics. It is now a husky voiceless limping has-been. The Maori Party once a force for both tribal iwi and urban Maori aspiration, is now, at best, branded as representing corporate iwi.
But the point here is, what was perceived by many to be National’s weakness – akin to a political-expression of the nasty corporate raider consuming all for the sole benefit of itself – this manifestation has actually become National’s biggest strength.
New Zealanders clearly embrace MMP as their preferred electoral system. They have had enough shots at voting in its favor to make this a given. But what for some might sound incongruous, this past election has shown many many New Zealand voters value above all else a strong stable government.
Does that mantra ring a bell?
It should.
It was the mantra that Prime Minister John Key used repeatedly every time he had the opportunity during the election campaign and in the immediate aftermath.
The bi-polar offerings from the centre-centre-left was at best perceived as a loose grouping of many leaders, a raft of policies all pitched at the centre-centre-left voter, all positioning to profess their policy to be the best version. The conglomeration of message was at best a patchwork of overlapping argument, and at worst a causation for the observing public to abandon the centre-centre-left in droves.
Despite popular acceptance by those polled for the raw policies, those carrying the burden of message failed to resonate with New Zealanders in numbers necessary to be competitive – due to their being no one-single voice, or perception of solidarity, to be heard among all the noise.
But the Greens should also acknowledge its weird dance with National in the last two-weeks of the election campaign.
While both parties offered a stable impression of leadership through the early stages of the campaign – while John Key looked haggard, annoyed, and desperate to bat away the real and rotten allegations that dirty politics had infected his party, his government, and himself – both Labour and the Greens stood as parties alone, competing for small gains, minor swings. Neither gave the appearance of ever being what might have become a coordinated and stable government in waiting. Far from it.
And in this post-election period the Greens have done nothing to convince others that they have learned from the disastrous campaign result that it and Labour achieved.
The Greens now show the same frailties of reasoning that Labour fell into in 2008: the Greens now want to be embraced as the lead opposition party and aspire to beat Labour in the percentage of vote it attracts at the 2017 general election.
That, I suggest, will only aid National to cement in its brand as the party of deep and enduring state.
No. To truly be an alternative, the challenge to the centre-centre-left parties is to look across the Tasman, eye up what the right has done over there, put aside their own tribalism and focus on common-ground and common-need.
From this, if they are sincere, will emerge a broad-based broad-church entity, where each party maintains its patch, its brand, but just as the Liberals and Nationals do across the ditch, command an understanding that when they speak they speak with one voice, with one leader, on one platform of coordinated policies, and as one alternative government-in-waiting.
The right in Australia got it right. The question is, can New Zealand’s centre-centre-left do it for the public, sacrifice themselves, and serve the nation’s interest?
This leads us back to the issue of leadership.
Stuart Nash, is this your time to shine? Last night he decided to bow out of the contest and settle back into his Parliamentary role. And this morning the New Zealand Herald reported:
Nash said last night that he had just returned to Parliament and needed to concentrate on consolidating his hold on the Napier seat. Asked about the “One Robertson” solution, he said he was “agnostic” about whether there was a contest. “If there are two or more people who want to be leader there should be; if there is only one person and nobody else feels they can or want to be leader, I’m happy with that.”
A source close to Mr Nash said he had come under pressure from the Robertson camp not to stand but his own confidants had also told him he could afford to wait.
Mr Nash did not deny Robertson supporters had spoken to him, but said it had been his own decision.
Mr Robertson has stayed quiet this week but supporters have argued that having only him in the contest would spare the party another costly and potentially divisive run-off under the new leadership rules giving the members and unions a vote.
However, there was also concern it could leave members feeling cheated of their chance to have a say on the leadership and lead to a perception that Mr Robertson did not have a proper mandate. (Ref. NZHerald).
UPDATE: On Saturday, David Cunliffe initiated a primary leadership contest. That caused Stuart Nash to reconsider his leadership credentials.
If Nash does pitch himself into the primary, he will offer a fresh new alternative to the Cunliffe V Robertson stouch. Nash would also offer Labour’s caucus, membership and unions a leadership-candidacy-option with winning credentials – ie; he knows how to win votes against a swing in both provincial and urban settings.
This special feature is syndicated by MIL-OSI and was first published on LiveNews.co.nz.
—
Is this satire?
You are joking right?
You are suggesting another person with very little experience to lead Labour?
How did that work out for Labour last time?
Selwyn’s been watching too much of ‘Richo’ (and probably “Richo and Jones’)
It’s interesting to see the somewhat meaningless “like/dislike” counts post election. It seems to me that there’s now an increased number of what I’d call the ‘retarders’. You could always rely on at least 2 (i.e. a total number of “likes”, minus 2 or 3 – guess who …. the trollers.
I’m surprised at Selwyn’s post – usually someone I follow and admire.
In this post, I see all that Helen Clark-type pragmatism-“move forward’ stuff shining through. Often (maybe even usually) a stance that’s warranted. (the “So be it” paragraph above – among others).
Let’s be clear though, and reflect a little. DC was NEVER given a chance by those ABCers – the so-called ‘pragmatists’ with an ideology wedded to the neo-liberal, right alongside toting up their outstanding mortgages (the pluses/minuses/liabilities on their asset spread sheets); their aspirations and career prospects, AND their egos; the degree of their media ‘presence’; ….. and a host of other measures. They piss and leak like diabetics and the incontinent in plestuk neepies – depending on the degree of what they perceive to be their personal position – favourable or otherwise.
They’ve been the Peddy Gear “sauces within Labour tell me………..” along with (“woud you like a little Mayo with that Peddy? – how about for the little lady Tova – did I tell you she’s looking gorgeous these days …. that tooth whitener relly pays off eh?”)
They’ve also been the hangers-on, the ideological with whatever ‘adjustments’ needed to suit their egos and personal circumstances. They’re the NZ equivalent of the Blairite spin meisters (one who once said on a visit to NZ that “it’s not about ideology, but ideas” (For Fuck’s Fucking Fucker Fucking a Fuckee Fukwit’s victims arse – but “moving on eh?)) – yet one who has converted to Catholicism and is prepared to indulge in whatever ideology (or SET of beliefs) to maintain and income.
I have a problem with Selwyn’s (Richo’s) stance that suggests an urgent need for replacing ‘THE LOSER’ post -election (or should I say post erection’. I do agree it’s time for a fucking good shakedown, and maybe even one or two executions.
The (one of the) problem(s) I have is that we are again just going to kick the fucking can down the road.
– neglected is the fact that the neo-libs; the ABCers and many of the ‘old-guard- HIJACKED the Labour Party base, it’s logo, it’s brand, it’s principles, indeed it’s very identity as a “LABOUR” party for the sake of ….. well ‘winning’ and not being a ‘LOSER’.
– They now want to effectively change what LABOUR stands for – and what it stood for at it’s inception for the sake of pragmatism and for the sake of the careers of MP’s.
– neglected it principle
– neglected is the desire to further democratise the party – the manner in which ‘leaders’ (and show ponies alike) hold sway
I could go on, but for me, it’s now all rather a bit pathetic.
They don’t seem to understand that the ‘iconic’ John Key monitored, respects, and does his best to emulate the various mechanisms by which his ideological enemy (Helen Kluk, and H2) maintained ‘pear’. The only difference is that HC was highly intelligent, whereas JK isn’t ekshully that bright – relying on sales-speak going forward, spin, lessoned learned from being a cnut in the corp world by disassociating hisself from the bad decisions and taking credit for the good stuff. (Krisma it ain’t – but it’s enuff to fool the ppl summa the toim eh?)
There’s no way of telling, but IF they ditch DC, then that Labour ‘brand’ is going to take a seriously longer time to regain any balance or cred than if they stick with it.
Bear in mind the ACTUAL fragility of the NZ con-omy; letalone the Global economy.
…… so please Searwun, resume normal progremmung fothwith – without the aid of an Edil Aide potenshull escape route
Hi Tim, I most often get a lot from your writing too. There’s a method in my supposed ‘madness’ in this piece. My premise is that Labour is what it is, it is a centrist, pragmatic, socially conscious party that naturally attracts centre-centre-left aligned candidates. That’s what I mean by the ‘so be it’ comment. There’s no point trying to squeeze something out of a group of people who cannot be something other than who they are.
I think this election showed a situation where when a party tries to be something to everyone while not possessing a conviction of what it really is then it ends up being mediocre, spanning too broad a reach, and encroaching on the space other parties occupy on the centre-left-left… The result, no one wins.
The solutions, if there are any, will need hot debate. That’s why I decided to kick this piece off in the way I did.
I really believe the Greens now shoulder the burden of being what it is, and is recognised for, and also being a caretaker party for the broad community-based movement that did not make it back. Will Mana return? Time will tell, but the Greens, not Labour, are best positioned to carry the torch that continues to burn inside those who were hopeful that the Mana Movement would bring into Parliament 2-4 MPs. Actually, in some ways the Greens are responding to this. As I understand it (and this news has probably yet to break into the MSM) Hone Harawira has asked Metiria Turei to sponsor the Feed The Kids Bill on his and Mana’s behalf. This makes sense.
My argument here is practical. Labour should be given the opportunity to rebuild itself in the space it is best suited to. I reckon it should just bite the bullet and do something radical, take a chance on some new and relatively hungry talent. If it is successful then its new leader needs to have the guts to lead a broad-cooperative of parties spanning from the centre to the left. That’s what I was getting at in this paragraph:
That forward commitment in my view is essential if there is to be a chance of convincing voters that the centre-left-left is capable of providing strong stable government.
And I suggest that we look at what Australia’s right did years ago so it could compete with the broad-church ALP… the right formed a pre-election coalition where the Nationals brought in support from the regions and the Liberals contributed support from the cities and beltway. The Coalition over that side of the ditch campaigns separately among its constituencies but with the public knowing full well, should it make government The Coalition will govern under one umbrella… as one, with one leader.
That’s what I meant in this paragraph:
If the centre-left-left here cannot work under this kind of arrangement in opposition, I’d suggest it doesn’t have a show at making government in the future. And, if by some strange turn of fate it did, it would pull itself apart under the relationships that exist right now.
You might not agree with me, but don’t pigeon-hole me as a Clark-Government revisited flunky. I actually spent quite a time investigating and producing advocacy journalism against that government’s handling/abuse of security intelligence material involving the Ahmed Zaoui case. There were some good things that occurred during those years, but there was a lot that needed challenging too.
If people believe the oldish guard inside Labour are able to deliver them a chance of government under the current arrangements, well good for them. I don’t you see. We will have to agree to differ on this one.
@ Tim …. I really appreciate your reply, and the cursory scan I did – I’m in agreement with much of it. Right now, I’m fckd (serious cardio vascular shit and mini-strokes etc).
I’ll respond hopefully soon after a more in-depth read.
FYI, (a bit of background) Me, my family (extended and close) have supported Labour for all our lives – for me, until the last election when Greens got my party vote, and Grant the electorate.
You’ll understand that for many ‘lefties’ in my demographic, this really IS decision time when life and longevity is running out, and when we want to leave a decent legacy for our offspring.
For me (if I could sell the house – not easily done in its 290-350 range because of leanding conditions), I’d be OFF – i.e. tomorrow – Northern India, Brazil, Denmark or elsewhere are options.)
As I said …. time for a nanna nap – I’ll respond asap, but I do appreciate your response.
Cheers
Thanks Tim. Take care.
I haven’t forgotten @Tim. Right now I’m evaluating whether or not I still want to be in this country – dysfunctional on so many levels in my evaluation.
– the perception that we’re ‘egalitarian and compassionate . versus. the idea that it’s just a long-gone romantic notion, and not too dissimilar from how people come together in times of emergency or natural disaster.
– The I I I me me me .versus. the we we we
– the preoccupation with the economic .versus. at least a passing consideration of the social.
– etc
– etc
– etc.
The list goes on, but right now I see things I have an empathy with in what ‘we’ (NOT ME) are quick to call the 3rd world – and that 3rd world exists in parts of Nothern India (where co-operatives and the idea of mutual benefit exists); in parts of Scandanavia, and in Southern America.
What worries me most about all this Labour Party stoush (whilst most seem to want to pick winners and losers) is that just as they may well pick what thy think is a centrist winning approach – along comes the next (even worse GFC).
Even as I type, I witness so-called ‘lefties’ (which is an utterly useless term unless you’re part of the msm-eagre-to-climb-the-ladder-to-STARDOM=spin), I know of people who just dont want to admit they voted (party vote) national.
Will get back when I can. (Unless of course the house sells and I end up near a certain Tiger Reserve, and where there’s still a heep of people (an overwhelming number of people) volunteering to assist in the eradication of polio (“Quaint” eh?)
Blue leopard
Little experience?
Nash was our MP in Napier for several terms before remember?
Cool, how many years was that?
What did he do while an MP?
Has he been in government?
Has he been a minister?
What responsibilities has he shouldered?
i.e. What experience and skills does he have that indicates he is the right person for leader?.
I think Labour will find it extremely hard to be taken seriously at all, by anyone in the future ever, if they remove a leader with skills and bring in – for a second time – someone who really doesn’t have the skills and experience to handle the role.
Blue Leopard
You have such tunnel vision don’t you.
You ask What did he do while an MP? Has he been in government? Has he been a minister? What responsibilities has he shouldered?
I ask the same of Key your leader?
Turned up in 2007 as a newbie and shoved right up the greasy NatZ pole by who?
At least Nash had several years under Clark during Keys very quick elevation into NatZ leadership.
Nash saw all that so Nash was in Parliament before key was silly.
Key never had or did anything before he got the top natZ job so he was put there by who?
Big international money of course. You tell me who if not?
You are so ignorant it is cringe worthy.
Key was in senior management at one of the largest banks in the world.
The division he ran was worth $40 billion dollars, with thousands of employees under him. To get a NZ sense of how big that is, it’s akin to being the CEO of Fonterra.
You dont rise up to that level in the business world without being very intelligent.
To compare Nash to Key is absurd. What were Nash’s achievements before politics?
Mark my words back to you.
You believe Key is good for us all, with a burgeoning 66 billion deficit you forgot to mention”
Now since he took over in 2008 so that’s good financial stewardship?
You are either a sicko or a banker that is creaming the interest we are now paying?
You consider Key clever by partnering with an aggressive foreign currency trader to sink the NZ dollar in 1987 and almost drive NZ bankrupt, go ahead and explain that.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2008/11/10/financial-markets/keys-house
You have brain deficiency, no bother it explains it all.
He is a simple speculator and not running a stable Government is he financially with that track record. Borrow another 300 Million every week as well since 2008 pooh.
@ CleanGreen,
Please let me know what possessed you to write:
“I ask the same of Key your leader?”
My comments were questioning Nash’s experience.
And yes, there was an implication that I thought he hadn’t had enough experience, yet I was asking.
Why do you assume I follow Key by what I wrote?
Was it because I wasn’t following the particular line that you wish for? That is certainly the impression I’m left with.
Clearly you haven’t read any of my other comments here and elsewhere, to make such a terrible error of judgement for all to see.
I am aware that Cunliffe has had experience in government as a minister and would not want to see a repeat of the previous years where caucus, for some unfathomable reason, pick someone who really does not have the experience to handle the role.
We who have read your earlier posts know you’re not blue, Leopard, but red of tooth and claw.
Thank you, Yogibare 🙂
He is part of the problem in fact during the campaign he was at the forefront of the problem…. solution is for all those that did the dishonourable thing of not doing the bidding of the party members to finally do the honourable thing by handing in their resignation today… nothing else is acceptable
You gotta be joking ! Nash got in on the coat-tails of McVicar’s vote.
Sure he took up a local cause to get his name out in front well before the election (that of opposing local govt reform) but that’s the only thing that is savvy about him. And his personal politics tend towards the right ….. not the centre.
LMAO when saw your comment – SNAP!
he’s had his face around for the past 3 years campaigning to get back in parliament as the best person to represent Napier’s interests. I don’t think it would go down well if he shows that to have just been a springboard to the labour leadership within the first few months.
Jenk,
Nash was a Napier MP for several years before 2011, so you thought he only ran on no amalgamation? I am from Napier and you are not obviously.
Full scale capitulation to USA style politics.
No thanks.
You are right; the left will hate you for this. However as a member of the soft left I applaud you for your thoughtful analysis.
Stuart Nash? Vom. Watch him lose Napier in 2017.
Cliff,
Nash won Napier and was our Napier MP for several terms before 2011 so learn the facts don’t just mimic other ill-advised people.
Nash will show now how new labour can take on new policies the old guard were afraid to.
Talk about NatZ Walford he was a arrogant man hated by many Napier folk as he talked down to all he met.
We asked Walford to meet our group at the truck road through Napier that is destroying our neibourhood and Walford refused to meet us and said we were pushing “Urban myth” he is so arrogant and was unknown as a new arrival.
Nash is a local boy well liked so leave Napier alone we will fight to save labour.
Clean Green, your “facts” are incorrect. While Stuart Nash has campaigned in Napier on and off for at least 7 years, he was never a “Napier MP” He was of course, a Napier-based List MP from 2008-2011.
Yes but it was patently untrue to say Nash is not an experienced politician, he is and a bloody hard working sincere bloke too.
Only do you know this when you live where he is stationed and to say he has done nothing of substance is bullshit.
He is what is needed a true advocate for the community, and I don’t care for party politics much but know he would work damn hard with passion you don’t see in others.
End of the story here.
Thanks for the heads up, Duncan Brown
I have checked the wikipedia page on Mr Nash:
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Nash)
Clean Green has referred to Nash as having ‘several’ terms experience under his belt, throughout this thread. This doesn’t seem to correlate with the information provided in Wikipedia.
A mid-level manager from a mid-level tertiary institute? Really? Jesus if you want someone tarred with an academic brush at least ask Maharey? Or anyone not tainted by association with Lusk and Slater? Seriously, what credibility does Nash have in any direction apart from name recognition with the blue rinsers?
We have lots of NatZ trolls here tonight eh.
Nash will do well again as he did for several past Terms as MP before for Napier thanks.
Dude, I was one of the three people who voted IMP, and last voted Nat in 96 when I was young, dumb and full of the proverbial 🙂 From a distance Nash has no great political track record or skills, except perhaps for self promotion and getting on side with useful media mouth pieces by the look of it.
You treat politic as folly.
Don’t you care about NZ future and who will own it after TPPA?
If this shows the usual character of care for who is running our country we are in very deep shit.
I think it’s very insulting and naive to assume that anyone with an opposing opinion to Selwyn’s article are Natz trolls!
We are allowed to have differing opinions on who and what we think are the best way forward for Labour!
Do you know Nash’s opinion on the Tppa?
I’m not convinced he has enough experience behind him to be a strong opponent on that and to be honest Labours policy is that they want to see the detail, it doesn’t mean when they do they would oppose it!
Labour signed free trade deal with China under Clarke despite human rights issues! Now we are flooded with cheap Chinese imports in every area of our life BUT on the plus side at least Fonterra did well out of it! (Sarcasm)
IMO Cunliffe has the international experience needed to oppose Key but unfortunately people like Goff, Shearer and the media frenzy following the election have almost made it impossible for him to continue without dragging all the “your party hate you” baggage along AGAIN!
