Labour (and the left for that matter) can’t fall in to the same trap as the GOP in the US and think that simply trying to turn out the base vote is sufficient. Labour got 20,000 votes in Mangere in 2005 and 18,000 in 2014. The base is staying reasonably strong.

The party needs to figure out how to get back voters like those in Tamaki (party vote practically halved between 2005 and 2014), Napier (14,500 to 9,500) and Invercargill (14,300 to 8,500). These voters aren’t particularly difficult to get – most of them will have voted Labour at least once in the past 12 years – Labour just needs a leader who can make them feel welcome back inside the party tent.

Lee, offensive and unintelligent. Can’t be arsed saying anything more about your racist diatribe.

Wow……. you truly are a despicable excuse for a human being I wont even dignify you with using the “R” word.

You are the problem with this great country.

If we cant stand united we fall divided…

I think working people are making the same mistake again. Pasifika and Maori both want the best to happen from labour. They believe the party that has helped them in the past, will do so again. David Lange and his work with the Pacific panthers was legendary. But, the economic and social nightmare that these same working people now face, came from the releasing of untethered capitalism on working people by labour.

I dislike labour, I’ll be honest – a party which thinks liberalism is OK, is the rightwing enemy in my book. Yes I’m a socialist. But, Efeso you point out one thing, one good thing and you may have even missed it yourself. The best people in labour are not the crackers who are professional politicians – but those who are there because they believe they can make a difference – shame there is so few of them.

”Any strategy that is based on appeal to a <10% minority is destined not to be productive.''
My take on the article was that it was not about attracting the Pasifika vote so much as rewarding that group for being faithful Labour voters. i.e. the leadership is not a job of serving others so much as a reward which rightfully belongs to someone.

”Hardly an environment of diversity, especially in National”
by the logic of this article Labour should have more Pacific Islanders at the top because Pacific Islanders are faithful Labour voters. If this is the case then by what logic should National have more Pacific Islanders at the top?
( not that I agree with the logic of the article btw )

Say again? what diversity does the Maori party have?

Look at the leadership, and not just the leader, of the Labour and National parties. Including party presidents/boards. Tonnes of white men, the occasional white woman thrown in too. The most senior gay person in the National party desperately tries not to be gay and consistently votes against gay rights. Polynesian and Maori people at the top are sparse in number. Asian MPs or senior party leadership figures even more so.
Hardly an environment of diversity, especially in National

Unsurprisingly, the Green, Mana, NZ First and Maori parties have more diversity in their numbers, which speaks to their genesis and their ethos.