The fight for Wellington Central begins
Former helper to H2, Grant Robertson, has formally declared his candidacy for the Labour Party nomination for Wellington Central.
Charles Chauvel is expected to also stand, with nominations closing 6 October 2007.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour
August 20th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Grant’s a great candidate. I’ve known him for around 15 years and he’s a one of the smartest and most sensible blokes around (with the exception of his support for Otago rugby).
August 20th, 2007 at 8:59 am
This also from Stuff – “Whoever wins the Labour nomination is likely to face a strong challenge from National’s shadow attorney-general Chris Finlayson. Mr Robertson, Mr Chauvel and Mr Finlayson are all openly gay. ”
Heh – Wellington Central better not be a place for Homophobes.
Chris Finlayson (if selected) will be very popular in a seat that does like to change it’s MP from time to time.
Not a good time to be getting the nod for any Labour seat throughout the country – In 2005 they lost a few seat – i think the trend will continue with Labour losing even more in 2008.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:20 am
“he worked for Ms Hobbs as an adviser for 18 months followed by 312 years as an adviser to Prime Minister Helen Clark…”
Man that’s old…
August 20th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Graeme ; you try working near Helen Clark and you will feel more than 312 years old. Or was the idiot writer describing the expected length of political exile of the Clark regime ?
August 20th, 2007 at 9:42 am
It only felt like 312 years
Both Grant and Charles are obviously strong candidates, and so called Labour Party insiders both insist one or the other is most favoured so it might be that rare thing – a true contest of talent.
Just a pity it won’t be a vote of all active party members, instead a seven person panel.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:16 am
DPF – a six person panel with a vote given to whomever wins the plurality on a floor vote (all electorate party members).
August 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am
The normal Labour idea of democracy. Electorate members’ representative and other panel members – one vote each – party machine 10,000votes
August 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“Heh – Wellington Central better not be a place for Homophobes.”
The updated Wellington tourism catch phrase has just been released:
“Absolutely Positively Wellington darling.”
August 20th, 2007 at 11:00 am
what a nice gay theme . have a happy day .
August 20th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Both great potential candidates, I look forward to hearing the outcome.
Charles and Grant are both intellectual, easy to talk to and would be fit the “wellington central” mould. However, I would not be suprised to see someone from another party potentially take the seat
August 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Which party welly_girl? Sue Kedgely never has much of a hope (although polls a credible third) and there is no certainty that Act will run Stephen Franks again.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am
If they were credible candidates they wouldn’t be running for Labour.
What part of Auckland is Wellington central again?
August 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Dear cubit,
Labour selection panels are, as G has already alluded to, made up of seven votes:
- 3 reps from head office
- 3 reps from the local electorate organisation
- plus one vote on the panel which is determined by the outcome of a floor vote of all members present at the selection meeting.
Hardly 10,000 votes for the party machine. And a shame that DPF chose not to explain this himself in his comment but gave the impression local members didn’t get any say.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Sonic,
Sorry I got it wrong. With 3 reps from head office it should be 30,000 votes.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Former helper to H2: (I thought all her coups were her own work).
However, it is an additional valuable accomplishment to add to his CV. Association with the Engine of Power in Government would stand him in good stead for parliamentary service.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
As opposed to National, where votes are alocated according to the size of your off-shore investment account. Handy thing is, John Key subsequently gets 50 million votes…
But seriously, correct me if I’m wrong, but potential candidates for National selection can sign heaps of new members in the electorate so they will vote for them come selection time. Labour’s system is set up to guard against selection stacking, whereas National’s system seems to encourage it…
August 20th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
AucklandAtLarge, that’s not quite right.
National works on a delegate system, which means overall membership numbers entitles an electorate to have up to a certain number of delegates.
If they don’t have the number of members to maximise delegate numbers, then the head office/board is able to substitute in delegates.
There’s actually little chance of “stacking” by a nominee, but there is every possibility of a fiercely independent electorate ensuring the head office can’t run the local selection.
Which when you think about it, is actually a good thing.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I should have also added that the nominee selection is done at the beginning of the year, and usually doesn’t coincide anytime near the nomination period for candidacy. So stacking with delegates is thus harder, and you get people who tend to be activists and long term members who have a better idea about who would make the best candidate, rather than people signed up in the last week.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Also delegates have to have been members of the party for six or 12 months so one can’t use new members as delegates.
Personally I think it is a great thing potential candidates are encouraged to sign up members. One reason National may have five times as many as Labour.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
DPF – what is your estimate of party membership figures?
Stacking has been tried in National – in 2002 Brian Neeson (unsuccessfully) tried to stack the selection meeting. Furthermore, stacking is usually only successful when there is no membership fee – a minimum $5 fee was introduced in 2003 in order to prevent further attempts to stack meetings. But A@L is right that National is more agreeable to stacking than Labour. However, National also places the decision formally in the hands of the electorate, while Labour does not.
Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Darling cubit,
Kindly note that Sonic has not commented on this thread (yet). He and I are most certainly different people.
And by your maths the local electorate reps would also get 30,000 votes, which would equal the head office ones, leaving the floor vote to decide in a deadlock situation.
Yours etc
Span
August 20th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
At the moment best I do not guess membership figures as it won’t be a guess
August 20th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
and talking about ‘freshly signed up”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dailynews/4168752a6002.html
August 20th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Oh dear Span, You just don’t get it do you.
Remeber the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
Local reps one vote. Man from Head Office 10,000 votes.
To make it real simple for you – What Head Office wants – Head Office gets.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
The are all like hawks fighting over the road kill that is going to be the Labour Party very very soon. The latest Morgan poll tonight is more good news for the National Party. Nothing is working yet Labour Party. Nothing. The own goal over Iraq has everbody just convulsing with laughter. The Labour Party is not only venal, it is also incompetant.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Tim, I’d give metaphors a miss. You’ve not got much to say, dressing it up with cliches doesn’t help. Better to be silent etc.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:03 am
The latest morgan poll is something to say Paul W, go and look at it. Looks like road kill to me.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:32 am
I’ll make an educated guess that National’s current membership is eight times the Labour Party membership. Labour hit 5,000 members at the last election. I’d say they’d be pushing a maximum of 4,000 members now.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Grant has the backing of Marion Hobbs!
August 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Sweet cubit,
It’s so old-fashioned how you don’t let the fact the leader of the Labour party is a woman get in the way of your default sexism. My, I feel like I’m in the 1940s.
As you can see from my explanation above (and that of others on this thread) your wacky vote counting maths is not reflected by the reality of the situation. 3 votes for local reps (chosen by the local electorate organisation, ie not head office), 3 votes for head office reps, 1 vote determined by the floor vote. All of these votes are of equal value. To continue your line of argument would be like saying the $1 coin in my wallet is actually worth $10,000, while the $1 coin in yours is only worth $1. See how silly that is?
I do feel there is at least a faint whiff of the troll about you, certainly in relation to this thread, so perhaps I’ll leave it at that. Feel free to keep digging your lovely little hole if you so choose.
Yours etc
Span