Comments on: Chauvel for Wellington Central

By: Tomboy

Tomboy — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:16:36 +0000

Chauvel will be the candidate. The wider Labour membership love him because he is young(ish), gay, smart and brown – Abel obviously didn’t see them all swooning over him at Sonya Davies’ funeral or at the section 59 fourms. He’s a sitter for promotion to minister in this government. Unlike Robertson he has the killer instinct and a long history in the party and the unions. He’ll play well in Wadestown, the Aro Valley, the Central City, half of Karori and with the University types. Franks or Moses would be dream candidates for Labour in Wellington Central. Chauvel would beat any of them hands down – the days of an older right wing white straight man in that seat are over. Finlayson would be more interesting but to have a chance he’d need to actually talk to people and do some hard work for a change. Can’t see him being arsed -why wouldn’t he just coast along on the list instead like last time?

By: Paul W

Paul W — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:20:42 +0000

What a surprise, Chuck Bird, Redbaiter, GD and Porcupine all worried about gay people taking over the world.

By: Insolent Prick

Insolent Prick — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:20:22 +0000

My pick would be Grant Robertson over Chauvel. Grant is extremely well networked in the party, and is a very smart operator. Being very close to HC can only help his cause, and he’s by far the more active of the two in the electorate. It would be an interesting contest between the two, tho’, since they’re both representing the same highly educated, liberal, rainbow section of the Party. It’s not as if somebody else would likely split the vote, though, since educated, liberal and rainbow is precisely what the Labour leadership is.

Roger Moses would be a very interesting selection for the seat.

By: 3-coil

3-coil — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:35:48 +0000

Chuck Bird: sorry not back sooner – check out DPF’s post “More Quotes In Support Of Field” on 28 May 2007.

By: Billy

Billy — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:24:51 +0000

Q: Where ever did I make the implication that EVERY homosexual was a member of the rainbow faction,

A: There is such a thing as a “homosexual political agenda”

By: Porcupine

Porcupine — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:03:28 +0000

National will be too pussy to go for Franks.

By: baxter

baxter — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:35:33 +0000

I would like to see Steven Franks stand in a rural seat. He wouldn’t have much in common with the Wellington Central types that Chauvel has so much in common with. He is much more in touch with the average down to earth New Zealander though.

By: Abel

Abel — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:30:30 +0000

I heard Stephen Franks was sniffing around National – looking for a way back into Parliament?

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:21:40 +0000

Billy, the following from an interview of Chris Carter and Tim Barnett in GayNZ.

As queer politicians our mission is to deliver equal rights under the law and ensure that the Government machine is working for our community.

I do not have a problem with homosexual MPs who see their priority is to represent their electorate not those with their sexual preference.

I have discussed issues relating to HIV+ immigrants and the link between homosexuality and HIV on air when he was a talk show host. From memory we were largely in agreement. In any case he was able to discuss the issue in a rational manner unlike left wing militant homosexual activist. I think we have more our quota of them in the present government – in and out of the closet.

By: G

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:21:54 +0000

Abel – has Stephen Franks joined National? Or are you referring to another Franks?

As a Wellington College old boy, I really didn’t like Moses. He seemed to be a bit of a prat to me. But then, I wasn’t in the 1st XV. And I am sure there are many people with vendettas against him or embarrassing stories to tell.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:00:07 +0000

“does being gay really mean you’ve signed up for it”

Where ever did I make the implication that EVERY homosexual was a member of the rainbow faction, or committed to the agenda? You need to take a course in basic reading and comprehension.

By: Billy

Billy — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:18:46 +0000

Redbaiter, what is that homosexual political agenda, and does being gay really mean you’ve signed up for it? If so, soemone had better tell Craig R and Lindsay Perigo.

By: Porcupine

Porcupine — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:10:54 +0000

Bugger, Roger Moses would be a great choice – honest and for excellence in education, accountability….

By: Abel

Abel — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:07:06 +0000

Moses has denied he is standing. I heard its between Finlayson and Franks for the Nat nomination.

Chauvel has stood on a lot of toes over the years, he’s almost the John Hayes of Labour. Robertson is the favourite – he has Clark’s backing… but im not sure where else Chauvel could stand.

By: Porcupine

Porcupine — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:42:43 +0000

What Redbaiter said. The gays are responsible for the backlash against them. Supposedly all they wanted was to be treated as equals but once they have it they insist on ramming it down our throats the whole time, 7pm on TV, hero parades, … Heterosexual olympics anyone…thought not.

they’ve turned a tolerant society into a society that is sick to death of hearing about the poor little toadies.

By: David Farrar

David Farrar — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:40:01 +0000

G – I would be surprised if Mark stands again. The Roger Moses rumour is brand new to me. But bear in mind I have not attended a party meeting since the election so am not up with the play.

By: gd

gd — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:58:14 +0000

Redbaiter Wash your mouth out with soap You mean you actually want to have the majority represented in the House. That would never do We must have diversity Cant let the mob rule now can we.Cant have the unwashed majority getting what they want. Oh no. Its only the diversified elite who know wants good for those peasants.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:57:10 +0000

“Thanks G for that useful analysis, and yes can others please get over Chauvel’s sexual orientation. ”

Mr. Farrar, I know that you wish to ignore such issues because you think they are immaterial in the political sense, but I beg to differ. There is such a thing as a “homosexual political agenda”, there is a political faction on the left dominated by homosexuals (the Rainbow Faction) and this group is intent of pursuing political objectives which some people for better or worse may disagree with.

There is no point in putting your head in the sand on political issues merely because the person you might disagree with is queer. Being a liberal does not necessarily mean that one must prostrate one’s self to homosexual political objectives. In fact, there is a good case for the view that the existence of the “Rainbow Faction” is based on ideals that are anti-liberal.

Homosexuals decided long ago that to fight back against bigotry, they needed to become politically active. It is unfortunate that most of those who followed thru on this seem to be leftists. Nevertheless, if they want to bring their sexuality into politics, they must be prepared to wear criticism. They cannot use their sexuality as a shield to protect them from criticism of their agenda, or their predominantly left wing political sympathies.

Speaking for myself, I think the views of NZers are far better served by a family man and farmer like Jim Sutton (the man Chauvel replaced) than they are by a homosexual lawyer like Charles Chauvel. That of course is only my opinion, but I am sure you agree that I should express that opinion if it is truly what I think. That is the core of “liberalism”.. being true to oneself.

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:29:37 +0000

3-coil, have you a accurate quote of the homophobic Labour Party (especially Michael Cullen’s) taunts towards Lockwood in parliament?

By: G

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:23:47 +0000

DPF – in complete agreement about Labour’s lack of internal democracy. In their defence, significant central office control allows gender, ethnicity, factional and identity to be balanced more.

Pete Doci – well, it depends. Is the central admin more likely to go for a sitting Labour list MP or a former trusted advisor to Helen Clark? While Chauvel may be well known in the Party as a whole, would Wellington Central members know him or Robertson better? Robertson has been very active in the Party in Wellington Central, while Chauvel has spent more time in Ohariu-Belmont.

Does anyone know when the selection meeting is?

And DPF – I hear rumours that Roger Moses (Wellington College headmaster) may stand for Wellington Central… any basis for that? or is Blumsky looking to run again?