Is Jeanette the first to go voluntarily?
June 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am by David FarrarMatt McCarten wrote in the HoS on the seamless transfer of power within the Greens, and it got me thinking. Jeanette may be the first parliamentary party leader to resign voluntarily in recent times?
By resigning voluntarily, I mean could have chosen to stay on and led the party into the next election if they wanted to. Was not under pressure from colleagues, was not ill etc.
Let us look at all the parties.
National – Brash pushed out, English rolled, Shipley lost he numbers, Bolger rolled, McLay rolled, Muldoon rolled, Marshall rolled, Holyoake pushed out, Holland forced out through sickness, Hamilton rolled.
Labour – Clark lost election and would not have survived to 2011, Moore rolled, Palmer pushed out, Lange forced out, Rowling rolled, Kirk died, Nordmeyer rolled, Nash forced by sickness and Nordmeyer, Fraser died, Savage died, Holland died.
ACT – Prebble given a good push by Hide
Greens – Donald died
Maori Party – still with initial leaders
Progressive – Anderton “eternal leader”
NZ First – Peters “great leader”
United Future – Sutherland Matthewson lost seat
So it is only when you look at our history do you realise that Jeanette may be unique in choosing to retire from a leadership position totally on her own timetable, and not under pressure from colleagues. A rare achievement indeed.
Related posts:
- Leadership Lengths
- Jeanette resigns
- Editorials on Jeanette
- Does Jeanette think the US Government blew up the Twin Towers?
June 8th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Wow… The left has a poor mortality rate!
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 9:50 am
what about the bill and ben party? not on your list.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Sorry DPF
Helen went voluntarily. If she wanted to hang on and try again most of the party would have been behind her. There was no pressure for her or Cullen to go. The way things are going she would have (as far as I am aware) been in the unique position of having lost an election after an extended term of PM but then having won the next.
[DPF: Nice rewrite of history. She got thumped at the election and went. And there was no chance at all of her leading Labour into 2011, after the loss of 2008 and her association with Peters etc etc]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 10:10 am
What micky said.
national Socialists are spinning out of control so fast farrar is spinning harder and harder to take the heat off them with posts such as this. He then needs to distort reality to make the facts fit hsi theory. He should work for The Discovery Institute.
[DPF: Fuck you are stupid. This is a pro-Greens post and you claim it is spin for National. That is beyond stupid.
Second I have decided that use of national socialists to refer to the National Party will in future get considerable demerits. I may allow the Libz the occassional use as they do genuinely beleive National to be a party of socialists, but your use of it is as an allusion to the Nazis. I am being nice by giving you the warning in advance]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Maybe you and Mikey should get real jobs instead of being paid Labour Party trolls. You are a big disgrace Jack.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Must be something cultural NZers in leadership do not resign they must be pushed.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
[DPF: Nice rewrite of history. She got thumped at the election and went. And there was no chance at all of her leading Labour into 2011, after the loss of 2008 and her association with Peters etc etc]
With the greatest of respect I think DPF that I can comment on the internal workings of the Labour party better than you can.
I agree with Jack there are more relevant things in politics to discuss, particularly last night’s poll result. My reading is that there has been a swing back to Labour on the party vote of 4.1% from election night and the gap now is 6.8%, way smaller than recent polls that have put the gap at 20% plus. Presuming that this result is reflection of national trends and not due to local factors (possible) then things are getting very interesting.
[DPF: We'll see when the next nationwide poll comes out. An electorate poll of 400 is not the same as a nationwide poll]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
[DPF: Fuck you are stupid. This is a pro-Greens post and you claim it is spin for National. That is beyond stupid.
Second I have decided that use of national socialists to refer to the National Party will in future get considerable demerits. I may allow the Libz the occassional use as they do genuinely beleive National to be a party of socialists, but your use of it is as an allusion to the Nazis. I am being nice by giving you the warning in advance]
Fuck you are stupid right back at you.
Give me the demerits if you wish, but at no point have I ever made a comparison of the National party to Nazis.
