Labour’s fresher faces
In a story mainly about George Hawkin’s recovery from cancer surgery (which happily looks to be successful) the NZ Herald listed at the very end a list of expected fresher faces as candidates. They were:
- Andrew Little
- Phil Twyford
- Grant Robertson
- Connor (sic) Roberts
- Kate Sutton
- Clare Curran
- Stuart Nash
- Paul Chalmers
- Don Pryde
- Jordan Carter
- Hamish McCracken
Twyford, Nash, Chalmers and McCracken stood in 2005, so their inclusion is no surprise. Not sure if they still qualify as fresh though.
I would be surprised if Jordan Carter or Conor Roberts stand in 2008. I suspect the Herald has not spoken to them directly- especially hard as Jordan is in Brussels at the moment.
Little, Robertson, Curran, and Pryde have all publicly talked about their ambitions, so no detective work there.
Kate Sutton is the current Women’s Vice-President for Labour. I don’t know if Kate will stand in 2008 or not, but would not be surprised. She has already sought elected office at Auckland City Council, being elected to the Tamaki Community Board in 2004 and 2007.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
It good to see you highlighting the fresh faces in the labour party
some of whom I am familiar with
However I would be very interested in you doing a post on the fresh faces of the National party as the front bench is looking a tad tired and need of a slight change perhaps.
You thoughts would be welcome
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
I think that list demonstrates the problem with Labour.
While National can attract successful people in their own right, Key being a case in point, getting into parliament with Labour seems to be all about how many hours you put in over the years.
The Chauval story today shows this as well – I don’t want cabinet ministers to be the people who have been in parliament the longest, I want them to be the most competent people available.
Many of the people on that list are career politicians, and while you could reply that the PM falls into the category of career politician she is definitely an exception – I struggle to imagine any of the people on that list ever matching her.
I also have to say I question many of these people’s motives for their current careers and duties. I mean is somebody like Kate Sutton on the Tamaki Community Board because she wants to help her local community, or is it just because she sees it as a stepping stone to getting into parliament?
Labour needs people a little more grounded in realism – there’s more to life than getting an honours degree in politics and spending your weekends sticking newsletters in letterboxes.
Interestingly enough apparently Selwyn Pellett of Endace fame was offered a safe Labour seat in the next election but turned it down because he’s not interested doing all the electorate stuff.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
Billy Connolly once remarked that the fact that any one would want to be a politician should automatically disqualify them for the post.
I am concerned that the ‘career politician’ has increasingly manifested itself not because I feel they can’t do the job, but similarly because they don’t have as much ‘real-life’ experience. It’s like asking an incredibly skilled academic to change a tyre on a bicycle – it is often too difficult for them because they don’t have the experience. but where do you draw the line?
Only politicians with families to pronounce on family issues?, for example?
That was not a dog-whistle by the way.
Just an observation that as politics becomes an increasingly specialised pursuit, it draws our representatives further away from an empathetic relationship with ‘the people’.
This is partially why I have on occasion asserted that if Key wants to be a ‘hit’ with people, he has to get out and meet some. Kiss a few babies, open a few supermarkets. These rather cliched approaches are actually important to our democratic process.
I recall how the incredibly dull and grey John Major actually won an election in the UK by going around the country with his ‘soap-box’, standing on it, and engaging in dialogues with ordinary people, hecklers and all.
Key would do well to do the same, and turn grey and dull into a virtue, by rejecting the perception that Labour have cornered, that only ‘tall-poppies’ can be politicians.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Disrespect fully intended for the so called fresh faces, but I can’t think of anything worse than having Pryde and Little in Parliament. As for Jordan and Kate…. you must be having a laugh.
I agree with rickyjj – we don’t need career Labour apologists and butt kissers in Parliament. What have any of that list ever acheived?
Whoever next?
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
NPO:
The public disagrees with you. National is consistently polling twelve points ahead of Labour, and has been, for over a year, across a range of polls. The public doesn’t appear to share your view that National’s line-up is stale.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
The problem with the entire political system is that you effectively ‘elect’ people to represent your wishes. Those people elected then get together, and form themselves into factions. The bigger faction then gets the right to appoint what are effectively CEOs of major national companies. However, these CEOs have very, very little experience in business, and often zero experience in the industry that they have been appointed CEO of.
It would be great if the ministers weren’t appointed from the list of MPs, but actually appointed from a list of applicants (maybe by the board) – so some real world experience could go into heading-up health, education etc. Of course, you then get cronyism & stacked boards, but at least its better than the current situation.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
It is interesting how many trolls have asserted the ‘National is stale’ line this week. Coincidence?
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I’d add to that Spam. I think that New Zealand would do well to re-institute a second House in Parliament. It would be an excellent check and balance to the dictatorial impulses of the main house and it could be populated by a variety of ‘real’ people pressure-groups, and even a small number of political appointments and superannuated MP – a House of Lords, but without the priviledge of birth being a qualification. It was a National Government I beleive that abolished the old second house. I think it needs a modern replacement.
Otherwise what is Peters going to do after the nest election?
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Incessant Prick
The public disagrees with you. National is consistently polling twelve points ahead of Labour, and has been, for over a year, across a range of polls. The public doesn’t appear to share your view that National’s line-up is stale.
When was the last time the public voted in a National as Gov ?
Most of the front bench are the same ones who got 20something % in 2002.
Of course they are stale, they have been in opposition for it seems like for ever
And looking at them and the lack of new ideas and policies ,the chances of them winning in 08 is small in the extreme.
Still you carry on looking smugly at the polls if it makes you feel good
But don’t come bleating here wondering why you lost the election again
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Natural Party of Government:
What is your definition of a troll?
DPF puts up something about Labour’s in-breeding programme. His post was deliberately non-provocative. But, no, in you come, first off the rank, whining about National. It’s pathetic. National may not have won the last election but it was actually quite close in the end. So spare me your nit-picking trollisms about National.
Oh, and I’m not a National member, as I know you clutch that straw too.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I do believe that Phil Twyford might have done a little more than the others in his role with Oxfam.
As for tired and stale, NPO, have you compared the Labour front bench to National’s? Sure, most of National’s have been around since the 1990s, but most of Labour’s date from the early 80′s. Clark, Cullen, Goff – 1981. Anderton & King – 1984.
Clark, Cullen, Goff, and King were ministers in the 80’s (while Anderton was Labour president) and were out of government until 1999 – should they have quit in the meantime because they were associated with the “failed policies of the 1980′s” (failed from a socialist point of view at least)?
Instead of spewing about National, how about mustering some positive comments on your team since you are so familiar with them.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
And an interesting scene emerging at Labour’s conference in Auckland:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4260618a10.html
Goodness, I hope Richards is lined up to replace Mallard?
And this obligatory soundbite:
I wonder how many “many in Labour” is if it doesn’t constitute a majority? As Ovens has already mastered the art of spin-jitsu, perhaps she’s a shoo-in to Parliament?
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Natural Party of Opposition:
How does Chauvel measure up in your Facebook of new talent? A bit too soon for him to climb up the greasy pole?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4259596a6160.html
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Hell, with the I should have been made an MP attitude shown by Mr Chauvel it is little wonder a man contemplates throwing his hat into the mad haters tea circus ? What harm could it possibly do ?
Helen Clark just said she looks forward to carrying on with the wonderful work her Labour gummint has done for the people of New Zealand . Yeah right .Pardon me Miss Clark , however third world wages and more than third world child abuse and prison numbers statistics paint a different picture . She is clearly deluded .
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
D4J:
So no chance of seeing you as one of Labour’s fresher faces then?
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
POC :
I wouldn’t join the Labour Party for all the money in Donald Trumps bank vault . No way , with the name corruption written all over them, who in their right mind would want anything to do with Helen’s mob ?
Not me mate . Cheers . Total oblivion of the red team is what I think is best for the country .
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I only ask, D4J, as there’s conspiracy theories saying that Roger Douglas et al infiltrated Labour and then seized control. Hello Roger Nome, are you out there, or studying up on Australia’s top personal tax rate? It’s Labour’s way of explaining away their “failed 80s” policies when they want to play the “National in the nasty 90s” card.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Attention Roger Nome , Phillip John M , please answer the call to respond to POC on frequency kiwiblog .
Bat antennas and satellites pick up nome activity in the back blocks of Otago ? . Roger that nome . Over .
Bomber command at the ready SIR .
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Labour are so gone.
with fresh allegations of more violence from another Labour party member
outside the labour conference, their propaganda has no legs to stand on.
I am still livid witnessing Helens entourage minus NZ flags. Not one (1) in sight. The Labour party are truly hypocrites and traitors to this nation as they push new laws suppressing free speech and simutaneously entertaining communist warships.
The Mc Carthy anti communisn witch hunts were unwholesome and completely warrantless as was the Vietnam war but we certainly need a spotlight on the Labour comrades before we are arrested for making these statements and detention centres are built to incarcerate dissidents who no doubt will be Kiwi born and bred citizens.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
intereesting to hear that Labour are going to innoculate the National party’s only policy. Where will the tories go now?
“Clark’s speech to the Labour Party conference in Auckland just now makes it clear that Cullen is the right man to deliver tax cuts and gives him credence for creating the right economic conditions to make tax cuts affordable.
This builds on a speech by Cullen earlier this week which could be read as the start of a charm offensive on tax cuts; he was at pains to point out all the ways in which those who suggest he is pathologically opposed to them are wrong.
Clark’s speech leaves no room for doubt (if any were left) that there will be tax cuts under Labour and that Cullen is on board.
This is what she said in relation to the healthy surpluses built up by Cullen over recent years.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/insidethebeltway/2007/11/03/tax-cuts-will-happen-under-cullen/
GAZUMP!
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Hinamanu:
Best to proceed with caution: it’s not yet established that the protesters are Labour party members.
But not to worry. The party faithful inside will rapturously receive Powerpoint presentations showing how wonderful the country is doing under Labour. The rest of us are left to watch from the outside – and some to protest. I wonder if Clark will describe the protesters as “haters and wreckers”.
What amuses me about Chauvel is that he was trumped up as Labour’s nu-breed talent. To fallout with the party hierarchy in a matter of 15 months is, to say the least, spectacular.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
I summed this up on another thread:
I look forward to seeing your hypocrisy in full flight when National propose tax cuts.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“Best to proceed with caution: it’s not yet established that the protesters are Labour party members.”
you obviously haven’t seen the latest loud hailer debacle from a Labour Party steward in the crowd scene outside the Labour Party convention today…
all captured on film no less, over his denials.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Len Richards by name.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hinamanu:
I haven’t seen the video footage.
But I had interpreted the Stuff story (I quoted it above) as meaning that Richards (megaphone-lo-maniac) was playing builly boy on his way into the conference venue. That wouldn’t mean the protesters themselves are Labour party members.
And it doesn’t surprise me at all that he’d deny his actions. That’s straight from Labour’s political spin-jitsu manual.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hypocrisy? I’m afraid you’re starting to look a little silly and uninformed now POC. Michael Cullen has identified three pre-requisites for implementing a tax cut programme. They are…
1) They won’t exacerbate inflation.
2) They won’t increase inequality.
3) They won’t result in cuts to social spending.
4) They won’t require government borrowing.
This is a sensible, conditional approach to tax cuts. National hasn’t listed any such qualifications, they’ve simply said tax-cuts good, government borrowing to fund tax cuts good, Labour bad. That’s the difference.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
You say Michael Cullen has identified “three pre-requisites” and then give us a list of four. And you say I’m starting to look silly and uninformed?
Item 1 is a non-starter. Labour has always said that tax cuts under National would be inflationary. Why would it be any different under Labour? Buzz: Labour good, National bad.
Item 2 is odd. Inequality is built into a progressive tax system. Buzz: Labour good, National bad.
Item 3 is laughable. It confuses the amount spent with quality spending. Cuts in social spending is not the same thing as effective spending tied to targeted outcomes. Buzz: Labour good, National bad.
Should I deal with item 4 since you said there were only 3? Ok then. Talk to us about the surplus. You didn’t quote this from your article:
Buzz: Labour good, National bad.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“That wouldn’t mean the protesters themselves are Labour party members”
The protesters were never mentioned as labour supporters. And I never said they were.
Len Richards was my p.o.v.
A lkittle man with now no hope of advancemant in the near future.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Hinamanu:
Fair enough – I mis-read your original post (before you identified Richards).
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Cripes the socialist get to together (aka the Labour conference) has a huge obsession with the Nats.
What a laugh.
For goodness sake Helen call an early election.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
If Labour are going to say they will deliver tax cuts if enough peope vote for them, surely they will not be able to criticise National for the same?
If the electorate are stupid enough to vote Labour in on the strength of a promise from Helen and Cullen, then they deserve them, I say.
If it turns out tax cuts are viable after all, then let’s see them, I say.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
” Labour has always said that tax cuts under National would be inflationary. Why would it be any different under Labour?”
Perhaps Labour has a different programme in mind. Do you know exactly what Labour has in mind? Buzz – uninformed nonsense.
” Inequality is built into a progressive tax system. Buzz: Labour good, National bad.”
