A new candidate for Mt Albert?
A reader has suggested a new candidate for Labour for Mt Albert, concluding they need a well known name with a track record of winning.
He is a household name, an active campaigner, and won as recently as 2007.
Will Labour be bold enough to grasp this opportunity?
1 Total TweetBacks: (Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour, Mt Albert
April 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Oh yes please.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Ha. Someone must have read this
April 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
LOL. Just the man to inject the Labour caucus with fresh blood and talent!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I’d heard that now that Helen is out of the way, Phil Goff has had a paradigm shift in his thinking, and is now courting Sir Roger Douglas to “come home”. Rogernomics was not a mistake, it was just misunderstood says Phil!!
April 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
The bio of said person at: http://www.adhb.govt.nz/downloads/elections/2007/profiles/CAKBOB_TIZARD200708311116.pdf is a hoot. Esp the ‘insert name here’ part.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“He is a household name, an active campaigner, and won as recently as 2007.”::::::::::::
The only name that qualifies in all respects that springs to mind is ‘Sunline’ , but then he’s a she.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Bob Tizard would still run rings around many half his age if he returned to Parliament.
Speaking of the elderly and distinguished, I wonder if BOB HARVEY would be interested, given that he may well be out of a job quite soon.
Having said that, would Harvey not be a contender for the Super City mayoralty – he is respected well beyond the borders of Waitakere City? John Banks has probably snuffed himself with his text message to Andrew Williams – showing that his mischievous streak continues in spite of his assurances that he would be more circumspect this time around. Banks and Holmes belong in the same bucket.
The way forward is for mayors of Waitakere and North Shore in particular (but also Manukau City and the ARC) to come up with a candidate that will enable the outlying cities to stick it to the Queen Street ramblers of Auckland City.
Rate Payers of the bigger entity will presumably be unenthusiastic about seeing dollar after dollar face lifting uninspiring downtown Auckland and that cursed waterfront!
April 14th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Hey, DPF, what a great idea!
And the Nats could exhume his old sparring partner Sir Robert the Pig to run against him.
Rob Muldoon was the unsuccessful candidate for Mt Albert in 1954, so he has recognition in the electorate. Bob Tizard won Tamaki in 1957, but lost it to Muldoon in 1960. Bob Tizard got back into Parliament in 1963, and he and Muldoon were Parliamentary adversaries until 1991 – some 28 years. Let the battle resume!
Or is there percahnce something in the Electoral Act that prevents a candidate from being dead?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Wonderful idea, Toad. And after a quick look at the EA I can reassure you that no – there is no explicit ban on candidates being dead. Indeed with some of the “talent” in the House, it would be hard to tell the difference.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Toad
Why on earth would you be abusive toward the late Sir Robert Muldoon?, he was the biggest socialist of all, I would have thought he might have been your type of guy.
Or are you just another of the National = Bad fools who are blinded by communist ideology.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
big bruv said: Why on earth would you be abusive toward the late Sir Robert Muldoon?, he was the biggest socialist of all…
No, he was not. He enacted the National Development Act, to which Gerry Brownlee’s plans for development consents and Stephen Joyce’s plans for “roads of national significance” look remarkably similar. He implemented a so-called “wage-price freeze” under the then Economic Stabilisation Act that prevented employers and employees from negotiating employment conditions at all and prevented retailers from setting prices at a level they could maintain a reasonable profit margin. He abused the SIS to spy on those whom he perceived as his political enemies. And during the Springbok Tour he came very close to implementing a Police State.
None of this is socialism, it is pure and rampant authoritarianism, of the likes we see these days from Mugabe, and now it seems Bainimarama aspires to as well.
Socialism and authoritarianism are totally different concepts – something some of you guys on the right just don’t seem to get. Mind you, the David Garretts of this world so extremely authoritarian that they should sacre the shit out of those of you who are economic libertarians, as well as socialist Greens like me. It is people like Garrett who become the Mugabes and Bainimaramas, given a sniff of power.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
haha, hahaha, ha, hahahahaha, ha!
April 14th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Oh and toad, don’t forget the Sourcer’s (Muldoon) Apprentice, the soon to be Lord Mayor of Auckland Sir John Banks. PMG
Muldoon lives on. Hehe.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Toad
Mulldoon was simply upholding the rule of law during the Springbok tour, if the country came close to a police state is was because of the actions of the protesters, anyway, the majority of the population wanted the tour to go ahead.
As for David Garrett, just what is it about the man that so scares you watermelons?, you do seem determined to vilify the man at every opportunity, does it really scare you that much that Garrett is articulating ideas that the vast majority want to see happen?
April 14th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Good point Viking2.
But don’t forget Muldoon’s other apprentice, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Fortunately, he has met his political demise.
Unless, of course, he is resurrected as the NZF candidate for Mt Albert!
April 14th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
big bruv said: As for David Garrett, just what is it about the man that so scares you …
He is a bigot, a boor, and a fascist – the only person in recent NZ Parliamentary history to whom I would apply that last term – one I don’t use lightly. Norman Jones was probably his most recent predecessor in those categories. Garrett is our homegrown latter-day version of Enoch Powell. Political figures like that need to be exposed early in their carrers, before their appeal to populist bigotry gains a foothold.
I wrote this as a parody, but go to the media links from it and see what Garrett is really like.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
so Toad, – if someone comes into parliament unelected (on an MMP ticket) with extreme political views that others don’t agree with what do you suggest should happen?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Brilliant candidate. A child of the 19th century for a Party racing towards it.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
gosh Patrick, let’s see.. (thinks..where could this be leading?)
April 14th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Garret has a permanently clenched jaw. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that , just saying…
April 14th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
If I wanted to attract a fly – I’d take a crap
April 14th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
It will be interesting to see whether Rodney and the lovely Heather start suggesting to Dave G, in the backroom at caucus meetings, to tame his authoritarian and conservative views. What happened to the Liberal Party that was supposedly full of classical liberals?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Garrett
Claret
garrotte
gallows
bellows
sallow
shallow
tallow
callous
- what’s not to like?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
It’s me taking the piss, Starr.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Locke
mock
brock
crock
cock
bugger it – COMMIE
April 14th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Patrick Starr said: …if someone comes into parliament unelected (on an MMP ticket) with extreme political views that others don’t agree with what do you suggest should happen?
Well, firstly, I don’t accept Garrett was not elected. He was properly elected according to New Zealand electoral law, and I will defend his right to sit in Parliament. He represents a constituency, albeit one I consider extremist, and as an elected MP should not be curtailed from expressing his opinions by any mechanism other than the internal mechanisms of the ACT Party (the self-styled “liberal party”, you recall) under whose auspices he was elected.
What should happen, Patrick, is that those of us who value liberty, fairness, and justice stand up and vehemently oppose Garrett for all we are worth. To attempt to prevent him from expressing his abhorrent views would be to become like him though – a person who has no respect for fundamental human rights.
And without wishing to totally Godwin the thread, you know where that leads.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
toad wrote: What should happen, Patrick, is that those of us who value liberty, fairness, and justice stand up and vehemently oppose Garrett for all we are worth. To attempt to prevent him from expressing his abhorrent views would be to become like him though – a person who has no respect for fundamental human rights.
This from the Green Party, the New Zealand equivalent to Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge.
liberty, fairness and justice? From the Green Party? The same Green Party that has a vision for New Zealand where we all live in mud huts and only Caucasians that wear eye glasses have to work on the state farms? You couldn’t make this stuff up.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
WOW!
The pinko’s really are worried about Garrett reflecting the views of the people, this man must be stopped.
You simply cannot have anybody who does not share your fucked up liberal view of the world, obviously you cannot attack his argument as that is basically sound so you attack him using all the usual labels so common to the left.
How about this Toad, why don’t you try one post where you attack his argument?, attack his ideas without the labelling bullshit, prove to me that you are not just a desperate commie who can see his dream of a socialist state disappearing before his eyes.
Go on Toad, lets see how you get on, frankly your desperate desire to silence those who do not agree with you should be a major concern to everybody who has an interest in democracy, I used to think you were one of the more reasonable Watermelons, sadly I was wrong, you are just as vicious, nasty and desperate to force your will on the rest of us as Comrade Bradford, Norman and the rest of your communist tribe.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
big bruv wote:..How about this Toad, ..
Don’t educate bruv, eradicate. You’re never going to deprogramme the communists, the fervency of their ideological sycophancy is insurmountable.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
oob, you are just an abusive dork who puts up no argument, so I’ll leave it at that for you to amuse yourself about how clever your comment was.
bruv, at least you challenge me, although your sole argument seems to be, backed by no evidence, that Garrett “reflects the views of the people”.
Well, tell me bruv, how many of “the people” support this?
Garrett:
or this:
or this, supporting rectal rape in prison as a deterrent:
Come on bruv. Even you can’t support that sort of extremist approach.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Mike Moore could be a possible candidate for Mt Albert.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
That’s it! I’m leaving for Tasmania!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
toad wrote: oob, you are just an abusive dork who puts up no argument,
Cletus, I don’t extend you the courtesy of argument.
I’ve read Marx and unlike you and your fellow Green Party members, I actually understand it. Hearing Marx poorly regurgitated in quotation, 150 years and 18,000 kilometres out of context, is a waste of my time.
Equally a waste of my time is trying to disabuse you of your zealotry. Like many simpletons, you’ve latched onto Marxism because it seemed correct to your limited intellect. Like all zealots, your defence against argument which challenges the shaky fundamentals of your idolatry is ad homien attack.
Your twisted ideology is anti-Kiwi. I’m a Kiwi; there simply isn’t scope to engage with you in rational debate. Should you chose to set aside barbarism and apply for admission into the ranks of civilised humanity, that could change. Unless and until you do, to decent Kiwis you’re merely an enemy of the people.
Engaging with you as if you were capable of positive contribution to discourse (let alone society) would be to afford you with respect that you do not deserve.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Toad. The first is an attempted analogy, albeit not a very good one but an anology just the same
I can support the second point and he makes a very valid point with the third –he’s stating if you put your hand in the fire it will probably get burned. He’s not supporting rectal rape anymore than I’m supporting 3rd degree burns on people.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
oob, if you actually had any intellectual credibility, you would recognise Karl Marx as an economic theorist of some considerable ability. Just as I recognise Hayek, Adam Smith, Keynes, Friedman, Proudhon etc in that regard.
None of them were totally right, and none of them were totally wrong, as economic theorists. All have something to offer to the development of economics as an art (I vehemently deny it is a science).
I have not “latched onto Marx”, although I think his economic analysis can sometimes be useful, as can that of many other reputed economists, to understand how today’s economy operates.
As for the second half of your comment, you again lapse into abuse oob. It does you no credit, and if you continue with that approach will soon have the level of credibility here that d4j has.
If you are genuinely interested in debating economic theory, which I suspect you are not, put up or shut up.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
toad wrote: If you are genuinely interested in debating economic theory
Cletus, you’re struggling with comprehension. My apologies for using a nuanced diction of a complexity beyond your capacity*
To reiterate; engaging with you in debate is entirely pointless.
I’d like you to take something from this though. It would behove you to realise that the proletariat is not a mindless mass which you can bend to your purpose. There are a lot of decent Kiwis aware of the threat that the Green Party represents.
We’re significantly smarter than you. We control greater resources than you do. We’re better armed than you are.
And we’ll resist any attempt to enslave us.
(*) “Sorry for the big words.”
April 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
toad
I tend to agree with Garrett that pedophilia is not a disease but a sexuality. A particularly repugnant and thankfully unacceptable sexuality, but a sexuality all the same. Call it a disease of the mind if you like but as Garrett correctly points out homosexuality was once classified that way as well.
However if Garrett is calling for harsher sentences for pedophiles, hey I don’t care what research he cites. There is nothing more precious than a child’s innocence (their childhood).
April 15th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Toad
As it happens I agree with Garrett’s comments re paedophiles, three strikes and prison rape.
Now, your comments are sadly more of the same, you cannot help but retreat into labelling. I will try one more time, how about attacking his argument?, how about attacking his idea’s? , hell, you could even go as far as suggesting what alternatives the Greens might propose.
The difference between between Garrett, ACT and the Greens is that at least ACT & Garrett campaigned on the issue, they are part of government and have the mandate, in case you have forgotten crime was a major issue at the last election, the people want tougher punishments and the people will hold this government to account if they do not see a toughening up on crime and criminals.