I refer to them as the National Socialists based on the following premises.
1. John Key, current parliamentary leader, belives in the Welfare State. That is an attribute of a socialist.
2. Bill English demanded banks reduce their profits. That is an attribute of a socialist.
3. Gerry Brownlee has told electricity retailers not to increase their prices. That is an attribute of a socialist.
Now, if you think that is an allusion to nazis then there is no hope for you.
If, on the other hand, you can find a single post of mine that compares the NZ National party to Nazis I will donate $100 to a charity of whale oil’s choice
[DPF: Okay that is 20 demerits. This is not some high school debating contest. I get to decide what goes here and I gave you the warning not to keep using it. You ignored that. Hence you proved your stupidity]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 11:01 am
[DPF Second I have decided that use of national socialists to refer to the National Party will in future get considerable demerits. I may allow the Libz the occassional use as they do genuinely beleive National to be a party of socialists, but your use of it is as an allusion to the Nazis. I am being nice by giving you the warning in advance ]
Not that I would use the call (see Godwin’s Law – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law) but on the same grounds can Labour being described as a communist party be treated equally. Communism under Stalin has the same negative connotations, whilst the same argument could be run say as with the liberaterian, i.e. some genuinely see it that, personally believe the term is used just to associated with the same negative conotations.
Not that I am advocating either above, just pointing out for consistency. My personal view is when one uses a call such as social nationalist or communist you generally just undermine the integrity / strength of ones post / view.
Bringing it back to the original post, quite an interesting observation there DPF, credit to the Greens.
[DPF: Communism is an economic philosphy. National Socialism is uniquely identified with the Nazis. As I said the Libz using it occassionally not a big issue but Jack was using it non stop day after day. So I did the nice thing and told him to stop. His argument that it was not an allusion to the Nazis is beneath contempt]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 11:06 am
[DPF: Okay that is 20 demerits. This is not some high school debating contest. I get to decide what goes here and I gave you the warning not to keep using it. You ignored that. Hence you proved your stupidity]
So you can’t find a post that convicts me so I get executed anyway, big man there DPF.
And I didn’t keep using it, I gave a justification for my use.
Sure, your blog, your rules, and all that, but you have lost the plot lately with you various threats to posters and your total inability to accept you are wrong/mistaken/have misunderstood.
I wonder what your hang up about NAZIs is?
[DPF: You mean apart from the Holocaust?]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I think you wear the “NAZIs” jackboots not David who is a real bloke unlike you. Do you have a bad doze of the Jack?
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am
DPF and McCarten are generally correct, I think.
But I don’t remember Richard Prebble being pushed by Rodney Hide. Perhaps some Act activists can shed some light on this? I agree that Prebble was presiding over a party in decline and seemed to have no way forward, so his resignation was done so from a low point rather than from a position of strength, but I think his resignation was more akin to that of Fitzsimons’ than any other. He felt he had done his time – a number of decades as an MP – and had decided to resign from active parliamentary politics. (Also, Roger Douglas was the first leader of Act, and he very voluntarily stepped down to let Prebble to take over back in about 1995).
And, yes, Clark’s departure wasn’t entirely voluntary, I agree. She did well to choose an appropriate time to depart, but she ultimately had no choice about staying. (Similar, of course, to David Lange who pretended he was leaving the leadership voluntarily and *prime ministership* in 1989, but was definitely forced out).
A voluntary departure with a twist, was Jim Anderton’s resignation from the leadership of the Alliance in 1994. This was entirely voluntary, but the fact that he returned sort of stuffed up his historical legacy. If he had managed to stay away from personal ambition, he possibly would have gone down in NZ history as “one of the best prime ministers we never had”. No one – except for Anderton – would say that now of course. (And of course, Anderton departed the Alliance leadership for a second time in 2001, and this was entirely against his will).
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
June 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am
As far as I can recall Kiwi Keith wasn’t pushed he had been in power 12 years and I think he was over 70, still popular and his deputy was pretty laid back.
[DPF: No he was pushed. He wanted to contest 1972 but was persuaded not to]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Its good point you make, for some reason leaders hang way longer than they need to, damaging their party and their own legacy. John Howard and Tony Blair are the best examples of this. Their arrogance has consigned their parties to years of opposition. Clark/Cullen should have gone during their last term, the problem was the the younger ministers we simply not up to it and the older ministers were past their best so they had to hang on. It ws obviously pre-ordained that Goff was going to take over. You really need to start planning 3-4 years in advance, identify your younger leaders and get rid of the dead wood (problem is the super is so good- staying in parliament is an easy way to enjoy a huge payout)
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Bryce bet me to it. Anderton left the leadership of the Alliance – but immediately formed another party.
Any party Anderton has been involved with has been seen as a part of Labour – like the New Labour Party, which ironically would have got a handful of seats had MMP been in in 1990 – just after Bradford left the party to join the Greens. Then the Alliance was formed. Anderton’s left the Alliance, formed the Progressive “coalition” – later to be the Jim Anderon Progressive Party, then the Progressives. He merely changes the names of the parties he leads – just like Dunne with United NZ, United Future, and UnitedFuture. Of course, that approach only works if you are elected as constituent MP, which Kopu and Kiwi Party leader Gordon Copeland weren’t.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
[Communism is an economic philosphy. National Socialism is uniquely identified with the Nazis]
Firstly not arguing this to be a prat, but Communism is to the USSR / Cambodia / China as National Socialism is to Nazi Germany. Both are purported to be political doctrines, and both have seriously negative connotations with regimes they have been employed in. Yes National Socialism is identified with arguably the worse regime of all time, and more definitively with one regime (though it was employed in Italy and Spain). But it isn’t to difficult path of reasoning to follow the same can be said for Communism. Stalinist Russia killed ridiculous numbers of their own citizens, same with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and well Mao’s China.
Identifying the labour party, who is a market socialist party with those regimes one could find it personally offensive, just as identifying the National party with Nazi Germany is offensive.
So while I strongly agree with your disagreement with MyNameIsJAck use of the term with National, I leave it at it discredits himself enough at that point. Much like Redbaiters use of it makes it and him irrelevant.
Anyway not meaning to be a tool or annoying (if the above can be read as such) and will leave it at this.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Is the super deal still good? I thought it was only those who were elected before 1990 who got the “super” super. Can someone shed some light on this? Of course if parliament was subject to the OIA this would all be transparent.
[DPF: Pre 1999 MPs get the gold plated scheme]
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Damn, Stalin is the kiss of death.
And Dave apprently jackboot just wants you get over that whole 6 million murdered thing. just harden up eh.
Jackboot you keep pissing on DPF’s leg, way to go.
Moron.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
LOL
The Greens are the party ‘baiter (and others) constantly insist is peopled by power-crazy “watermelons”.
In fact the ONLY party where a knife in the back from a (“power-hungry”???) leadership aspirant is not the leader’s normal mode of departure.
Well I never…
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
And since we’re talking about 20th century history, YES communism is an economic theory but I would have thought Joe Stalin’s 20 million odd body bags could just as inexorably be tied to all of the cries of “socialist”, “commie scum” yada yada as Adolph H’s legacy is to the equally ridiculous equation of Key’s National to National Socialism.
But MyNameIsjack – this is a right blog. What do you expect? The left is always going to be “badder”, this game wouldn’t be much fun otherwise!
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
All I heard was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Wasnt Prebble facing some marital type problems, even after Doreen went… no it wasnt me..that helped him decide his time was up.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
DPF
Given the amount of money that was suddenly donated to the UN in the years preceeding dear leaders departure it is possible that we should class her departure as voluntary. Why else did she feather the nest of her external interests so blatantly if she was not planning to leave when she did?
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
mickysavage
You can’t have it both ways – the increased donations were corrupt if she was planning to leave and left voluntarily, they were just part of NZ being a good global citizen if Helen was staying – which way do you want it ?
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
It was an escape plan Burt.
The vampire may have gotten away from the castle but the torch and pitchfork mob at the gates questions that it was entirely voluntary.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“Its good point you make, for some reason leaders hang way longer than they need to, damaging their party and their own legacy. John Howard and Tony Blair are the best examples of this.”
Perhaps Tony Blair should have hung on longer – Gordon Browne doesn’t seem up to the job.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The UN got a pittance from Helen
Nothing like the $40 million Johnny & Billy lavished on our top private schools.
I was going to have to cancel the cut flowers and starched sheets if the boarding school fees went up ..again.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Countess of Cleavage
You are right, bloody private schools achieving better academic outcomes should be shut down – they show up the monopoly state schools as being inefficient… we can’t have it – must have one size fits all – the purity of the socialist model is more important than the educational outcomes…
Bugger off – parents paying for private school are funding capacity in the state system they are not using – if tax payers who have kids in state schools could opt out of funding the state system then I would agree there should be zero govt funding for private schools.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
ooops – make that;
if tax payers who have kids in
Vote:stateprivate schools could opt out of funding the state system…June 8th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“Helen went voluntarily. If she wanted to hang on and try again most of the party would have been behind her. There was no pressure for her or Cullen to go.”
There may be a point there; the caucus would have been badly wanting in courage to challenge her grip on the leadership.
” The way things are going she would have (as far as I am aware) been in the unique position of having lost an election after an extended term of PM but then having won the next.”
But there’s the catch: the voters; they were/are completely through with the Clark years and would simply not countenance any sort of repeat performance.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
You are totally right Burt. Even if its they say its the worst economic times in 70 years ( hardly, St Lukes is still full and I cant get a park for love nor money at St Heliers outside Moretons) there must be State money for our future leaders to maintain the private enterprise system.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Countess of Cleavage
Is that envy talking or are you actually anti good educational outcomes?
Look lets not mince words here – people who pay private school fees are also paying taxes supporting the state system they are not using. What part of “fair” do you not like in the tax system?
If all the people who have kids in private schools sent their kids to their local (in zone) school what would happen? Would $40m cover the cost of the teachers and classrooms required to house the kids that could legally turn up at anytime (if they are in zone) and demand a seat in a classroom ?
Think it through.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
DPF, Richard Prebble wasn’t pushed. That’s a convenient rewrite of history, but you won’t be able to give any facts to backup your case. Richard stepped down voluntarily and the party after that had an election who would be the new leader.
As a National party hack you of course want to make it appear that ACT rolls their leaders like National does, but there are parties with more morals, and it would havevbeen nice of you to recognised that.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I understand private school students receive as much as 15x the state funding of state school students via one mechanism or another.
Who’s subsidising who, again, Burt?
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The fees at private schools are set high so as to exclude the hoi polloi.
Vote:I like many parents, check the lineage of the other parents, the teachers are only secondary.
The best result for my children is to be surrounded by like minded others. To make friends with those of a similar social standing, unless they are future all blacks of course, when being oafish is an asset.
Of course there are scholarships for the very bright but poor but they are a drop in the bucket
June 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
mickysavage, MNIJ, DPF is correct. Helen Clark left voluntarily, under her own terms, but she left after a significant defeat at the polls. DPF defined the terms, (essentially as leaving during good times) and she fits into them easily.
My Name is Jack, you deserve the demerits for calling the National Party Nazis. I disagree with them, but I would never do that.
Vote:June 8th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Countess of Cleavage
I think Zoning has a bigger ability to achieve this effect on more children that private schools ever could.
Vote:June 9th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Prebble was not pushed. Rodney did not have the numbers. If he did Rodney would not have had to go through the ‘primary’ that decided the leadership – Actually the caucus still wanted to vote against Rodney even after winning the members vote.
Prebble stepped down on his own terms.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:42 am
[DPF: Pre 1999 MPs get the gold plated scheme]
According to the NZ HErald today it’s those who were in the Parliamentary Scheme before 1992. This accords with my understanding because that scheme was based on a fixed percentage of final salary like the broader GSF scheme which was closed in the early 1990s.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10579179
Vote: