David Cunliffe Resigns As Labour Leader – Forces Robertson Out of the Beltway


image001David Cunliffe has made a smart move, resigning as the leader of the Labour Party so as to force a leadership primary campaign. The move draws rival Grant Robertson out of the beltway to parts of the country where he can be truly tested.

The alternatives would have seen Robertson become leader uncontested, a tactic that would cause further division between the Party’s caucus, its membership, and the affiliated unions…

In this primary, Robertson will need to convince the membership and unions that as leader he will not cause Pasifika & other volunteer groups to defect. This is an argument that Cunliffe could well win. But is it enough to cause Labour members to get back in behind him?

Watch out for another candidate at least to enter the primary.

Also watch out for who the leadership contenders attract as running mates. This element of the primary campaign will reveal much about the dealings among caucus factions and their respective interests.

Particularly watch out for the prospect of Stuart Nash playing a part.

The Daily Blog’s pick: The contender that attracts the support of Nash and his backers will likely win this leadership primary.

In the meantime, here is David Cunliffe’s statement:

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com


    MIL OSI – Source: David Cunliffe – Press Release/Statement

    Headline: David Cunliffe Resigns As Labour Leader – Will Contest A Primary Campaign

    I have today decided to resign the leadership of the Labour Party, effective from the end of caucus on Tuesday.

    The party has suffered an historic election loss and in resigning as leader I take responsibility for that.

    The party will review all the contributing factors. That process has begun and I give it my full support.

    Labour’s values are New Zealand’s values. But the election result has reinforced that the Labour Party must change in order to uphold and communicate those values. I was elected one year ago with a mandate to lead change.

    In that time I have worked to pull the party and caucus together and put every resource available to the service of the campaign.

    Clearly there is much more to do, and the party’s direction must be respected. There is no room for division or airing differences through the media despite agreement to the contrary.

    The recent election confirms that Labour needs a more comprehensive overhaul.

    We need to renew and rebuild our culture, accountabilities, how we do things and present to the world.

    Achieving that in time for the 2017 election will require experienced and determined leadership with a broad mandate.

    Whatever decisions are made must be in the best interests of New Zealand to have a strong and vital Labour Party.

    The Party’s interests must come before any personal interests. I have thought carefully before responding to the calls to re-offer myself for the leadership of the party.

    Consultation with colleagues, members and affiliates has affirmed that the whole party must participate in this choice, and not just one part of it.

    Therefore I am announcing today that I will nominate for a primary contest, which will be held across the caucus, the party membership and the affiliates as the party constitution requires.

    The process is a matter for the party Council, but the work we have begun towards creating a better country with opportunities for all New Zealanders must be fast tracked.

    I would like to take this moment once again to thank my family and friends, my parliamentary colleagues, my office staff, my electorate committee, staff and volunteers, and the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who voted Labour and who believe that Labour is a vital part of New Zealand’s future.

    It is a privilege to lead the Labour Party. It is a great and proud party. It has the best interests of all New Zealanders at heart.

    It has the values needed to create a fairer and more progressive society. I intend with the endorsement of the Party, to lead Labour to victory in 2017 so we can implement them.

    I am now going to resume a long-booked family holiday until Monday evening and won’t be available for further media comment.


  1. Good move. Go for it, DC! Fix the machine, get it up and running, win the mandate a second time so that I can enjoy watching the ABCs figure out what the rest of us already know.

  2. The MP’s don’t want him now, so he resigns but he wants to stand to be leader again believing the same cocked up system that got him there in the first place will put him back as Leader, of the same MP’s who didn’t want him in the first place. What is wrong with this picture?

    How is that good, that virtually none of your MP’s have any time for you?

    How is that going to work, ever?

    Will Labour exist as a political force after this and certainly after 2017, I doubt it.

  3. If Cunliffe wins the leadership for the second time, can we please, please, please, have the ABC cull we should have had when he won the first time?

    • @ Dave Rutherford –

      I’m picking if David Cunliffe wins second time around, that’s exactly what he will do. He will have a mandate to do some serious culling.

    • Agree. Once and for all, BEFORE the party starts, can we have agreement from the caucus, that WHOEVER wins, has the mandate to lead, whether we like them or not. I was beginning to wonder if certain MP’s like being in opposition?

    • These “ABC’s” made up 80% of the Caucus based on the revelation that he was supported by 20% of his MPs prior to the last election.

      So there will be virtually no MP’s left after the cull. Then what?

      • I imagine some of the 80% would be quite happy to support him and I also imagine that if he was able to move Goff and other Rogernomes out a whole lot of other MPs would suddenly see it in their interest to support him. I mean, it worked for Helen Clark, she didn’t have any trouble with anyone after she’d finished knifing her opponents within the party.

  4. Yeah – Cunliffe. Give the guy another whirl ….I reckon he’s got what it takes.

    Anyone whose pissin off those ABC neo liberal turncoats must be hitting some raw nerves….feed it to ’em David.

  5. “In this primary, Robertson will need to convince the membership and unions that as leader he will not cause Pasifika & other volunteer groups to defect. This is an argument that Cunliffe could well win. But is it enough to cause Labour members to get back in behind him?”

    Why? because he happens to be gay? It disgusts me that that should even be worried about.

    • I think it’s more to do with the fact that he’s a creature of the beltway and that almost no one outside caucus voted for him last time

      • See , the Robertson thing again ?? Respectfully , why do you see him as a creature of the Beltway ? I must be missing something here . Dammit ! I hate that . When the obvious is so obvious that I miss it completely . Like I always push the pull door which is always clearly marked . What is that about ? Yeah , dumb . But there’s something else in the mix . What is that ???

        • I’m glad it was you who described yourself as missing the obvious Countryboy cos I just took the beltway phrase from the title of this blog post 🙂

    • Well it might disgust you (and its not certain tut’s the reason) but you need to meet people where they are at not where you expect/want them to be, whatever the issue(s). So if your most likely constituents are with you on issues of political-economy and not where you’d like them to be on some social issues, you have some hard choices to make – walk with them, or become politically irrelevant.

    • It is not about being anti-gay but being pragmatic.

      The majority of the voting public will not accept a gay Prime Minister, simple as that.

      There is probably over a million die hard rugby followers who would choke at the thought.

      Remember the reaction when Cunliffe’s apology about being a “man”, that killed his election chances.

      Labour must name and shame the white ant brigade and remove them.

  6. I don’t think the gay bit is the issue…I think anyone else but Cunliffe wouldn’t have delivered his original speech that saw Labours ratings climb to the late 30’s….

    Robertson , Shearer…all neo libs…all favoring a Nat lite’.

    Sure you’ll get a less divided caucus (that’s been causing the division for all these years ) – but is that what you really want?

    The house divided against itself will fall….and guess who was doing all the dividing ?…..the ABC neo liberals.

    Cast them out and Cunliffe can preside over a united house and REALLY show Labour’s got what it takes.

    No more of this division !!!

    • Sorry to be so ignorant but what about Robertson makes him a Neo Liberal ? It’s a serious question I ask respectfully . Which isn’t like me at all .

    • I agree with you Wild but what really concerns me is the prediction made in the blog that the candidate supported by the Nash and his backers will succeed. And earlier blogs on this site have discussed Nash and his backers.
      I sincerely hope Cunliffe wins and I pray he has the strength and the backing to clean out Labour’s Augean stables because if he doesn’t the Labour Party will become irrelevant to the left.

      • Cunliffe may lack the cunning manipulative-ness of JohnXKEYSCORE , – but in my view that’s a good thing , give him time and he’ll develop a bit of street smarts.

        He strikes me as a man who operates on certain principles, whereas many others lack that quality – which means they have no problems in using underhanded methods. I for one am sick of those types.

        I respect a person who can admit a mistake. That shows teachability and a capacity to want to improve. It also shows a certain type of humility lacking in many of today’s politicians.

        So many of them act like fake prescripted plastic clones, – which tells me there’s something they are not willing to share to the general population.

        Dont like that sort of subterfuge going on in politics.

      • Its been fucked for 30 years. And the people that fucked it are still in positions of power in the Labour party. I hate the Neo-Libs with a passion and have since 84. Robertson is associated with all those shit heads and their ABC factions. Why those arseholes remain in control, the Labour Party is doomed to opposition.

        • Dunno about Robertson’s Neo-Lib pedigree, (not disagreeing- just don’t know yet) but the rest? Agree 1000%.Getting really tired of waiting to get our party back from them too. 30 f#cking years is long enough.The ordinary people Labour is supposed to represent have gone backwards while the last of the Rogernomes indulge their bullshit.

  7. I never thought Robertson was a Beltway thus insular kind of guy . The impression I got was that when Cunliffe was elected leader of Labour , Robertson was gracious and supportive of Cunliffe . I thought he acted with dignity at the time actually . And I’ve watched him in action . He doesn’t fuck around with fools . And I like that in a politician . I reckon he’d a kicked jonky’s arse in any debate . Or am I wrong ? Maybe I am . I dunno . What a fucking mess really .

    • Yeah its true….Robertson can debate,…hes those got qualities too.

      But they voted for Cunliffe,…and there seems to be some sort of caucus revolt against Cunliffe…in that case, for the sake of party cohesiveness and unity….Robertson could have been more vocal perhaps…sticking it to the media , supporting his leader publicly..

      That sort of show of unity can be powerful . And it should have been all too evident to the Nats that these guys aint playing games.

      But it didn’t happen that way.

  8. Can we pull all our heads out of the sand here?

    I know how shattered you all feel as I do, but let us think of a way of turning this into another victory while we go through another primary campaign.

    This will certainly reveal much about the dealings among caucus factions and their respective interests, and this could work in favour of our aim to spark new interest in Labour.

    If we study what happened to Labour’s fortunes during the last Primary campaign after Shearer resigned?

    We saw a groundswell of kindled interest in Labour again from people we met that were not previously interested in labour wanting to know who was running for leadership and what was their history as MP’s.

    Then we an upswing in the polls also to a heady height of 38% we remember and closing the gap with the NatZ after the debates.

    Maybe just maybe by then Natz will be doing so much bad shit that the favour and fortunes may turn back towards Labour again.

    That time in the media limelight may be a golden opportunity for Labour to shine again and win back some media support also.

    Here is hoping anyway but we do hope the contest will be friendly and comforting in our hour of hurt.

    Meanwhile lets also work on a Campaign to get a left centre independent radio/TV network and find a benefactor interested in supporting us financially. KDC maybe?

    • Last sentence, exactly what I have suggested. Put the money in KDC then step back and leave it alone except for IT assist.

  9. Why does the Daily Blog give a newly elected Nash, who basically won his seat due to a split in the votes, such power as to determine the leader of the labour party?

  10. Is Robertson considered an ABC’er ? Is he a neo liberal ? I would be completely surprised if he was .

    Ok . I just read his Wikipedia bio and he’s a straight up sort of fellow . He’s got one more thing that David Cunliffe does not have . He’s got spirit . He’s got personality . Good old , Gay old Grant Robertson gets this heterosexual red neck ex-farmers vote . I reckon the guy’s a bit classy actually . Maybe all is not lost ?

    • I think to be fair to Robertson he is simply seen as the best option to stop Cunliffe becoming leader – after all, he is backed by the Anyone But Cunliffe brigade.

      In fact I’d go so far as to say that he has it in him to be an excellent leader – but so was David Lange and he couldn’t control the neo liberal nitwits who backed his leadership bid either.

      • Are they really ‘neo-liberal’? What are they going to do that makes them neo-liberal? How Rogernomic are they really? (real question)

        • So many who opposed Cunliffe are drawn from the ranks of the older Rogernomes, and more recent converts to that ‘religion’. Hence the constant pressure to drag Labour to the Right and become National Lite.

          It has been shown demonstrably that a return to the original center Left of Labour would be a very popular move… as when Cunliffe made his original and stirring speech when he was first elected.

          • What’s an example of the policies the neo-liberal Labour MPs favour? (I’m struggling to recall anything Cunliffe advocated that was especially Left.) What sort of policies did the two sides disagree on?

            • Refer back to his original speech when he was first voted in…should be able to google it – that included all the old time Labour tenets that Labour was foundered on –

              It lifted the spirits of so many of the Left and average Kiwi’s he brought the popularity of Labour up to 37 % virtually overnight .

              THAT’S what I’m talking about.

              • Yeah Wild katipo, I remember his speech I think it was in the West Coast Founding Labour Hall at Rununga, or Blackball in Greymouth?

        • You have got to be fucking joking. Mallard-Goff- King-Cosgrove- belong in ACT not National. National is not”right” enough for them. And yet they are in a centre left party. And you wonder why there is chaos.

  11. The Labour Party still cant see the solution that is staring it in the face. The problem as Chris Trotter stated it recently is that if the Party moves to the right it will lose 40% of its members; if it moves to the Left it will lose its Right wing support. Selwyn Manning similarly said that the neo-liberal fault line doesn’t run between Labour and National, it runs straight through the centre of Labour. One day it will split. So do it now, while you have 3 to 6 years to play with.
    Before defending that proposal, it is necessary to consider the other left wing parties, Green and IMP – something TDB never does. The IMP website is still active and there seems to be a consensus that it should continue. Kim Dotcom seems to be genuinely contrite that he made a mess of the last week before election day. He owes Hone Harawira big time and the best thing KDC can do now is to make the IMP a donation large enough to enable it to fight the 2017 election and then leave it to its own devices (of course the IMP will have to start charging realistic membership fees and have a branch structure like any other party). That brings the IMP back into play.

    The Greens will be back to 15% by 2017. The Green/IMP vote will be worth about 20% and both will be funded to fight. Assume that Labour splits into a right wing rump (Old Labour?) and a left wing party (New Deal? – “Labour” has a serious branding problem). If their total combined vote is not less than the existing Labour vote they have 25% of votes cast, which with Green/IMP gives 40% . This ignores 1 million non-voters and the NZ First 9%, which I think will be up for grabs in 2017. That gives around 50% of potential voters. Not a bad prospect for a Party facing oblivion.
    So what are the arguments for a split?
    1) Firstly it avoids that oblivion – at least for a while.
    2) Each separate party can present its policies truthfully instead of the cant and humbug that the present set up requires. A little honest is probably a vote winner
    3) If the Left alliance found itself in a position to form a Government the component parts – Old Labour, New Deal and (Green/IMP) would be approximately equal voting blocks unlike the grossly unequal present Labour/Green set up and would have to negotiate an agenda.
    Arguments against such a split are:-
    1) If Old Labour found itself in a position of being kingmaker it is as likely to form a coalition with National as with the Left alliance – but that only proves that a split is inevitable, so why not now.
    2) The NZ voter really is a conservative, apathetic, political naive mug, who is led by the nose by the Right wing Press. For that problem, I have no solution

    • Sorry to be dumb, but as one of the moronic voters mentioned, can I genuinely ask precisely what is meant by “move the the left” and “move to the right” these days? Can you give examples of actual actions that would illustrate each? When we say ‘left’ do we mean old time ’30s left? Or a new version? And does ‘right’ mean ditching the rise in minimum pay policy, for instance? Any assistance gratefully received.

      • The expressions “move to the left”and “move to the right” were derived from Chris Trotters analysis of the problem. I used them only to show that there is an irreconcilable rift in the Labour Party that cant be fudged by leadership battles. Personally I believe that such expressions are out of date and dont reflect the reality of NZ’s political character.
        A more accurate description of the present political divide is 1) anti-liberalist 2) pro-liberalist and 3) conservative (which means that only the Conservative Party’s name truly reflects what they represent. “Labour” has such adverse implications in the minds of the electorate ( they link it with “socialist, pinko and communist”) that it needs to be dropped.
        However, using the hypothetical names thatI gave a Labour split (Old Labour and New Deal), the various parties would fit into my suggested categories, with estimated vote percentages, as follows:
        1) anti -liberalist: Greens (15% -20%), New Deal (10-15%), based on Chris Trotter’s estimate), Internet Mana (5-10%), though with funding from Kim Dotcom, but no other interference, it could do better. This would give a vote share of 30-45%
        2) Pro Liberalist: National 30-35%, Old Labour 10-15%. I know this looks strange, but read on. A vote Range of 40-50%
        3) Conservative 10-15% This number could be higher, based on a) the way that the Conservatives split the Napier vote and b) the kind of votes that National Front parties are getting in Europe. These votes will have come from National (hence their low vote above) and from conservative blue-collar Labour supporters.
        The 1 million nonvoters will change the picture further because few of them will be National or Green voters- their votes are pretty solid. A lot of disillusioned Labour voters could be induced to vote again. The rest are apathetic conservatives who will never vote. This means that the anti-Liberal vote is understated and the National and Green votes are somewhat exaggerrated.
        The interesting thing here, if the assumptions are correct, is that the National Party is in as much danger of a split from the “right” as the Labour Party is from the “left”, using the out-dated labels. I suggest the prize goes to the party that responds to the reality most promptly.

        • “Old Labour” and “New Deal” – now that makes some sense! And it wasn’t just your use of left and right I was referring to – everyone and his horse seems to be flinging the terms around as if there was widespread understanding of the definitions and I really think it’s just confusing a confusing issue even more for most people.
          Many thanks for taking the time to explain in such detail, I think I’m finally getting on deck.
          (PS – what might Labour’s ‘new deal’ involve?)

      • The whole crux of the matter relies not on policy but economic theory – out of this you develop policy .

        Currently – National uses the free market neo liberalist economic theory .Both Labour and National have done since 1984. The policys we’ve all endured have been a direct result of doing this.

        Prior to that we used the economic theory of a guy called John Maynard Keynes – Keynesian economics – which brought all the nations of Europe -and Japan out of the Great Depression in 6 months. For NZ , this was what Savage operated under -which set the tone for our famous egalitarianism. And a general relative prosperity.

        But the neo liberals don’t like this because it inhibits their ability to amass obscene amounts of capitol and thus to have disproportionate power through legislation over large groups of people- ie: nations.

        So a move to the Left by very nature would include a lessening of neo liberalism and a slow reintroduction of typical Keynesian principles. This is what the neo liberals in both National and Labour fear and are continually opposing if any body /party raises their head above the parapets……think Cunliffe , think Hawera ,IMP. Youll soon see what I mean.

          • Well..I could…but for you to understand the difference between Keynesianism and neo liberalism….a simple Google search will give you all you need to know. You will recognize the difference very easily , ….and you will see WHY NZ society is vastly poorer for accepting neo liberalism .

            I could write volumes about it- but a thread such as this isn’t the place…as there are more people with input than just me. But suffice to say when you compare them both…you will recognize those politicians who advocate what ideology , and also be able to appropriate it to NZ political conditions.

        • @wild katipo. Thanks for the explanation. Incidentally I should elaborate on my claim that ‘Labour’ has a serious branding problem.
          At the last election the total Labour vote was a low 25%. However if you ask NZ voters their opinion of State asset sales; land sales to non-residents; the TPPA; inequality of wealth distribution or global warming, their responses would indicate the support of 50% plus of them for left party policies. Yet if you ask if they consider themselves to be left wing, they would recoil in horror, because, thanks to years of media indoctrination, ‘left wing’ is identified as extreme and Socialist. That is not true but perception is everything and the consequence is that simply using the word ‘Labour’ costs the party a huge number of votes. That is another reason for breaking with the past.

  12. A long planned family holiday? I thought that the plan was to stitch together a coalition government, or to be Prime Minister elect?

  13. Well..the way I see it…when Cunliffe made his first speech, …it was laden with a lot of old time Labour values..and people genuinely started getting interested- that shows there IS an interest in what Labour has as old time values. It exists. But …as the weeks turned into months…it was like ‘someone’ got to him…

    Almost as if he was in a constant state of being muzzled.

    I believe it was the majority of the neo liberal ABC ‘s.

    After that…the media started in on him…you could see…he was fighting on two fronts. And I don’t think that’s fair. You support your leader – not work cross purposes at him. And lets not forget it was the affiliates and members/union base that voted for him…why should the minority caucus and their mates go against the wishes of the democratically elected leader.

    Smacks of career politicians dictating not only elected leader…but the polices that leader must follow- against the wishes of the majority.

    Nope…the guy deserves a second chance.

    • I got off my arse this year for Labour- the first time since 1987 – because finally there seemed to be a swing back to the socialism (you know – your government caring about everyone, people working together, a more caring society – traditional NZ Labour, sadly missing since Lange’s party ). How can Labour ever EVER compete for the middle!!! John Key’s National party is a CULT! Its been designed to look good to the middle. We’ve seen the mecanisms behind it – there’s got to be that difference. NZ First got an amazing result – because many people actually want those old New Zealand values. David Cunliffe captured that – Grant Robinson didn’t then and I haven’t seen him do it now.

      Labour is considered out in the greater world of nz – in my experience – as disorganised & fractuous. It has to be honest – neolib or socialist.

      • The hardest thing for me has been, since Monday, I just don’t see my country – and people – in the same way anymore.

      • Cagey, My sentiments entirely.

        The NatZ have used a powerful Propaganda machine to blanket their control of the entire media with the premise that they are the party of the centre.

        It has been drummed into our heads that it has brainwashed us all to believe it.

        But they are far from centrist but a party for the rich and sell-out party also.

        They make Roger Douglas look like a puppy.

        Our only way to counter the hard right NatZ propaganda is for all opposition Parties meet in an emergency forum series of meetings with the express intention of forcing Government to hand over half of the public service media machinery to the combined opposition consortium to use for their policy platform to inform the public.

        Nothing short of this is needed to combat this continual brainwashing of our hearts and minds..

        If Government refuses to hand over half of the public service media networks to opposition for their control then take the Government to court for it.

        Then they will have a case against this Government for misuse of public funds using public service TVNZ/RadioNZ as their own political instrument of propaganda.

        How would this look like in court when opposition state that RNZ and TVNZ are using masterminds of “Dirty Politics” Farrar, Hooten, Henere and who knows else NatZ have on their roladex of names proven to use dirty smear campaigns on our taxpayer media?

  14. @ Mike . Hahahaha a ! You’re a funny little thing . And sadly , you’re right . The reasons you’re right is worthy of closer examination .

    The soulless exploitation of those less fortunate , the deviant glee extracted from such endeavours , the simple minded desire for more than is needed , the destruction of our beautiful Earth for the masturbation of the ego , the short sightedness of instant gratification , the exploitation of the creative mind is yours . Enjoy . x But where would you be without us ?

  15. …..and they’re off, the media go into overdrive to smear Cunliffe, 4 different posts on the same subject on TV3 news, 101 “how to smear your rival” looks like media and their backers want to choose the leader of the opposition, even though they should be non-partisan? Are the right very very worried about Cunliffe’s abilities?

    • We even have Tau Henare giving his opinion on how to run Labour.

      I was hoping by now we would have seen the 48% winners showing us how they are going to lead ALL of the country. Instead they are wasting everyone’s time by sticking their nose in what is none of their business.

      National – Still Negative After Six Years.

      On the bright side it will be harder for the teflon slimeball to keep blaming the previous Labour government for absolutely everything.

  16. The DB says, “David Cunliffe has made a smart move.” It was his only move. The alternative was to spend the rest of his political career on the back benches. I personally believe that the general election experience has enabled Cunliffe to grow in a way that will make him a stronger voice in opposition. After he wins the leadership for a 2nd time the whole Labour caucus needs to get behind him and give him the three years he needs to highlight the substantial alternative he is offering to Key’s primary industry trickle down economy.

    • Couldn’t agree more. He’s won me over and I think he’s got what it takes. I hope he wins and then has a massive cull of those who seek to undermine him. Grant Robertson seems nice enough, but to me he appears to simply have ruthless ambition and very little gravitas, which I personally think a PM should have, and which David Cunliffe has in spades.

  17. Sorry to rain on the parade. But no one, and I mean no one, has said that the fundamental structural problems which riddle labour are going to be fixed.

    This is just smoke and mirrors of a party dying.

    Sorry, but if we get sucked into this, then the slow walk into corporatocracy just shuffled a few steps forward.

    But, feel free. My last comment on it – you wanna play a cheap game of thrones – go right ahead.

    • I am an old fashioned left winger. I left Labour in 1984 and I ain’t going back. The Labour Party has avoided the elephant in the room for 30 years. The Neo- Libs belong in Act not Labour and why they are still there the left is going no where. Clark was in power for nine years but never got rid of the arseholes and reversed none of the changes, in fact she bedded them in. The choice has been simple for 30 years. Keep the Neo -Libs and slowly die or cleanse house. I still don’t think they have got the backbone to act so a slow death instead.

  18. DC took over Labour’s leadership without enough time to make a positive impact. The chance was there a year before but caucus stuck with David Shearer and I said to myself at the time, if they don’t replace DS now it will be too late for his successor to have any reasonable chance of victory, especially under the prevailing Key bootlicking culture we have now. I think I was right although I take little pleasure in it. As much as I admire DC personally, I believe his chance is over and that the party must rebuild with another leader. With DC at the helm, the party will forever be dogged with the loser tag which is not-at-all good for morale and is hardly likely to have the general public listening to its (mostly) good policies.

    I am beginning to believe those who claim that parts of the Labour Party didn’t want to win the election at all, because they disagreed with general policy direction and a win would have meant they had to implement it. A loss would have been better so they have the excuse to purge the party. A contest between the right and left factions of Labour is coming up. Who will win? probably the right because of how New Zealand politics has trended that way, right is increasingly being seen as the path to victory, and left the path to oblivion, and who wants to keep losing election after election and having National in power for decades on end like in Malaysia.

  19. I am really interested in why Martyn u think Nash is so important in all this. Seems he has a very high opinion of himself and how fantastic he is, no one else seems to be blowing his trumpet quite as much

    • Heather, We Napier People actually Know Stuart Nash and how effective he is for our region.

      You sound like you don’t come from HB so how can you judge it is a bit of a stretch to say just because Nash has a high opinion of himself well you must be shallow, cause he is nothing of the kind.

      He is gentle and generally quiet spoken you must be confused with your dear leader key cause he really loves himself doesn’t he or don’t you think so? Go troll on the Auckland region leave our Napier region alone.

  20. Cunliffe was a fake, Mat Maccarten saw right through him when he stated that he was someone who put on phony guises.

    He’s just another career politician who engaged in back stabbing politics against his own leader, and now as leader he’s experiencing the same in return. Hard to feel any sympathy.

    The Robertson/Ardern ticket though? who are they kidding, an unmarried, childless 30 something Auckland female and a middle aged homosexual man from Wellingtons cafe’s. That will not win back the middle vote, even if they might be the most deserving or capable. But the public doesn’t give a damn about who wins debates in parliament or on T.V, they vote for the party that relates to them, both policy and personality wise.

    • If you don’t like Labour at all then what does it matter to you who they have as leader??
      I don’t like National so I don’t give a monkey’s who they have as leader. All the same to me. But why do you care?

    • @Sansa. Funny that Matt McCarten was derogatory towards David Cunliffe whom he didnt even know, and whom he had never met, but soon changed his mind after working with Cunliffe over a period of weeks, that after 25 years, saw McCarten join the Labour Party to be David Cunliffe’s Chief of Staff. To reiterate, that’s testimony to David Cunliffe as a person and a leader. McCarten publicly admitted his previous view of David Cunliffe was wrong.

  21. Grant Robertson and David Shearer are working in tandem, they wasted no time in putting the boot in so Robertson could get his shot at the leadership. I hope David Cunliffe trounces him for a second time.

  22. If the MSM want rid of Cunners, that’s a ringing endorsement that he should fight on. The neolabs join team key or Act, or disappear.

  23. The people who run the egonomist blog work for Internal affairs. Look into it. One of their main MOs is to degrade Bomber. Also associated with the Labour Party. Part of an organized effort to destroy real leftist opposition. Trolls are all employed on social media to the same end. I have seen the strategy. It’s real. The d3ep state is real and exists at multiple levels. Collusion between labor and national at the deepest levels. Degrading Bomer and the Daily Blog seen as a major priority. Take notice and investigate. For starters look at who runs the egonomist: sanctioned by internal affairs. Presenters employees.

    Deep state much deeper than we all realize. Bomber and others look closely into it. It’s almost already too late.

  24. What you need to know is that there is a planed, long-term strategy to destroy any realistic leftist opportunities in this country. This is achieved though a concerted effort of character assassination, bribery, and if you get to close, the threat of exposing private sexual information through Google data. If you do not comply, they will hound you wherever you go, making life a most impossible for you. Next pig that tries to sto0 me gets stuck.

  25. FFS! Can’t we get away from this imbecilic use of the term ‘beltway’ ??
    The Beltway is the ring road around Washington DC and what that has to do with NZ politics eludes me. Just saying…..

Comments are closed.