Stories on Labour’s List
September 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald has a positive story on Labour’s list, as does the Dominion Post.
I have to say, the more I think about it, the more Labour have really done a good job with their list. I’ll explain why below. People may find it strange that I praise their list when I will hope people do not vote for them, but I do think it is important that MPs in Parliament are of relatively high quality regardless of party.
Looking at my analysis yesterday, Labour have been smart in several ways.
- They have placed six new candidates in high enough spots that even if they only get 31%, they will be in Parliament. This means that if they fall into Opposition the Caucus will not just be the tired faces of the old Government, but will have some fresh talented blood such as Jacinda Ardern.
- No MP who sought a list spot got totally shafted – at 42% (they got 41% last time) they get all their List MPs back. This gives Caucus members an incentive to do as well as last time. I don’t think they will get 42% but it is not out of this world.
- With the exception of Louisa Wall, the MPs placed towards the bottom of the Caucus are those they can afford to lose – Soper, Heroera, Gallagher, Okeroa, Burton etc.
- MPs in marginal electorates have been placed right on the cusp so they have an incentive to maximise the party vote and their electorate vote – Chadwick, Burton, O’Connor, Tizard, Gallagher and Okeroa
- New candidates in seats currently held by Labour have all been grouped together and are unlikely to come in on the list (unless Labour gets over 42%), so are basically reliant on working their hearts out to win their seats. There are some risks with this though as candidates such as Grant Robertson will not make it to Parliament at all, if he loses to Stephen Franks.
- The occupational diversity of their selections seems to have improved. Yes there are still some unionists and teachers in the new intake, but quite so many as previously. And no I have nothing against unionists and teachers – just that Labour’s current caucus is seriously out of touch because so many current MPs are from those two occupational groups only. I wouldn’t want a National Caucus which is 75% farmers and lawyers either.
The list is a good reminder why one should not under-estimate Clark’s desire to win. She protected the Caucus in 2002 and 2005, but has been resolute enough to cut some adrift this time, and the list looks to be largely merit-based rather than based on factional deals.
It is fascinating that on current polls, National and Labour will both have six Maori MPs. I suspect it has been a very very long time since Labour had no more Maori MPs than National!
Related posts:
- National’s 2008 Party List
- National’s List
- The 2008 Labour Party List
- O’Connor attacks labour list domination by gays and unionists
September 1st, 2008 at 9:07 am
Helen Clark is purging her oposition to leadership before the post election masacree revolt.
Next.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
Am I Bothered? Me Bothered? Do I look Bothered?
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
The usual bunch of time-servers, sycophants and munters on the Labour list. Not a single one with any idea of how to manage a business or make it profitable. Not a single one with any ability to pick a winner. Not a single one with any skillset outside of sucking on the public tit and getting their hands on other people’s money.
The top 10 of the Labour list will bear a strong resemblance to the list of those charged with corrupt practices after the election. Finally soem sweet revenge on the part of the people of New Zealand
I do think it is important that MPs in Parliament are of relatively high quality regardless of party.
An interesting idea DPF but it is not possible to separate quality from party membership.
As a quick guide, quality MP = ACT / National MP, not quality MP = MP from any other party
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
“People may find it strange that I praise their list when I will hope people do not vote for them, but I do think it is important that MPs in Parliament are of relatively high quality regardless of party.”
Sorry, Mr. Farrar but I find it difficult to praise any group of people who consider they have the right to steal the fruits of my Labour, deprive me of my private property and individual rights and who work steadily towards the gradual institution of a soviet style totalitarian government in New Zealand.
I know this kind of criticism is terrifically unfashionable, and the prevailing mood is that we should all rejoice at the fact that wholesome young leftists like Jacinda are putting themselves forward as candidates. I disagree with this mood and its why I constantly complain about political correctness, for the underlying objective of this social disease (PC) is to limit criticism of the basic immorality of socialism.
Jacinda and her friends may be well intentioned in their own minds, but their ideology is seriously flawed, and they should be confronted on these flaws much more often and with much more passion from NZ’s so called right.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am
Jacinda and her friends may be well intentioned in their own minds
Doubtful Redbaiter – Arden and her fellow socialist’s main goal is simply to sustain their comfortable lifestyle with other people’s money for as long as they possibly can. Anything else is just means to an end.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 10:38 am
It’s one thing to admire strategy, quite another for one to say:
“Wow, look how these people are trying to screw me! Their destructive tendencies and strategic positionings are a thing of beauty!”
It’s just too close to the bone to admire the Labour party. I could accept a cold statement of what they’re up to, but admiration? No, sorry. Perhaps it’s your liberal leanings showing through.
There is another rather exagerated analogy, but… ah what the hell:
“Wow, Mr. Bernstein, those SS guys are really effective! You have to admire their efficiency!”
I doubt you would have heard that circa 1943-52.
Yeah sure it’s an exageration, Labour aren’t as militant as the old nazi party, haven’t tried burning down parliament and haven’t killed anyone off yet, but it amplifies what I’m trying to say and what the posters above have said. These strategic genius’ will fuck us all up without blinking an eye, with utmost prejudice and as we are seeing, using an all out cover-up and smear tactic that wil run into every government department and to the highest levels of influence.
They do not deserve admiration, just a cold analysis of their capabilities to act as a warning.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Let me reiterate. What you guys have to remember is that anyone can stand for Parliament!
No CV is required! No experience! No track record! Just a committment to narrow the gap between poor and rich at the expense of the hard working taxpayer. An Ability to favour Maori over Pakeha. Push the view of the few at the expense of the many. Create more $100,000 jobs for the bureaucrats and their tasxes keep the Merry Go Round going.
The $1/2 M? rip off by the bloke with 17 birth certificates on TV last night. Solution was to check the Birth Certificate Number. The lack of accountability for such a simple solution seemed to float past the $500,000 salaried Boss?
What next?
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Judging by what DPF thinks of Louisa Wall, Perhaps John Key or Bill English should have a few words with her about her future political career if she misses out at the election.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
DPF said: …the list looks to be largely merit-based …
Why are Judith Tizard and Dave Hereora on it at all then?
[DPF: Heh heh I did say largely.]
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
“I do think it is important that MPs in Parliament are of relatively high quality regardless of party.”
I entirely agree. And whether or not you think the new people are actually of high quality in an absolute sense, they are the best people available to Labour.
There are many who post here who support the parties of the right/centre-right regardless of anything and therefore want any possible opposition to be as ineffectual as possible. There are a few who have the same position re the left.
I for one perfer to be in the minority who believe that even if the right is better for New Zealand in 2008, that may not always be the case, and has not always been the case (eg 1984).
Also, regardless of what my wishes may be, the pendulum WILL swing eventually. Labour will be back one day. When they are are would like them to be as competent as possible, thank you – for New Zealand’s sake.
And thirdly. governments always get stale, even good ones. A spell in opposition refreshes them and makes them better. Having a National-led government forever would be disastrous. Even National-supporters might recognise that the net benefit to New Zealand is greater if National spends three years out of office every dozen years or so, rather than remaining in office continuously.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
“They do not deserve admiration, just a cold analysis of their capabilities to act as a warning.” Well said goodgod.
As far as I’m concerned, Labour are banking on both outcomes with the addition of new blood high on the list. Firstly, if they get enough support to make a government (unlikely without the Winnie party), a fresh infusion of, at face value, ‘normal’ candidates to attract middle ground voters will give the impression of catering to the masses while still pushing their extreme social policies. Secondly, WHEN they lose, the new blood will already be there for the next campaign.
This is all about waving the white flag without admitting it.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
No list that has Horomiha at number 5 can be merit based.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
S. Russell your comments overlook the fact that the socialist policies favoured by the Klark government are a relatively recent approach in terms of NZ (and global) politics. The left’s severe swing to the extreme left over the last few decades makes them a completely different party to what the Labour Party was twenty or thirty years ago. Today they are driven by an updated ideology that is much more destructive, much more totalitarian and much more damaging to social cohesion.
In fact, both mainstream parties have swung violently to the left. If they were both to move a large degree back to the right, this would only make them somewhere near where they once were on the political spectrum, and in a relatively benign political state that is nowhere near as divisive, totalitarian and socially destructive as today.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
Parekura shouts big at lunch time, that’s why he’s there.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
David you try to be too fair and balanced !
Vote:National’s days of trolling for farmers in rural seats is well and truly over. The best person wins out. Farming is a business not an old boys network now.
Labour’s list is a total disaster for New Zealand with no acknowledgment of the productive sector.What attraction is that for ordinary working people to see do gooders like Prasad and lawyers like Huo in parliament. Do they represent middle New Zealand ? Have they the skills to push New Zealand forward in trade,technology and business ?
Labour has still got that bitter pill towards people who are successful.
Mediocrity still stands for Labour !!!!
September 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
“No list that has Horomiha at number 5 can be merit based.”
Damn right. That’s race based.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
The left’s severe swing to the extreme left over the last few decades makes them a completely different party to what the Labour Party was twenty or thirty years ago.
Redbaiter you know I have great respect for you and what you post but I have to correct you here. I have been hearing way too much lately about how the Labour Party used to be awesome but has now strayed from its ideals. To this I say, bollocks.
Labour has always been a socialist party and they have never veered away from what socialism means – suppression of the individual, denigration of those who create wealth as the ‘new jews’ and enforcing a rigid statist ideology on society. I can point to many examples of this behaviour going back to the foundation of the party. I presume you are familiar with such incidents as Norman Kirk’s insulting the Western alliance in the UN and befriending third world dictators; Bill Rowling’s cynical handout to unemployed mothers as a way to encourage them to have kid’s, Nordmeyer’s stalinist black budget, Peter Fraser’s cynical manipulation of the electoral system to ensure his victory, and Michael Savage’s gutting of industry in order to appease militant communist miners.
Clark is many things but she is not a perverter of Labour values. She is in a solid tradition of grasping, corrupt, venal, treasonous and crimiinal Labour ideology that stretches back to the days of the party’s foundation from the dregs of the New Zealand Communist Party.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“I presume you are familiar with such incidents”
No I’m not Pushme, as I wasn’t around in those times. However I’m ready to accept your word on those issues. ..and you’re right, I wasn’t precise enough in my meaning. I was trying to address the trend of political correctness that has had IMHO an enormous impact on political discourse, to the extent where anybody who seriously opposes the left is subject to almost immediate vilification. Sarah Palin is a good example.
I don’t really know, but it would be a surprise to me if you were to tell me such similar hatred and venom was present back in the days you speak of. I put this change down to the growth over the last few decades of the pseudo-liberal / progressive social culture that has mostly targeted old fashioned mainstream NZ Conservatism as an ideology only worth scoffing and sneering at.
..and I don’t really think that “the right” is an accurate term to use in describing those who oppose the almost total power of the left. I think we are merely the long suppressed voice of NZ’s mainstream middle class workers earners and family people who have been shut out of the debate by the Progressives for too long.
(Too brief I know, but all I have time for.)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
REMEMBER …………………..
what Tamahere said – these socialists work out plans for up to 15 years ahead, over panini and chardonnay.
Their plans for after the election loss are quite well in hand, and for the next two elections.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Baiter you are correct in a way about ‘the right’. Really ‘the right’ do not present an ideological program, certainly not to the extent of the Left with its frothing idealogues and totalitarian five year plans for utter economic stagnation. I suppose self-reliance, christianity, small government and self-control are an ideology but they are not an ideology that needs imposing the way Leftism does, they are simply the natural state of human existence, although they are smothered by totalitarian mire. Still, I am happy to use the label ‘right’ as it has moral implications (the opposite of ‘wrong’).
I wasn’t around for any of the incidents I discussed but I am familiar with them through my studies of history (NOT the bullshit politicisied socialist history taught in our Universities and schools by marxists such as Cullen). As for political correctness I think it has always been out there, it is just that in the last few years the blogosphere has begun to challenge it. If you want to see an example of historical political correctness at work, read up the ridiculously over-the-top, stalinist reaction to Enoch Powell’s iminently sensible speech, or the clamour of jibbering whiners who erupted whenever anybody tried to exercise the slightest degree of critical thinking when analysing the dangerously leftist ideas of that misbegotten Leftist saint Martin luther King Jr.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
The natural disadvantage with the natural supporters of the “right”, pushmepullu, is that they are devoted to earning incomes and building a future for themselves and their families by their own efforts. They are disengaged from politics, and certainly do not spend any time at all “plotting”. They guide their children into commercially productive careers, wheras lefties tend to pursue careers where, while not being highly remunerative, they can wield power, no matter how small, to influence political outcomes. Journalists, teachers, etc. The law profession has been tending that way too, and I suspect even “Science” is succumbing to an onslaught of that nature. Some biologist even candidly posted on a blog recently that textbooks explaining evolution to schoolchildren did not have to be factually accurate, as evolution theory was actually all about combating the oppressive dominant social paradigm of conservative Christianity! As for “Global Warming” scientists, the guy who formed the IPCC in the first place, Maurice Strong, talked candidly from the outset about the need to destroy capitalism.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I’m going to be sorry I asked, I think, but are you saying there are no lefty business people around then? Every child (i.e. everyone) is an unwitting slave to the political will of their parents?
Vote: