Both of Cameron Slater’s mates leading the Labour Party?

14
3

donationssplit_620x310

Kelvin Davis’ loudest supporters, David Farrar and Cameron Slater. Not in this picture, Kelvin’s other cheerleader, John Key.

 

While I most certainly think Labour need some sense of unity right now with a Cunliffe and Wall/Nash co-deputy team, the idea that Nash and Kelvin Davis would run as leader and deputy is an ABC too far.

Both of Cameron Slater’s mates leading the Labour Party?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

That’s just too depressing to even consider. I certainly think Nash has the ability to woo over the boiled meat and 3 vege politics of middle Nu Ziland but my 5 steps to him becoming PM were tongue in cheek…

1 – Start referring to himself immediately as ‘The Nashy’

2 – Speargun a large fish over Summer, preferably an endangered Tuna so that he can start having a fight with the Greens. Hunting something with a social media photo of him standing over whatever he has killed would also suffice.

3 – Kick a ball around with some All Blacks.

4 – Pick more fights with the Greens over climate change and oil drilling.

5 – Dump all that complicated girl stuff like gender equality, rape culture, maternity leave, and social justice as that complicated girl stuff makes the blokes down at the sports bar choke on their mince pies. 

6 – Bash the bennies and make Cameron Slater’s other mate inside Caucus, Kelvin Davis, make some derogatory remarks about Maori and violence all under the guise of ‘manning up’  and confronting domestic abuse.

…good to see Kelvin is doing the last point by immediately attacking Waitaingi Trust charging entrance fees.  Yawn, Kelvin is well on his way to becoming the Pakeha favourite Maori who criticises other Maori…

His hair is coal black coal 

His lips sneer with Dotcom lies

His win a political home goal 

He’s got Kelvin Davis eyes 

Labour need some left pride, not more National Party lite.

Shane Jones had this mythical bloke appeal didn’t he and he was thrashed by the affiliates in the last primary so the idea that a Nash/Davis team would do any better seems wishful. It’s the symbolism of the right working with the Left that is Nash’s power, not his own ambitions. As an ABC, the wider membership see his faction as all that is wrong within Labour, Nash would be the deputy Robertson or Cunliffe need to bring on board for the wider appeal OUTSIDE the Party, not inside it.

6 weeks of this could end in members wishing a plague on all Labour’s factions.

14 COMMENTS

  1. Hi Martyn,

    Perhaps Labour needs to follow NatZ success by splitting off a right wing element and name it “NZ act” or something like it to attract all those middle voters like self employed back to the fold?

    We do need to give the Labour strategist some ideas it seems as they are currently bogged down in naval gazing.

    Jacinda on TV this morning looked snappy and candidate material, but Stuart could partner her well as the middle road type also.

    She said National was 21% in 2002 and made it’s way back so we now expect Labour to at least look at how NatZ made the recovery as of now they are stumped it seems, and need new blood to inspire us all as Stuart Nash has in Napier.

    Labour has to be careful not to further alienate the provincial voters again stacking Labour with Auckland folks and share the regional input MP’s amongst the caucus lineup.

  2. I suspect Kelvin Davis could well be National’s mole in Labour.

    National and NZ First encouraging support for Davis in TTT against Hone Harawira, was the first inkling that alerted me to my suspicions.

    With hindsight now, it’s become obvious Davis was the tool used by the right, to intentionally rid NZ politics of Internet Mana and any threat to FJK. Without interference from the right namely FJK, Hone would have retained his seat and be in Parliament with Laila Harre!

    And the worst aspect of it is Davis is now part of the sordid game of dirty politics. He’s been bought! He is in Parliament by the grace of FJK and Winston Peters!

    Watch out for more destabilization in Labour, with Davis there. If Stuart Nash is a mate of Cameron Slater, then he will be there for the same reason!

    A Kelvin Davis/Stuart Nash Labour leadership? No bloody way 🙁

  3. This country as gone to the dogs ,Labour party fighting over bones ,just as JK wanted.opposition in disarray.
    Its just reported Jk has allowed sky city to build a hotel on taxpayers land next to convention centre,old tvnz space. All agreed before the election but only just acknowledged ,JK as usual is comfortable with it .!
    Jk can do just as he likes now,the fox in charge of the hen house.
    Internet /mana have more dignity , we don’t hear about their squabbles, I hope they regroup and come out fighting.

  4. Agree with serious concerns around Nash/ Davies at the top, would bury Labour…….interested to see how long it takes media to start talking about this as ONLY option, and then the “people” to start accepting this is the only reality? Media controlled narrative around any opposition to National for last 6 years, in the face of logic, so nothing surprises me these days, bizarre has become “normal”. When Minister of Justice is the most corrupt in government, and flaunts relationship with a venal blogger……idiocracy

  5. How is Kelvin Davis attacking the Waitangi Trust over fees to enter the treaty grounds considered attacking Maori?

    He is advocating the funding to be provided by the government – not out of our pockets if we choose to visit the birthplace of our nation.

  6. The upcoming review will only confirm our various prejudices. An election – the one just past anyway – can be characterized as much like those Business Confidence polls. They give extreme results – positive or negative – because they are all observing the opinion of a passing moment. They are not immune to a total reverse after an earthquake or commodity price crash or some damaging piece of news.

    Labour suffered a crushing defeat. Some of the causes were of our own making, some were circumstantial, some were organisational. We don’t need a massive fraternal war to establish that there is plenty of responsibility to go round. Also, that we can change the lion’s share of the problems if we chose to.

    One thing we probably shouldn’t do is retreat into the laager of a left-leaning reorientation. What a review can do is establish our national transforming priorities, and our core tenets. It actually matters little who the leader is. If we try to fund a cookie-cutter great leader we will never find him or her. Relaxed, brilliant, funny, lightning of foot with perfect political credentials…. forget it. We can work with whoever the party choses. Because in the end the only changes we can make will be those where we convince a big wack of National supporters are changes much to be desired.
    It is obvious that if we don’t win the argument, a subsequent administration will immediately reverse the changes. For this reason it is wasted air talking about changes beloved of our comrades who still hanker for the dreams of a worker’s paradise current at the founding of the party. On the other hand it has been generally accepted that New Zealand should be non-nuclear; that the environment should be protected if at all possible; that (with some contentious caveats) the government is primarily responsible for education welfare and health and so on.
    Time and experience tell us that we will only go forward when all agree that change is necessary, just and beneficial. So painful as it may be, whoever represents the reforming side of politics must engage with the whole country to convince them that our desired changes really do work for all at some level.
    Many of our policies alienated big chunks of the population. One example being the 67 retirement age. Firstly, the retirement age has become almost irrelevant. I don’t know anyone who expects to retire at 65, or 67 for that matter. They would rather stay relevant, and expect to need the extra money. But more than this, the policy was probably seen by the 40 somethings, who would be affected by the plan, as yet another policy, to go with free tertiary education, where the baby boomers get a pass at the expense of everyone else. Not exactly visionary. Sure we can agree that universality is a key element of many policies, but it comes as the corollary of a more progressive tax rate. It can be easily established that it is far cheaper to run a universal scheme than a targeted, means-tested benefit.
    The need for the minutae of policy is also way overstated. Even if Labour’s policies were unimpeachable, it would not have mattered as for much of the election, the phone was off the hook. This was at least in part because the attention of the general population had not been attracted by an appealing broader vision of a better more inclusive New Zealand.
    It is at this point that the leader can have an impact. But I would contend that an unappealing leader with a transcendently attractive message will beat the converse any day. Calm confidence will beat frenetic passion. Harmonious collegiality will also beat an impassioned fuhrer. For this reason it matters not who wins. What matters is that the selection should be entirely civil, without the junkyard invective recently expressed.
    It is also vital that the opposition leadership albeit provisional, should put aside their distasteful wrangling and get on with the business of holding this government to it’s promises, and to try to head off the excesses of unfettered power.
    As an aside, if any member of the caucus do not believe they could work with one or other of the prospective candidates for leadership, now would be the least damaging time to resign. The party will never forgive a member of the Labour caucus who is unable to give 100% support in voice as well as heart to whoever ends up being selected.

    • Thank you, Nick, for such a sensible and considered response. Couldn’t agree more! Here’s hoping some sense will prevail, although I’m not holding my breath.

  7. Voters saw the alliance between Manna and the Internet Party for the rort that it was and rejected it. That is why Kelvin Davis won the seat. I hope to see Davis as our first Maori prime minister and I’m sorry he is not campaigning for the leadership of the Labour Party.

  8. If David Cunliff wins the leadership I will support the Labour Party Leadership, if he does not win I do not think I am even remotely interested in supporting Labour.

    But that is probably exactly what John Key wants, suit his plans not to have a opposition

  9. Nopes…..Cunliffe as leader , Nanaia Mahuta as second in charge ..THEN you would see a REAL Labour party reemerge.

    Mahuta would be sound, sensible and work back to back in putting many a sniveling ABC /neo liberal in their place, as well as reintroduce old time Labour values that MOST kiwi’s have got a real interest in…

    As expressed by the surge in interest – 38% – in the polls on Cunliffes first speech. He needs a good offsider to watch his back against the treacherous ABC brigade.

    Nanaia Mahuta would be that offsider. Unflinchingly.

  10. Culiffe/Robertson.Robertson/Ardern.Nash/Davis.Shearer/Nash.Little/Ardern.Robertson.Davis.Shearer.Nash

    One of that grouping is going to be Leader and Deputy.Not a inspiring bunch.all centrists.

    • Just a reminder – the caucus chooses its deputy leader so speculation about that is pointless as party members don’t get a say. The only certainty at present is that Cunliffe and Robertson are standing for the leadership.

Comments are closed.