Sorry POC, I don’t believe that you’re stupid enough to believe that. Clearly the tax system can be made more or less progressive. If it’s made more progressive (i.e. no tax on first $5,000 earned) it wont lead directly to an increase in inequality, whereas if say you were to only reduce the top rate, it would certainly lead to an increase in inequality. Buzz, more nonsense.
“It confuses the amount spent with quality spending. Cuts in social spending is not the same thing as effective spending tied to targeted outcomes.”
3) It’s debatable as to whether to the National Party could achieve the same or better outcomes for less spending -I’m certainly not convinced.
4) The surplus is a misnomer – treasury revenue projections aren’t 100% accurate. They may be over or under – the revenue intake depends on fluctuations in global commodity prices etc – very unpredictable.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I think that whatever Labour offer, National will raise it. What have they got to lose?
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
But I had interpreted the Stuff story (I quoted it above) as meaning that Richards (megaphone-lo-maniac) was playing builly boy on his way into the conference venue. That wouldn’t mean the protesters themselves are Labour party members. And it doesn’t surprise me at all that he’d deny his actions. That’s straight from Labour’s political spin-jitsu manual.
The rather tragic irony is that until last year, Richards was co-leader of the Alliance — and he’s been a public critic of the Ruatoki raids.
The video basically depicts a to-the-left-of-Labour screaming match, which concludes with Richards swinging his megaphone and backing away. It actually looks like the protester fended it off with his arm (fortunately), but what an idiotic thing to do.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“If it turns out tax cuts are viable after all, then let’s see them.”
Not only are tax cuts viable (we seem to forget treasury doors have not closed to continuing inflow)
GST IS OBSOLETE,, and the first party who says so WINS,
THE ENTIRE NEXT DECADE,,
The question is, why doesn’t any party recognise this obvious vote winner ??
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
So, these indications by Labour that they will cut taxes are going to level the playing field in the voters’ minds.
The suspicion that Labour have been ‘cruel to be kind’ has in my opinion been a major psychological factor in keeping voters’ faith with Labour. If they now say the economy is healthy enough to give out the goodies, they might find a desertion rate increase.
They risk a credibility gap growing between what Cullen has said all this time, and what is actually true.
Dangerous tactic.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“I think that whatever Labour offer, National will raise it. What have they got to lose?”
Exactly LeeC – National may well off er an inflationary and fiscally imprudent tax-cutt programme just to get into government. This is the Labour Party’s worry.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
(1) We disagree.
Buzz. A tax cut is a tax cut. You’d better substantiate this by giving me a hypothetical example. Otherwise, as Lee says, I’m inclined to think you argument is “Labour good, National bad”.
(2) Again, we disagree.
This is silly. A progressive tax system does have inequality built into it. Someone who pays 6-figure amounts of tax, compared to someone who pays a 4-figure amount. What’s wrong with a flat tax rate applied to all income levels? That’s equality.
(3) You say it’s debatable but you don’t deny my distinction between amount spend and quality outcomes.
(4) The surplus has nothing to do with treasury revenue projections. It’s the equivalent of a balance sheet (measured at a point in time). You may be thinking of projected surplus in year X+1.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Didn’t Helen announce today – tax cuts are in the pipeline roger . What a surprise , yawn , yawn, the start of the pre election bribes from a sick regime of bent socialists !
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
“They risk a credibility gap growing between what Cullen has said all this time, and what is actually true.”
wow,,
Cullens really painted Labour in the corner by constantly denying the margin for tax cuts and facing an election.
What journalist is going to play dead and say nothing about that,
Helens ‘Little Rat’ springs to mind instantly. There is NO way he will get an interview before next November. Has anyone seen him raising the EFB.
there’s just SO MUCH Labour can’t talk about, let alone call a snap election. Their masterstroke so far has been able to downplay the actual need for a snap election. I must say, in reality, I have to concur. There is no reason Labour cannot complete its tenure.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“A tax cut is a tax cut.”
And a meaningless tautology is a meaningless tautology. Clearly a range of tax cuts can be more or less inflationary, and seeing as you don’t know the details of Labour’s tax cutt programme you best suspend your judgements until they’re released.
“A progressive tax system does have inequality built into it”
But that is under contention – you’re arguing a straw man. When Cullen says equality he means income inequality – you likely know this, not sure why you want to obfuscate the issue.
“You say it’s debatable but you don’t deny my distinction between amount spend and quality outcomes.”
I’ll say it again, it’s a moot point. The fact that National’s own “waste-watch” site is down and out, shows that there may well not be a whole lot of chaff to cut.
“The surplus has nothing to do with treasury revenue projections.”
Of corse it does. You can’t blame a government for operating a surplus- it depends in large part, on factors that are out of their control. For this reason Labour has preferred to err on the side of caution, so as to make a deficit unlikely.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Sorry, should have been …
“A progressive tax system does have inequality built into it”
But that isn’t under contention – you’re arguing a straw man. When Cullen says equality he means income inequality – you likely know this, not sure why you want to obfuscate the issue.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
If Labour called a snap election tomorrow they would be lucky to poll 20% – because everybody has had ENOUGH of the bullshit from Helen’s mob of misfits !!
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Roger Nome seems to be da man to turn to for enlightenment on lefty policy. Seeing “inequality” is such an issue, why is subsidising tertiary education a good thing? (Labour does it, good, two legs, bad). Aren’t all those uni graduates tomorrow’s “rich”, and isn’t inequality increased because of that? And why should the taxes paid by low income earners remain in place to help subsidise the uni education of these people?
Yours faithfully, confused about lefty inconsistency.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Back on subject, are any of these potential “fresh faces” people who’ve made it in society by their own efforts in any PRODUCTIVE vocations? No? Why do so many stupid Kiwis get sucked in by a political party comprised of teachers, unionists, bureaucrats, career activists, etc?
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
PhilBest:
Clearly Cullen doesn;t think that inequality is apriori bad. He’s apparently made the call that increasing inequality anove the level that it’s at now wouldn’t be beneficial for New Zealand – it’s a judgment/value call – politicians are forced to make them all the time when developing policy – hope that helps.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
The electorate are uninterested in teh science of economics all they will hear is ‘tax cuts’ and if Nats out bid Labour, it will be because Labour have now let the genie out of the bottle. Like I said Dangerous strategy.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Phil,,
That’s what Kiwi’s are. We thought we were being lead by our own,,
we’ve been misinformed.
We’re never lead by our real role models, Kiwi sportsmen.
Just academics who have no spirit and no loyalties.
Academia is not what Kiwi’s are about,, we just use it as a stepping stone,,
We shouldn’t be ruled by it.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
“We’re never lead by our real role models, Kiwi sportsmen.”
Bloody hell hinamanu – the allblacks may by strong, fast and have good coordination, but I wouldn’t like to se them in control of our economy. Madness man – shear madness.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Roger,,
It’s tha analogy,, Kiwi’s are a sporting nation, yet sports people never take up the political mantle to advance Kiwi aspirations.
And academics have no Kiwi aspirations.
They just let Muslims flee their ailing economies and preach to us about their failed gods.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
We’re obviously coming at this from different positions.
First, look up tautology as it means something more specific than wordplay.
Second, you don’t exercise quite the same restraint when it comes to commenting on National’s policy. Others have gone further and said that National has no policy. Either way, I guess we’d better suspend our judgments until National and Labour release their policies then? Is that what you’re saying? Because if so, I’ll hold you to it. And it’s got nothing to do with National’s last policy mix – that was years ago now.
An income tax is a tax on income. The only possible impact of a reduction in marginal tax rates, then, goes to after-tax income. You likely know this, not sure why you want to obfuscate the issue.
I’l repeat myself. If person A spends $X and person B spends $X+1 it doesn’t necessarily follow that person B has achieved a better outcome. Nothing to do with National or Labour. It’s the principle. Why can’t you acknowledge this?
You’ll no doubt disagree, but I think you’re arguing from the wrong premise. I’ve said on another thread that a government should determine its revenue requirements and then set tax rates. Not quite so easy in practice, I know, but the size of New Zealand’s surplus and its sustained size over time suggest that something is wrong. It’s not a badge of government honour. Your “err on the size of caution” is a complete denial of a middle ground between deficit and extreme surplus.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Good to see such strong business experience in this group…….
November 4th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
whats with the teacher bashing PhilBest?
November 5th, 2007 at 9:29 am
CharlotteM will be pleasantly surprised to learn a number have strong business experience e.g Paul Chalmers who owns several IT/education companies which earn NZ export dollars and provide jobs both in NZ and overseas.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:03 am
I don’t know if I have ever met Clint, but, thanks for your warm endorsement. If baby ACT wannabees have a problem with prospective Labour candidates, that can only be good for said prospects.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:49 am
As I said Jordan, what have you ever done that would merit a place there?
You call me a wannabe? Ahhh Jordan, you have been waiting your entire life to be a Labour MP. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Note that nobody else took your inclusion on that list seriously!
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
Well done the Herald!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10490224
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Yes the Herald have already hassled me over them being right and me wrong!