Jesus if you want someone tarred with an academic brush at least ask Maharey?
The stuff that dreams are made of… but first to get him back to parliament. Would one of the old guard take a $300,000 back-hand – like 14 National MPs just did – and let Maharey come back? Gotta be quick though – a by-election before Xmas?
It’s certainly an interesting proposition – I’m not sure that Nash and Adern might not benefit from a little seasoning however – and how long did Abbott have to spend in the wilderness before the weakness created by the Rudd/Gillard spill gave him his opportunity? Term limits are something Labour might consider to rid itself of its neo-liberal rump.
But I think the elephant in the room is the pathetic state of NZ MSM. Governments lose elections on poor performance – and without the crawling sycophancy of TV and Herald ‘journalists’ Key’s little troupe of hebephrenic buffoons would long since have become history. Spin has kept the wolves instead at Labour’s door – and unless Labour has a no-nonsense strategy for sorting the media out changing leaders will achieve nothing whatsoever.
I am disgusted and impatient with Labour – they have allowed Key another term to pillage New Zealand and oppress New Zealanders. What did they think they were doing?
@StuartMunro
Agree with your 1st two paragraphs,excellent,well said.
But don’t you contradict yourself a wee bit in the third?
The neo-liberal rump is the “Old Guard” and the ABC’s, and Adern is
one of them!
Cunliffe has been attacked both from “within” and “without”,since BEFORE day one. He hasn’t had a chance. Only 1yr in the job,come on.
Cunliffe won ALL 3 debates,hands down,and took it to Key. Even had
him squirming in places,a lot of serious pundits agree.
But the media ALL played it down.Your’e right,and now everyone can
see the elephant!
What to do; Its a serious situation when foreign interests own most
media.
Cunliffe is the only one fit to lead at the moment. We have got the
Dirty Politcs etc saga to get thru yet. It has not gone away! What?
Do we all turn our backs and forget about it? NOT LIKELY!!
Cunliffe has to face his caucus down and purge ALL the ABC brigade!
Convince some to retire. Then he’s got 3yrs to rebuild.[sooner?]
Think about it. If the Right and Media are INSTANTLY calling for his
resignaton,THEN HE’s THE ONE!!
Challange the Media,call their BLUFF, and hang on for stormy weather. The Sun always comes out in the end. Cunliffe IS their ONLY threat.
Don’t all fall for the same OLD TRICK.
MEDIA MANIPULATES PUBLIC OPINION!!! – Chomsky.
Just what IS Selwyn thinking! FALLING IN LINE? Amongst OTHERS?
Cheers.
Very good thoughts there Iain,
I wished this was that simple, and you are right, this is a serious issue we are facing now with the media running the country and Corporates control us all and Government, so how do we find a way out.
We need to have strong leadership with even stronger convictions to force legal changes to media actions firstly.
Our own Public service needs to be over hauled with a separate wing of both radio and TV run half by ruling party in Government and half by the opposition as we have two camps effectively.
This can only happen if both sides make this a reality.
Key should now be challenged strongly by a united opposition and their call for the separation of an all National run public service and split into two separate entities of Opposition TV/Radio and National TV/Radio.
This will then offer a true multiparty platform at least to give each a equal voice on matters of state and restore our failing democracy. If Key rejects this take it to court over loss of use of Public media by half the electorate.
The media has been controlled for decades now in most countries by one side or another! Or by foreign multinationals!
I wonder by what miracle you think that the National govt in little old New Zealand is going to agree to a separate media for the opposition!!!!!!!!
Given all that was recently exposed and even before that I would have to say that is the most unrealistic thing I have ever heard!
Agreed – Cunliffe is a pretty healthy occurrence in a party that, without him, might be better left to die.
The Chomsky quote should have read;
“MEDIA MANUFACTURES PUBLIC OPINION / CONSENT”
sorry.
?!?
David Cunliffe clearly needs to resign. Agreed. But if Nash is the answer then you are asking the wrong question?!
We don’t need a lurch to the right at all. We need a strong, credible, LIKEABLE left-wing leader, who can also appeal to the centre and keep our values alive.
Time for Grant Robertson.
The problem with Robertson is he is not likable to many – you know why? He is gay. SHOULD that be a problem? NO! Is it a problem? YES! Middle ground NZ males are NOT ready for a gay prime-minister.
Rubbish. Kiwis don’t care about sexuality. The only ones that do would already be voting for the Conservatives.
IF Labour drops Cunliffe which they seem to be determined to do then Robertson is the only option.
A betting the farm on a rooky like Nash is suicidal.
Nah. That’s nonsense.
I disagree, there would be no pushback against a homosexual leader – unless he/she used it to push their own narrow agenda.
“Middle ground NZ males”, however, are NOT ready for the sort of weak pandering that gives us apologies for being male and gender-based quotas.
I will go you half way with Robertson as running mate.
We Napier folk know Stuart Nash so wake up.
He cares about our railway closed by Natz who sabotaged it by cutting all maintenance and blocking drains washed it out in several places.
That was evil and NatZ will never get trust around Napier Gisborne again for this.
Nash also is hot on our loss of local Government powers about to hit the provinces hard.
This guy has been our local MP for several terms before and we know he has a solid work record for the people he represents so give him more credit than your ignorance shows folks.
grant is a Abc WITH EXTREME RIGHT WING AGENDA
Youre joking right? enough with the comedy of errors.
Have you seen stuart Nash’s tweets when hone joined up with KDC. Woosshh! no wonder Whale oil and Farrar like hime and Davis. National Lite should join up with National, ACT (after all ACT started from like minded Labour ties) or the Neo Liberals. Labour? Ok. See what happens.
looks like Tony Blair? sorry, any association with whaleoil, on principal, puts me off
You may not like a face so do you like the grinning look of Key?
So the solution is the same as radio Hauraki’s attempt (in jest) to raise it’s ratings by “Being more like Mike” just shoot me now!!!
Another arrogant blog.
Fortunately I do not think that the
Labour Party will need this advice.
Ignorance?
I had always thought you were more intelligent than this.
You ARE joking?
Well I guess if you want to kill the Labour Party dead…this is a good analysis and scheme…Nash and Adern…a couple of toothy unelectable pills
Sorry seagull as said we in Napier know Nash and no other previous MP as Nash was for 3 terms untill2008 for Napier has done better than Stuart.
Get over bit folks Stuart Nash won his previous Napier seat back after being out for a couple of terms so he should now be given his place to shine.
nash has never been an elected mp he was a list mp for one term if you gonna argue get your facts right 1st
Cleangreen – I’ve just been checking the recent MPs for Napier. Geoff Braybrook succeeded Gordon Christie in 1990 and retired in 2002. He was succeeded by Russell Fairbrother, who was defeated by Chris Tremaine in 2005 who remained the electorate MP for Napier until he retired at this election. Stuart Nash was a list MP for the area from 2008 – 2011 and was never the electorate MP for Napier until he won the seat last Saturday. I am presuming he will hold the seat after the special votes are counted.
Stuart Nash lost out in 2011, but managed just to get back in again in 2014! So where’s his credibility, experience and expertise to lead a major political party?
Other than being the great grandson of former Labour PM Sir Walter Nash, I know very little of Nash and I think this might be the case with others too!
Given what’s there in Labour at the moment and there isn’t a great deal to choose from, my pick is Grant Robertson/David Parker, or a Grant Robertson/ Jacinda Adern leadership.
Robertson has proved his worth as a credible MP in Parliament, as both deputy leader and shadow minister of the House. He is intelligent, young, sharp, enthusiastic and shows some spark when challenging government, fiercely debating the issues.
Besides that, Robertson is a 21 century politician, tomorrow’s man, with no baggage connected to the God awful spectre of Rogernomics and is able to stand his ground against FJK and Judith Collins, as he has demonstrated many times in Parliament!
Personally, I feel Robertson is the person to give Labour the kick start it badly needs to move ahead.
Let’s select a pathological narcissist to lead Labour. I’m sure that will be good for the left.
Already did that with DC.
A pathological narcissist works well for National!
In fact it is because of that narcissism that Key will only satiated when Cunliffe is annihilated within his party as well as on election night!
That is the way narcissists function!
The new leader must be able to demonstrate a winning campaign, a formula that has proven to get results against a high-tide, against a strong nationwide swing to National.
This person must have achieved success through a campaign founded on solution-based politics.
The success must have been achieved based on personal merit, electorate-specific solutions, and, popular appeal – as opposed to party interference.
The new leader should demonstrate an ability also to create a swing for Labour in the urban seats, like was achieved for Labour in Epsom in 2005 when the candidate pulled in a party vote tally for Labour of 9915 – the highest number of party votes for Labour in this National-stronghold at any time under MMP.
And the new leader must demand uncompromising standards… the same relentless hard-working door knocking commitment that sets the benchmark by example
As much as I don’t want David Cunliffe to go because no-one in their right mind could say he was given a fair go… but that’s another story. There is another person who has shown to have the above qualities and that is Phil Twyford. Anyone who has experienced his organisational abilities and followed his many successes will know he has the potential to be quite a formidable leader.
I like Phil Twyford but would want him to stay in Housing and Transport where he is doing a great job. Labour need a team not just a one man band.
Good point Brendon, we need labour to be the united party not this fractured lot its killing us all.
Agree with Twyford’s nomination. I don’t know much about Nash to comment.
Phil is a hard worker as Nash is and has cme to our region when asked too.
God sign of a politician is when asked they respond. NatZ are no shows always and don’t respond to email either.
Phil is an outside chance too.
When I read this I did become angry! It seems like power at any cost should be the mantra of Labour according to some!
But I can see that it would probably work!
Nash is young, handsome some would say charismatic, he is mates with Fran o Sullivan and Debra Coddington so the right wing media would probably give him an easy ride!
With the youthful Jacinda Adern alongside the swingers and middle earthers would probably vote for them on appearance alone!
Once in power Labour could return to it’s most palatable middle (Helen Clark like era) and use the left and the greens when required while having no real social or environmental agenda and Dunne (if still there) conservative Colin, Winston and Maori when required for legislation the left won’t support.
It’s definitely more likely to get Labour in next time but I for one don’t want to return to Clark’s years of a more purple shade of red!
I would rather see Cunliffe hold his ground, get rid of his detractors within, stick to the more Labour like ideals which shows integrity rather than flip flopping policy and ideology depending on who is leading the party! After another term of National I think that many people will be moving back to Labour! This country cannot operate on dairy and a housing market and both cannot sustain themselves without more immigration and foreign investment in farms! IMO
Couldn’t agree more. Helen Clark stared down an attemted ousting and then a stroke of genius, took on one of those, Michael Cullen as her deputy. That way we got the best of both. Labour now needs to do the same and Grant Robertson, who may be clever, has baggage in his choice of lifestyle, will never be a cceptable to many as leader because of that. Remember that whoever is appointed as leader could be the Prime Minister one day and we need someone who can handld that.
The voice of reason. You will be mocked but let’s acknowledge that a Nash/Ardern combination would represent the biggest threat to Key/National in 2017. Nothing else comes close if Labour aspires to being a 40%+ party rather than a 25%+ party cosying up to the Greens.
yeah nice one JanMeyer
…Nash looks like a secondhand Used Car Salesman and great Act Party candidate
… and Jacinda Adern a nice middle- class Real Estate Agent candidate for Colin Craig’s religious goodie- two- shoes Conservative Party
(this is what you call de-balling the Labour working class cat)
Hone should lead the Labour Party!
I’d definitely vote for a Hone-led Labour Party (not sure how many others would though).
So if you go on looks do you like that grin key always has too?
Napier knows this man Nash and he can be dynamite believe me I know.
So don’t be fooled by the NATZ trolls here on the blog site, if this upsets them he must be effective, as they fear Nash just look at them spooked tonight at the name Nash.
HONE FOR EL PRESIDENTE’ !!!
Then we’d get a kick arse govt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This really shows the dearth of talent in Labour at the moment…
Labour putting the knife into their leader.
Doing National’s dirty work.
Retarded.
Time for Cunliffe to man up.
Otherwise step aside.
Sorry Selwyn, this is just not workable. The most vocal criticism Labour have had in the post-Clark era has been their inability to keep a leader. I believe they should most definitely keep David Cunliffe and soldier on. In three years the country will get to know him a great deal more, and, i believe, see him for the genuine person i think he is.
I also believe the media, post-election, has made him ‘the problem’ as opposed to looking a little bit deeper.
I very much agree Goddard and Iain McC …for GODS SAKE. give Cunliffe the bloody chance he deserves..he showed real strength of calm and intellect in the debates… the old ABC deadwood conservatives need to F*** Off and stop bleeding Labour dry
Absolute rubbish.
For a start the Greens cosying up to National before the election was a total creation of the media.
Green policy to work with any party on Green policies has been there since 2008.
The idea that they would go with National, An effective bit of media and National, “black ops”.
http://thestandard.org.nz/labours-choice/
Labour now has a choice.
“Spend the next 3 months in naval gazing about “why we lost” and “how to appeal to voters”, and playing musical chairs with the leaders. Again!”.
Labour is giving into the media framing and dirty politics, helped along by the ambitions of the ABC’ers who would rather lose than have David Cunliffe, instead of them, in charge.
Best get moving Labour and stop naval gazing as when the Key machine starts you wont see any opposition for the dust.
Clean end new start needed and let the games begin.
Nothing to lose folks.
If Nash reminds me of anything, it’s of a youthful Tony Blair. That alone is reason enough for me to avoid him but I’ve also read some of his articles and they didn’t dissuade me at all of the danger he represents to a true progressive agenda.
Sure, support Mr Manning’s suggestion if the twin P’s of politics–power and process–are more important to you than policy, but don’t expect much more than blue gloves operating under a red flag.
my thoughts too, uncanny resemblance actually! the connection to whaleoil makes it impossible to take this option seriously, as there is simply no excuse to have ever had any connection to that creature
Herman been said before above cant you read?
Don’t go on looks else are you liking Keys’ grin also?
God I hope it happens. It will split the Labour Party in half and keep it in limbo for years. Imagine all those 1984 seat warmers ending their careers like that. It is just too nice to think about.
At the time Cunliffe took over I thought it was the right thing, that David Shearer was a nice guy but Labour needed a bit of mongrel and i thought Cunliffe had it. He didn’t.
Recently though, I think I might have woken up to what has been going on, and it has been going on behind the scenes and I think it is Moira Coatsworth. I came to that conclusion when from time to time things that Cunliffe did somehow made me think about the day Shearer went into parliament with the fish.
I now think Shearer actually may be the right guy, but he is going to need some really good coaching from behind the scenes to find ways to counter Key’s childish bullying in the house and to make him start to actually answer questions.
Shearer could do, firstly own the fact that he is not a spectacular speaker and go from there. I think above all the thing he would need to keep uppermost in his mind when encountering Key is dignity. What I would do is just be silent for a few seconds after Key spouts off and let his childishness sink in with all listening and go from there.
I actually now think he may be the man for the job, he definitely has the human touch, and in Shearer it certainly seems genuine.
This is what Labour needs.
Next so something spectacular and I reckon it could be a financial transactions tax, but one that is on everything and could replace GST (and be much lower than it) and negate the need for a CGT, that was just too complicated. Go on David Parker you’re pretty bright, do the exercise, then come out swinging. Do not release the policy until it has been thoroughly explored. I reckon it could work, but they cannot do a U turn like that with Cunliffe as leader. They would have to own that NZ does not want a CGT regardless of how much it is actually needed
Interesting. Good observation. Actually Shearer realized he had no support from his colleagues especially, Cunliffe, King, Robertson. The vultures were circling. And why did Nash leave as COS?. Cunliffe admitted he had always believed he would be PM one day. He is deluded. What the prospective leaders need to be doing now instead of licking their wounds is to come out fighting and attack the media rubbish. Not one comment from the opposition on Keys wading into the Child poverty issue. No one comment. Get on with opposing. Expose the criminals. The dirty politics has all been airbrushed over. Get the truth out there. impeach the swine.
you are right on only one thing Coatsworth
What we need is Winston leading a Labour NZ1st coalition.
Mikesh, said;
“What we need is Winston leading a Labour NZ1st coalition”
I will buy that, anything to get rid of NatZ. before we are tenants in our own land as Key said we wouldn’t be? Liar.
What about David Clark? Electorate MP who increased his majority over Michael Woodhouse despite Metiria Turei getting 5000 votes in that electorate.
David clark?’
If these don’t like the appearance of Nash!
Why put David Clark’s face in the ring?
Yuck, looks like a autocrat.
This is a brilliant and provocative posting. I do think there is an overstatement of the need for a cookie-cutter great leader, but the need for realism as well as sensible co-operation is well observed. In my view there should be a minor pause to proceedings. We don’t need a decision on this today or tomorrow. I would like to hear if David Shearer has learned to speak; if Cunliffe has learned to check out the mote in his own eye; if Stuart Nash can indeed speak the national language; if Grant Robinson can rise above his disability (gayness); if all the leaders and ABCers can sound like statesmen and above all if they can all ALL show that they understand that their real task is to hold the incoming administration to account, given that the nation now hovers on the precipice of economic disaster.
As they say, a week is a long time in politics; let’s take a couple and get it right.
Don’t you think, in retrospect that Phil Goff Should have waited a while to ensure an intelligent succession? Even if we make DC fall on his sword, it is both decorous and prudent to allow him to assist any incoming administration that may develop.
To tell you the truth, I actually like a party full of former and future leaders. They are all articulate, experienced and competent. Let’s give them the respect of time and space to come to the right decisions for the future of New Zealand and the Left. Good night and good luck.
so you are suggesting that we get right wing fanatics of the Labour caucus elected to beat the lesser right wingers of the national party.. that worked well in 1984 didnt it
I think you are wrong Selwyn. This business of changing leaders right left and centre is becoming an embarrassing joke.
The Labour Party needs to focus on matters that are important to NZers – jobs for all especially the young, living wage for all working families, decent housing or rent affordability to name just a few important issues.
I find it absolutely disgusting that there are politicians in this party who are still back biting and acting like petulant teenagers squabbling over who is to be their leader.
Cunliffe is not the reason that Labour lost, the crap that was dished out by the MSM would have made it impossible for even Big Norm to win, may he rest in peace.
I voted Labour last Saturday, and it infuriates me that they did not deserve my vote.
I say – “Get your act together, get behind your present leader, and start earning the money that we tax payers have generously paid you.”
Focus on getting rid of the TPPA proposed legislation, stop overseas investors from buying NZ homes and farms, and get off your backsides and show some support to those who are protesting worldwide action on climate change, and most important do something about closing the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
I look at my grandchildren and think “What sort of hell are we leaving for this next generation.”
I am with Mama also, except for a missed chance…
We should have had NatZ over a barrel way back if steps were taken!
When the evidence was leaked that Friday we found out all Dirty email traffic was going through Edes office next to Keys office.
I sent a letter to Cunliffe and co requesting they seal the floor and call the police in on security issues.
Nothing happened so we need a new leader with balls to act straight away for our interests not play nice guy when we were lied to over and over again.
Nash I know would have acted fast.
So right Cleangreen. Imagine if it was Hone or KDC who were doing what Ede, Slater, Farrar, Hooten, Odgers, Bhatnagar, Graham and Williams were meddling with. Computers would have been seized, offices locked etc etc.
But what has happened- exactly nothing – Ede has quietly resigned,
the MSM have given him peace & privacy, and Dirty Politics was just a Left Smear Campaign – Yeah Right.
+1 Maama
I will be disappointed if Cunliffe does not insist that he be sacked or confirmed according to the constitution, and not by the majority of caucus that behaves like a gaggle of spoiled children, trying to re-assert its control over the Leadership.
If I was he, I would ignore the patronising invitation to resign “with honour” by such dishonourable conspirators.
Rather honour the democratic constitution and test the wisdom and the will of the membership as to who is the best leader and who is responsible for the defeat.
Selwyn, glad to see that you have stepped back slightly from running with the spoiled children to notice that the Caucus lost their right to elect the leader two years ago and that to ignore that is profoundly undemocratic.
If Cunliffe doesnt risk his career to defend that democracy there will be no honour among thieves.
Exactly.
Look at what happens to parties who change their leader too often. ACT changed their leader 6X. It saw their support drop to irrelevancy outside Epsom. I don’t think thats a conincidence.
Look at how National campaigned. Stability. Steady as she goes. Strong government.
The electorate saw Labour in disarray because someone within Labour was leaking juicy gossip to an infantile media.
The unions and Labour members voted Cuniliffe in because he would move Labour back to its core values. Solid basic values that appeal to the working class from whence Labour came.
The ABCs thereafter moved to push Cuniliffe away from those values, to water down his promises and policy ideas.
The media lapped it up and the electorate saw Labour in disarray during an election campaign. Labours support dropped.
Cuniliffe needs to stand up to the ABCs, hold onto the leadership, show immense strength. He needs to oust those who belong in ACT and still hide in Labour.
Until they show stability, strength and appeal to their base of support they’ll continue to decline in popularity.
I’m surprised so many can’t see this?
^ THIS -AND AGGRESSIVELY SET UPON THE ABC ‘s !!!!!
I am an ordinary person, one of the little people, not a journalist or blogger or someone special who may know someone in government and I have been a Labour voter all my life. I watched the week before the election unfold and my heart sank as it became obvious what was going to happen out there in the heartland – a backlash against dirty politics, the Moment of Truth and there was a ‘sympathy’ vote for John Key because of all he had to put up with from the Snowden allegations et, as well as a desire to have ‘stable govt’ ( yes, the PR worked ) and the same old , same old direction and firm hands on the rudder.
Its my personal opinion that won’t matter one little bit who you put in to head up New Labour and its Green allies….unless you can either dismantle by legal means or cancel out the effects of, the massively powerful propaganda machine that comprises the National supporting members of our mainstream media, the self important and toadying right wing bloggers who have direct access into Ministerial Offices, as well as the powerful effects of cognitive dissonance on the overtaxed hearts and minds of the majority of the electorate, then you will just go on seeing savage election losses for some time …..you need little short of a miracle frankly. The only saving grace in all of this is that National and its toadies have got so puffed up and self important lately with the election win, that it now appears possible that they will slip up on a banana skin of epic proportions sometime soon and land flat on their backsides. One can only hope that this eventuates sometime soon.
Good points, ARIEL if I may borrow part of your statement here for our collective good.
Maybe our next Labour leader would be the one we select after they all have to go out and achieve some meaningful duty first.
For instance get the top three contenders together.
Assign them all a hand at getting all the opposition Parties together at some brainstorming forum to discuss how to overcome the following;
suggestion from ARIEL
How can they either dismantle by legal means or cancel out the effects of, the massively powerful propaganda machine that comprises the National supporting members of our mainstream media, the self important and toadying right wing bloggers who have direct access into Ministerial Offices, as well as the powerful effects of cognitive dissonance on the overtaxed hearts and minds of the majority of the electorate,”
Then each candidate produce tangible evidence to a select committee on the best way to achieve that goal.
If it produces results in time before selection it would be the won that should win the Leaders job.
whoever leads the New Labour party ( and my god i wish him or her the very best of luck and blessings) should hire a PR company to RIVAL Crosby Textor. I bet that they are at the bottom and top of every little thing….they would have prescribed how to screw the left and they would have told the Nats – do it or die. They would have taught them how to execute a bloody and damaging election campaign – and it would have started years ago, not just this year. The Nats have got brilliant minders. So New Labour has to find some brilliant minders, some ace protection and then they have to go to war. End of story. Win the fucking battle next time round or die forever and be the ghost of Labour past.
Oh and PS….I have always felt intuitively ( call it female intuition ) that the Nats have got spies in the camp so to speak. So root the fuckers out and sling them over the side before they can do anymore damage.
Sorry, one more thing i wish to say….
it amazes me how public and open we the left wing are on twitter, bookface, wordpress and sites like this one. So many discussions, debates, post mortems, planning, conversations about OIA’s, official complaints to RNZ, Broadcasting Standards, Ombudsmen etc
At some point the powers that be in New Labour need to take this planning and discussion stuff out of the public domain and talk with each other in secret. Don’t let the enemy see your hand. Its not rocket science.
Shockingly Shane Jone’s campaign had funding from Hekia Parata’s husband and a National party big funder. Are there others in the caucus with the same links to National pals? Add my call to yours -“root them out!!!”.
I agree and I think that what Labour fails to realise is that Heartland Nz should be renamed Heartless Nz!
If there is one thing you can rely on in Nz it’s that when the Pm was “attacked by foreigners who hijacked our election” known elsewhere as finally faced with some truth, they were gona stand by their man!
No surprise, unfortunately!
Middle Nz is much like middle America in that they are disconnected from the extreme greed of those in Auckland (LA) and from the more educated base in Wellington (East Coast USA) and are mostly living rurally or on farms and listening to the 6 o clock news, radio live and reading Fran o Sullivan’s Nz. Herald! they believe what they are being told to believe.
How an editor of the national newspaper keeps appearing on one of the only current affairs political programmes on tv speaking up for the NATZ is BEYOND me!
I agree and well said, Dawn
A picture that paints a thousand words:
https://twitter.com/JacquesLoveall/status/508393525814116352/photo/1
I like Grant Robertson. He’s from Dunedin like me. He went to the same school as my younger brother ( they were in the same class). He is a reasonable debater. His heart is in the right place. He could be our first gay PM IF only he wasn’t a career politician.I am sorry but this is where I have some respect for Shearer at least he has proven his abilities in the international arena. Cunliffe too. I am sorry Grant but in my book you are an underachiever. This is the same reason I did not vote for Labour under Clark. Despite my admiration and respect for her in so many areas. She dared to tell us women of her generation to get out and work for shit kiwi wages while not providing enough funding for out of school care or tax breaks for couples to split their tax if married etc etc. Because of her arrogance and lack of experience she pissed me off and Grant is the same. Bloody know it alls who haven’t been there and done it on the parenting ,mortgage slog never get my vote.
To be fair, Robertson also worked for the UN, like Shearer did (although it was a bit closer to home, in Samoa). But otherwise, I entirely agree with you. Beltway is not going to win back the seriously disaffected voters that Labour needs to.
he is right wing an ABC as as such he should resign
Interesting propositions, Selwyn…
There’s quite a bit in your piece that I found myself nodding in agreement with – but (a) changing the leadership and (b) opting for Stuart Nash was not either of them. (Though you mount damned worthy arguments that demand consideration.)
As I wrote in my piece, “No More. The Left Falls” (and which I used as the basis for a letter to the editor of the Sunday Star Times;
Now, I wrote that not as a Cunliffe supporter; nor Shearer-supporter; nor anyone supporter. I wrote it as a “Don’t Panic!” supporter.
Quite simply, I’ve had it up to here (*points to spot above my head*) with Labour changing it’s leaders. ACT does the same thing – and we treat them with contempt. (Rightly so.)
Why should we expect the public to see it any differently with the Left?
But maybe I’m wrong. (I’ve been known to be wrong in the past.) Maybe Labour needs a new leader. But in that case, it’s time for a thorough clean-out. All time-servers (longer than two terms) should not be re-selected and instead replaced with fresh new faces. (The Old Guard can be re-hired to mentor a new intake of Labour MPs.)
Preferably community leaders. Leaders in their own fields. People who’ve made an impact in New Zealand society.
But as for Stuart Nash?
Well, all I can say is I hope Garth McVicar stands again in Napier in 2017. Because, “at the end of the day”*, you can’t argue with simple arithmetic;
2014 Election result for Napier (electorate vote)
McVICAR, Garth: (Conservatives) 7,135
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 14,041
WALFORD, Wayne: (National) 10,308
Contrast to the 2011 Napier result (electorate result):
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 13,636
TREMAIN, Chris (National) 17,337
Sources:
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-29.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_%28New_Zealand_electorate%29#2011_election
I think it’s pretty clear where Tremain’s 7,000 votes went.
Personally, I’ve really had a gutsful with Labour. They elect leaders – then shaft them with their first defeat.
They have excellent policies – and then prima donnas deliberately undermine their Party with wild Moa hunts. Or fools like Steve Gibson spazz out. And others hitch up with John Key, Winston Peters, Whaleoil, David Farrar, and god knows who else. (Yes, I’m talking about you, Kelvin.)
They say they’re a government-in-waiting – and then diss potential coalition partners. (In Mana-Internet’s case – destroying it entirely.)
I say we don’t need to look to Australia. (Though you’re fundamentally on the right track about the National-Liberal relationship in that country.)
National has set a clear example how they treat potential coalition partners – with professionalism, courtesy, and collegiality. Even Key’s rejection of Colin Craig’s party was dignified,charitable, and done with style.
One thing I will commend the Nats for; they know how to work with other parties – not against them.
That’s what the public wants to see; politicians working together for the good of the country.
Key gets it. (And god knows I find little to compliment Dear Leader for.)
Contrast that to Labour’s treatment of the Greens and Mana.
(Though you are also correct that the Greens did go a bit ‘troppo’ with their bizarre flirtation with the Nats, and calls to “audit” Labour’s policies. WTF were those about?!)
So really, I’m at the stage now where I find myself despairing and giving up on Labour (and I very rarely surrender). Their penchant for masochistic self-flagellation is a kink I can’t get my head around, but whatever turns them on, I guess.
I know one thing though; no person with talent, intelligence, wit, charisma, personality, etc, etc, would ever want to lead that party. Screw that. Not with Marchus Brutus, Cassius, Casca, Trebonius, Ligarius, Decius Brutus, Metellus Cimber, and Cinna as fellow party members.
Oh well. At least we know what will befall the next leader of the Labour Party when Key wins a fourth term.
No time travel required.
——————
* F**k it, Key hasn’t copyrighted that expression! I’m reclaiming it!!
I agree with most of your above astute observations, Frank, although I’m not sure the Greens going “troppo” wasn’t just more apalling MSM spin, as we all have witnessed throughout this extraordinary election. Haven’t they always said they would work with any party, as they did on home insulation with the gNats?
Why on earth would you wish to reclaim that awful phrase “at the end of the day”? It’s night”, is the logical answer. In my very ‘umble opinion it’s almost as bad as “at this moment in time” instead of the more precise “now”, or the oxymoron “negative growth”. Don’t even get me started on “sweet as…”, sweet as what?
“…Frank, although I’m not sure the Greens going “troppo” wasn’t just more apalling MSM spin …”
Hard to tell, Yogibare. It does show that parties and candidates have to be extremely disciplined at election time. Headline-seeking MSM will latch onto any statement to find a new angle.
If that means mis-representing or hyping a comment, to make a “story”, the MSM will so it.
Hence the importance of “Staying on Message”. Otherwise the MSM (with active, eager Right Wing assistance) will frame the issues. And not in a good way for the Left…
Novelty bus ? How American . Sweet’rn apple pie . USA . Second State of Israel . I told you so .
Excellent points, Cunliffe is a failure, and by his own standards should do the right thing and step down. Unfortunately Labours current group of senior members are more interested in themselves and winning tribal battles than winning elections
Unfortunately Labour is still obsessed with electing leaders who ‘deserve it’ and have done their time, as opposed to leaders who will win elections.
John Key was an MP for four years before he became leader. He became leader because he had the necessary charisma to win, not because he ‘deserved it’.
The suggested Grant Robertson/Ardern ticket would be an unmitigated disaster, not because they wouldn’t be capable at the role, but because they wouldn’t be capable of winning back middle New Zealand. This election proved that middle N.Z doesn’t give a crap who won a debate on T.V or in parliament, they vote on personality first and policy second.
Either go for a Stuart Nash and beat National at their own game or just give up until John Key retires.
I wish people would stop saying Key has charisma – that is a poor understanding of the word:
““Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader “- Max Weber
Key’s qualities are manufactured by a sophisticated team of spin merchants; on his own he is bland, and colourless – perhaps that is why he appeals, he appears harmless. But he is not charismatic!
By the way . For all you who think FUCK is spelled F **K ? No . You are wrong . FUCK is spelled F.U.C.K. FUCK ! FUCK , FUCK , FUCK , FUCK .
For you , fabulous Billy Connelly . FUCK !
I can see all of your analysis, I just cant understand how Stuart Nash dropped out of the bottom of it.
Oh my God . This’s worse than fucking awful . Jonky ‘ The Stien ‘ is now a raging bull . What’re we to do ? Do they make like sand fly Viagara ? How’d he get that shit ? Did they inject his dick with concrete post hormones ? I’m at a loss for words .
No , wait ! No I’m not .
Little Jinky . Wee mr Oh dear me but am I not rich then ? ( Little bit of sick ) Oh . My . God !
That little shiny man . His blank face took on a sheen not seen since the flanks of my Falcon during my young proud days . What a creep . And if you read this and you voted for him ? I’m fucking after you . Perhaps not in this life … but in the next . And in the one after the next , and after the next ad infinitum .
Did you know , you jonky voting fuckwits ? The Irish were here 4500 years ago , according to an Auckland University study ( http://youtu.be/qLRrUNuLC4Y )
Once all set up with beer and green tea , they set about to make a blessing AND cursing stone for the unwary , jonky voting few who’d blight OUR lands in time to come ?
No , you didn’t ? Too fucking late my pretties . You are cursed ! Done !
If people are fair minded they would agree that David Cunliffe deserves at least 12months to turn the ship around.
David Parker, although competent is a wet fish.
Grant Robertson will never be elected leader simply because of his sexuality, New Zealanders are simply not ready for a gay PM.
Jacinda Adhern as deputy leader is my choice.
why not have TWO deputies?? Lange did it with Hercus and Palmer.
that worked well didnt it 1984, now 2014 and we still havnt got rid of the rogernomes
why not co-leaders like the Greens and Maori party?
Meanwhile, while the Labour caucus disembowels itself and angsts on about leadership struggles and political ideology and wonders if its ‘too left’ or ‘too right’, here is a modern day angel helping the poor of Manurewa – all of whom would have benefited greatly from a change of government last saturday and now these poor marginalised and forgotten people will have to wait another three years for you all to get your collective shit together. Focus people!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/manukau-courier/10514886/Hot-soup-for-street-kids-families
Not if they impeach Key!
peaches grow on trees im afraid there is no such thing as im peachment in nz law
OMG
that made me cry
I used to teach in Manurewa, I knew many kids in Manurewa.
Its one of Aucklands poorest areas.
To think of a kid, and young kids 5-7 years old, out at night on the streets because its safer than home. Tired, cold, hungry. Some with parents working a late shift.
It breaks my heart.
Any argument that “its the parents responsibility” is so disgusting. How could another human being say that to a hungry abused child and turn their backs away?
And while this goes on the old white men in Labour argue amongst themselves. Shame on them.
Get your shit together Labour, because the children of NZ need you.
It is always the parents responsibility period.
Yeah it’s sad but true, a gay leader, another three years of National in 2017. Stuart Nash would have appeal to centrist NZs. I agree Selwyn, time to be pragmatic I’m sick of Nat 3 already. Just heard they’re bringing National standards for Year 9 and 10. More lunacy from these morons. They have to be stopped even if it means being sensible for a change.
You only like democracy when the left wins don’t you. Guess what that is not democracy.
Dont worry mate-you got your little single party fascist state- what are you even here for?….democracy ?
In a democracy you are free to like or dislike a government, it is when you no longer can that you no longer have one. Never mind at this rate we should be a one party state any time now.
Interesting analysis Selwyn. That bit at the end about Stuart Nash is tongue-in-cheek, though, right?
Agree with most of the article but hope Stuart Nash is a joke. He only won because Conservatives split the vote. Nope they need to stick with David Cunliffe and reform their policies, strategy and messaging. Robinson would be much worse and have even less in common with Kiwis. There is sadly no one else.
Labour needs to kiss and make up. They ALL failed not the leader. He actually did much better than Labour as a whole I feel in the public eye. They need to agree to SHARE power with each other, Cunliffe, Shearer, Ardern seem to be the ones who have public support and should be in the spotlight. They need to make up with the Greens and Internet Mana.
Also agree about sticking to advocacy they should have taken the election by choosing this but this is something that starts 3 years before by gaining trust and getting things done and getting in the news in a positive way. Backing pike river, Christchurch, KDC, attacking finance scandals. But no they were too lazy and that is as a group. Kiwis don’t care about parliament they care about their districts and their country. Get out there, pick up rubbish, help out do something other than being a career politician and you will win back integrity. The last 6 years have been about themselves not the public. They are narcissistic. Agree with
(Labour) the detachment, the disengagement, the aloofness, the tribalism, the inability of the party to attract quality candidates based on merit. That the inverse has too often been the case where selections have been based on a person’s label, their political identity, rather than on their raw ability to represent and lead.
Also the other thing point I want to make is that I was in an electorate that Labour won, but lost party vote to National. Through the year I got about 3 letters personally to me about their policies from JK, 2 from the conservatives, 1 from Act, a brochure I only just noticed from the Greens (have no circulars on letterbox so unless addressed personally does not get to me) and NOTHING from Labour. I got a sponsored Facebook message from Internet Mana. Labour and Greens did not make it personal, another mistake.
Labour targeted Labour voters this year, but to be honest I think they didn’t get it right. Had a client I’ve had for 9 years and she’s NEVER voted anyone by National and she got postcards.
Just noticed this poll in the herald – Who do you believe John Key or Kim Dotcom. JK got 325 and KDC got 675.
I rest my case. Why oh why did Labour and the Greens blow it and NOT make surveillance and dirty politics an election issue? Even the center right wing herald Your views readers think JK lied and KDC was telling the truth about the email.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/your-views/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=11325032
Labour stop your nacississm – no one cares who is leader of the labour party – they just care about what you are going to do to make NZ a better country – ridding us of dirty politics is the first step and regaining some sort of reputation as the opposition. BTW opposition is a verb.
SAVE NZ, 10000%
We requested on the Friday we learned about the leaks coming out of Ede’s office were illegal, and requested Labour take immediate action to close the floor as a crime scene as tha NatZ were found clearly to have looted against Goff in the 2011 election.
They did not do anything, and all weekend the Beehive 9th Floor lights were ablase and Jason Ede was seen entering the building?
On Monday Labour called for a police investigation after the evidence was destroyed????
Labour missed the boat to save our democracy that night SAVE NZ.
Cunliffe needs to stay on, but it sounds like he needs a new staff and a new shadow cabinet.
I’ve heard enough about Matt McCarten to have very low confidence in him.
I think Cunliffe needs to seek the mandate of the wider party, then clean house as best he can. Those who want the “real red Labour party not the pale blue one” should be up front and centre.
Cunliffe needs to talk the hard-nosed economy talk that got him the Labour leadership, that he for some reason stopped talking shortly after. He needs a caucus that backs him instead of hobbling him.
It won’t work the ABCs will never ever allow it to work.
And that’s why they have to go!
Buried or expelled! TRAITORS!!!
“oh we must examine why this has occurred”
The Conversative Party? – always talking about things.
Grant Robertson should be the ‘ Leader ‘ of Labour . I saw him peel stevie joyce like a grape with an enthusiastic relish rarely seen these days . He has the intellect to do the job , there’s no doubt about that . And I believe he’s of good intentions . Especially after how he championed the provinces .
My second choice would be Russell Norman . ( Yes , I know . )
@Countryboy;
Bit of scottish mist down there?
Cunliffe got a chance to shine in the 3 debates.
Robertson could’nt match that.
Only Cunliffe has proven to match Key. Had him squirming in places.
Pretty to watch!
You may be right about intellect….mmm. BUT he ‘aint no leader, mate.
Good intentions maybe, but comes accross as weak and pliable,just
what the Right and corporates want! Perfect.
Muldoon labeled Rowlling a mouse, belittlement. He never recoverd.
Norman does have skills,but trust him not to carbontax us to death?
No; Cunliffe is the only one. Instant Media attack proves that.
SAVE NZ, has written two powerful pieces.[above] Well done.
Questions do have to be asked of Labour’s advisers.
A Clarke type pledge card might have made the difference.
Team Cunliffe / Shearer / Adren [ABC], might placate the factions.
Shearer deputy – international.
Adern – Kids&family. Keep the enemy close. Keep them busy.
[old tactic]
Remember; Dirty Politics etc,has yet to play out.Has not gone away.
Cunliffe is the only one to make Key squirm AGAIN!
I’ll get the beers in.
Cheers.
Thank you Selwyn, you have written an article here that speaks to us centrist voters, those that’s vote swings depending on what they believe is best for them and NZ. Not sure about your choosen leaders, I think both could do with a bit of maturing yet before they are ready for the top 2 chairs.
The Labour party needs to understand the voters are spread out in a normal distribution with the peak never too far from the centre. Its obvious from the last 2 elections that Labour is too far left of that peak and getting further away. If we drift even further left we will be in a battle with the Greens at their 10% level come 2017. Lets go back to our roots, centralize the party, start taking back the centre-left voters that National has been gobbling up as fast as we have been drifting away from them. Its time to stop asking the activist and intelligencia what they want in a centre-left party and start asking Joe & Joesphine Swingvoter what they want.
I am curious what these ‘left’ credentials in the recent election are, what are the policies that are too far left, I didn’t see them.
1. A top down housing policy, the people preferred Nationals idea of a hand up into their own house rather that the heres your keys cookie cut approach Labour was offering.
2. The CGT, a political poison Labour has tried twice now and lost with, it reeks of jealousy and “I can’t afford what they have take it off them boohoo”.
3. The politically correct nonsense of a gender balance in parliament, there are much bigger things to worry about than that. Most of my customers were laughing at Labour over that. Good people will rise to the top no mater what their gender.
4. The pandering to the Unions in leadership selection. Yes Unions are a core part of Labour history, but only 18% of working people belong to a Union now adays, I dear say more than half of that do so only because its too much trouble to opt out. Unions are perceived as an irrelevancy in most peoples working lives, they either need to become relevant again or they need to disappear from the public view in events political.
From my casual observations leadership is the least of labours problems. I think the left are stuck in the days of FPP, the days of Labour vs National. MMP is left vs right, isn’t it?
The right appears to be a well oiled right wing MMP machine which is divided into three. Each division has it’s role to play & is crucial to ensure right election & ultimately re-election.
ACT (Extreme right) policies that appeal to.. The extreme right, and to take the responsibility/ credit for any extreme right policies passed under a right wing led government.
MAORI PARTY (Maori right) policies that appeal to.. Maori, and to take responsibility/ credit for any Maori policies passed under a right wing led government. It’s role is also to distant itself from National while retaining Maori support by voting against policies that are detrimental to Maori.
NATIONAL (Centralised right) policies that appeal to.. Joe blogs, nothing extreme, broad spectrum appeal, to take responsibility / credit for the governments/ country’s performance as a whole.
Then we have the left (sigh) no clear divisions on policies or voter appeal & pretty much all working against each other:
THE GREENS (Extreme left) policies that appeal to the extreme left & a bit of Maori & a bit centralised. Using the rights MMP model they should be concentrating on extreme left policy & voters.
MANA (Maori left) policies that appeal to the extreme left & Maori. And again using the rights MMP model Mana should be the purely Maori driven.
LABOUR(Left) who’s trying to appeal to EVERY voter on the left, centralised joe blogs, a little extreme & as we saw on Saturday Maori.
I can’t see the left ever winning an election again if they don’t adapt to MMP. Labour the greens & Mana need to sit down & define they’re roles in a left collation & if Mana aren’t around they need to cause a big fake fight with the 6 Labour MPs on the Maori seats to create distance form labour & to form a Maori left party.
I’ve been pretty much working like a dog for the past 20 odd years & up until a few weeks ago never bothered with politics so this is a complete novice take, but personal growth & all the rest would appreciate input / correction if I’ve got it all wrong.
Cheers
In reality the Greens are probably really only as left as National is right, we have no extreme left parties in this country. An extreme left party would be advocating for NO privately owned business and No privately owned land and everyone receiving pretty much the same money. Extreme left is communism, which works fine, in communes, but like a lot of extreme things does not work well on a large scale.
The Greens advocate none of that.
That’s the problem, people no longer know what left and right means
Labour needs to work out who they are. Are they ‘red’ or ‘purple’? They really need to take it to their Branches – if you can’t sell it to the people who’ll actually put in the work for you, how can you sell it to anybody else? Listen to what they say – ALL of you MPs -or you are just going to come across as a bunch of arrogant barstards, AGAIN! Labour is still tarnished by 1984 – those stirring in caucus – whatever way – need to remember that.
Please take a breath Selwyn Manning, you’re sounding like the right wing mainstream media, desperate and hysterical.
To the contrary, I am calm and certainly not desperate. Why? Because I don’t need to write this to make a living; I only write when I feel there is something to say or reveal; and, I am neither competing for political advantage nor with the MSM. That’s why I took up an independent juxtaposition years ago… thank goodness.
The Labour Party is completely fucked for a simple reason. It lost most of its natural support base in 1984 and it will never ever get them back. From time to time it may convince enough of the centre to vote for it to scramble over the line but the vast bulk of the left will never vote for them again. I havn’t voted left since 1996 and I’m as left wing as you can get. The Labour Party was captured in 1984 by the right and they still hold sway today. All the activists I worked with are the same. We will not vote for the left which includes the right wing Labour Party. You see I hate the Labour Party and what it did to workers post 1984. I hate them with a passion. I will never vote left again because that might propel Mallard, Goff, King back into the corridors of power. I would vote for Hone in a flash but to do so is to empower Labour so it is never going to happen. I am just hoping to live long enough to piss on the corpse of the Labour Party. And in that regard things are looking up. Death is a time of sadness most of the time but in the case of the Labour Party the hangover will last for weeks.
Great article! I have no idea who should be the leader, but definitely not Cunliffe, the ABCs simply will never support him and they are still there dammit. Very foolish of Labour not to have come out endorsing the Greens and saying they will be our no. 1 partner. The Greens are considerably more trustworthy than any other party in my view. I am horrified at the notion of 3 more years of Key and co but I hope the push around spying – the NSA site on the north shore, the TPPA that we will sign for the Yanks, and the dirty politics is kept up somehow so we get the full story.
Well…I reckon Cunliffe – stick with him.
A house divided against itself will fall. So basic a truth you could trip over it. Not being particularly fond of Labour…I do recognize they are still the main party of the Left…but it has become the ‘sick man’ of the Left also.
Look at Italy …since the second world war have had so many party and leadership changes….always notoriously unstable.
1) Any leader who has entrenched opposition in key positions will always be weakened. Thus…work on systematically and individually weakening key ABC’s .Get rid of and break that influence. It is a malignant influence. And must be broken.
2) Any leader who has a deliberate campaign against him by the media will struggle. Always. So by destroying the influence of the ABC’s…there is now a united front that cannot be as easily assailed.
3) A nation becomes familiar with a leader who is constantly there. This is a natural phenomena. Credibility is thus built….and suggests unity and a credible alternative.
4) Cross party forums held biannually…to develop strategic cohesiveness amongst a reemerging Left bloc. Analysis of , and development of , techniques used by the Right to divide the Left. Development of methods to countermand those tactics.
5) Establishing of a media with an emphasis of the Left ,- as a forum, to normalize dialogue on such things as the TTPA , dispensing of knowledge ie: guest speakers, policy etc , and to safeguard against interference by Right wing propaganda journalism.
Radio would form the first beachead in this process. Has a wide range of audience, and is cheap and portable. Most people have radios.
Following this ..pressure brought to bear for a funded state media to widen and develop other mediums of communication eg TV.
I see Cunners as a ‘doer upper’ . Not perfect, but great potential. He needs a minder/ deputy to fill in the gaps. Some serious thinking /planning and strategic behaviour needs to be implemented. The MSM won’t do you any favours so you have to stop saying /doing stupid stuff and learn how to communicate publicly.
The first thing Labour needs to do is keep its caucus debates inside caucus. The fact that this article starts with what’s being discussed in caucus is a sign of the rot. Are we all microcephalic fucking amateurs on the left?
Ovi ain’t that the truth. Anything with a political pulse that isn’t attached to the hip of the Blue Blooded Demon Beast – aka Nats – is whale tucker for the venomous attack merchants of a compliant MSM. Because that’s the second problem Labour faces, a biased Media smelling blood of exposed intestinal organs – ShonKey’s Media Pig-dogs salivating at the ready. . . Just look at Paddy G and it makes you want to vomit.
Meanwhile with each passing second, ShonKey & his fascist cunts bankrolled by corporate behemoths, continue to destroy OUR Country unimpeded. The opposition needs to be strong and unified – solidarity our shining light. Otherwise pretty soon Brothers & Sisters, we’ll have no Country left to defend!
I’m voting Ovi thumbs up for using “microcephalic” and “fucking” in the same sentence – awesomeness right there.
Great stuff, over 130 posts and trolls only mentioned 3 times !! Does this mean that The Daily Blog is now everymans blog? (please don’t abuse me for not saying everypersons blog).
Oh god, Robertson…how deluded do they have to be, how is Robertson going to win back the middle vote. A career bureaucrat sipping lattes in Wellingtons cafes with his ‘boyfriend’ (not offense but that’s how he will be perceived by the unwashed) vs good old John Key, a Steinlager drinking kiwi bloke.
You have voters on ideological grounds and then a significant amount who vote on personalities. Robertson vs Key is a non-contest, may as well hang up the gloves now and wait for 3 years time after Labour does even more poorly and we get a Nash or Davis who can actually recapture the lost voters.
^No…you forgot the guy who SHOULD remain leader. Mr David Cunliffe.
Three yoked words in this article fill me with concern: centre-centre-left. Caucus does not and cannot know whether the party has shed middle ground or hard left voters.
If people think that centrist policies are needed “to get elected” then you should join the damn National Party.
That is right JULESB. Going by votes alone, the election result does not tell us anything about whether Labour was “too right” or “too left.” Stuart Nash and Kelvin Davies won seats, with indirect and direct right wing help. However, Carmel Sepuloni also won her seat, and several of the Maori seats have returned to Labour. Moreover, the comparison to 1922 is misleading since that was in an FPP environment. In fact the vote to change the government lies somewhere around the 43 or 44% range, with the Greens and Mana adding up to 11 or 12% on one side of Labour, and NZ1’s 9 or 10% on the other side.
If the treatment of David Cunliffe and Hone Harawira are anything to go by, a right-leaning Labour would get a sweeter ride from the media, and individual members would not risk their places among the political/media elite. Fundraising would no doubt be rather easier as well. The cost, however, is increasing political irrelevance. National’s constituency is already happily represented – all it seeks from Labour is ineffectiveness. And those who remain unrepresented must surely by now be on the verge of giving up on Labour altogether. Under these circumstances, Grant Robertson looks too much like urban liberal wallpaper glued over a fifth column.
I do hope in all of this that Labour will at least acknowledge Kim Dotcom’s part in this defeat. Without him it would have been different, of that I am sure. It could have gone either way.
Having said that, I am afraid David Cunliffe now appears a little bit deluded and that is not a good thing.
Seriously, I think there are still too many homophobes in this country that will stymie any prospects that Grant Robertson has. Labour, you will have to accept that and work with it.
I think David Parker taking over for now might be the best option as a caretaker while the party thrashes out what it is they are to represent. It can’t be nothing as another party has got that ground space bought and paid for :-0.
The world’s changed and Labour will have to change with it.
I think a huge mistake was made getting rid of Shearer, he has the ability to appeal to those of us ready for a bit of a change to quality of life rather than quantity of money.
The Green’s have an enormous role to play now as well.
If true, this is terrible news, and an undermining of the democratic will of the membership by a right wing cabal bent on total destruction of the Labour Party for personal advancement.
I knew that the ABC dominated caucus would make it impossible for David Cunliffe to lead them. And that they would do there very best to over undermine the democratic decision of the Labour membership.
And the fact that this scum has leaked the possibility of Cunliffe’s resignation to the media shows that they want to cement it in, ‘He who can shape the argument, wins the argument’.
Faced with this total right wing revolt
What should David Cunliffe do?
Respect the democratic decision of the membership?
Give in? Overturning the democratic decision of the membership?
Or stick it out?
The caucus have made the situation impossible.
If David Cunliffe wants to continue, he has to abandon his revolting caucus and seek support somewhere else.
No one can continue when they are completely isolated, effectively without support, so David Cunliffe needs to seek it outside of his caucus. He has only a few options.
Tracey Watkins lays out some of them.
David Parker has emerged as the black prince from behind all the anti Cunliffe conspiracy, in my opinion there is no way that this right wing back stabber should be allowed anywhere near the leadership, even on an interim basis.
David Cunliffe needs to take his inspiration for his way forward from what he would have needed to have done if Labour had won the election and form a shadow cabinet with the Greens. Caucusing with the Greens would be the best way for David Cunliffe to counter and sideline the ABC creeps and also be very good practice for the future Left wing Labour/Green Government.
I really think Labour is getting themselves a leader the wrong way, it is not us that has to work under the leader, nor is it the unions. I know it seems wonderfully democratic for every man and his dog to have a say, but if it doesn’t provide unity it is a complete waste of time. What Labour has to do now is actually figure out what they stand for and THAT is the thing to go out and ask the people about, not who gets to be the face at the front promoting it.
Pretty much they are going to have to all start singing off the same song sheet regardless, and I fear that it is not going happen any time soon
Labour seems to have a death wish even when one of it’s own wins a seat back off National.
Before you start thinking I am Nash campaign manager or a Labour party member I am neither. Just a voter who sees as a citizen of Napier actual first evidence in a future Labour politician.
Stuart Nash has a pedigree one can only dream of as an icon example of what labour stands for, Why?
Stuart Nash is a very experienced politician and speaker, and has proven to work tirelessly for the provincial region he now represents.
He is the Great Grandson of Sir Walter Nash one of Labours best ever Prime Ministers.
Though some of my memory records of Nash’s time as MP were incorrect, he excelled as the only labour electoral candidate that achieved a winning seat back from National in this 2014 election. That alone must help decide the issue, as Nash knew splitting the vote is how to win , something Labour has yet to learn as trey exhibited this only once outing Hone right?
Fact; Stuart Nash did win Napier back for Labour, so all anti Nash folk please wake up and stop those continual infighting issues you seem to be infected with.
As a long time labour voter even I share unsettling concerns every time we witness the self destruction of this once proud blue collar voice of the people political Party.
My projections would be;pick would be;
As possible leaders.
Goff, Shearer, Robertson, Cunliffe, King.
As deputy, Nash, Adern, Hipkins, Davis, Twyford.
Last night on talkback radio interviewed by Duncan arner Stuart shwed ultimate control over Garner during that questioning time when Garner was trying to get Nash to say something wrong.
Start Nash replied I have always 100% been loyal to all Labour leaders and will continue to do so until they are not the leader.
Clear enough?
But garner wanted to claw away at the cool character of nash and kept asking will you seek the leadership?
Nash replied no, and he said the labour caucus has a lengthy process and we need to see that through.
Lastly the aggressive Garner asks will you Nash seek the Deputy’s job, and Nash sad no again, so Garner said,
“So you wouldn’t be interested in the deputy’s job?
Stuart Nash said, “if the caucus decides I am worthy of that position I would honour the position to begin building a strong Labour Party to win the 2017 election. (my words)
So there’s not much disloyalty in there, and we Napier’ites all know Stuart Nash as an extremely loyal hard working highly talented politician worthy of recognition by all within the labour camp.
Give that some thought.
CleanGreen is right. Stuart Nash’s winning trajectory was clearly evident to those who live in or visit the Hawke’s Bay regularly.
He has door-knocked and campaigned to win that seat back for the last 2.5 years. He did this on providing advocacy and representation for Napier and Hawke’s Bay people on issues like resisting National’s want to amalgamate the Hawke’s Bay councils, the rail between Wellington and Napier, the rail (of lack of it) between Napier and Gisborne, opposing the Ruataniwha dam issue, the dire situation for many who rely on state housing particularly in the Maraenui suburb of Napier (and his verbal support for what Mana was doing to represent the wants of people in Maraenui)…
And every Napier person realised that throughout the last term Tremain was only singing the song of National Party HQ over their own needs. Despite the new candidate cutting his ponytail off, he demonstrated the same commitment as his predecessor in subscribing to the National Party’s demands. Nash did not stand on the Labour Party list, a clear decisive message that he would not fall into the same trap that Tremain did.
Besides this, every person who lives in Napier is obviously aware that the huge mountain of unprocessed logs that pile up at the Port is illustrative of how this country is spilling value-added opportunity for others in other countries to benefit from. Every day another ship pulls up to the wharf, every day a ship sails off from Napier to deliver those logs to manufacturers abroad to make something of them.
Nash stood on a regional development ticket and solutions platform. Napier responded.
McVicar also campaigned for change, not the status quo. So I would suggest he pulled more votes off Nash’s team than the National conservatives (don’t change anything) brigade.
Sometimes a simple right-left axis evaluation does not accurately indicate what has really gone on. Time people realised that.
[…] Daily Blog’s pick: The contender that attracts the support of Nash and his backers will likely win this leadership […]
You are quite correct Stuart bled more votes to McVicar than Wayne.
No other Labour politician has pulled so many National votes to Labour as Stuart has, he is a winner there is no argument.
His regional values are core Labour values. Forget the right/left chatter.
If labour wants to win they need a leader experienced with winning, its simple.
Comments are closed.