Were the locals outvoted?
September 19th, 2010 at 3:30 pm by David FarrarBig News blogs:
I have spoken to someone who was at the meeting yesterday. Labour’s Local Electorate Committee is controlled by Winnie Laban. She wanted Fa’afoi, so her committee voted for Fa’afoi, even though some may have not supported him. Goff’s office wanted Fa’afoi, and his three votes got him. The other vote was decided by the community. That vote was made up of 52 locals and 60 unionists. The locals wanted Pagani. The unionists wanted Fa’afoi. None of the unionists were locals, but because there were more of them, they had sway. [DPF: The unionists are in fact local - they are local affiliate members]
This meant that the community vote was stacked with unionists to make sure Fa’afoi got the nod, meaning that the Local Electorate Committee actually voted against the wishes of the local voters, and stacked the floor so that the community vote also went against the wishes of the community.
And a commenter at Kiwiblog states:
The local members vote was 34 Pagani, 16 Faafoi and 2 others. The 60 union votes went all to Faafoi. Local members got out voted by union members who have never worked for Labour in Mana.
And Phil Quinn has some advice:
It may have been another despicable parachute-job, but he won under the rules as they stand. That makes him the Labour candidate today, and he has my support.
But Kris Faafoi will lose the Mana by-election if he thinks it will come as easily, or with as many short-cuts, as his dubious path to the nomination.
He must, first and foremost, ask whomever (a) wrote his letter to members, (b) employed his replacement in the leader’s office before he was nominated, (c) put him on Radio Australia, (d) thought it was smart to stack the hall yesterday with advisors and press secretaries on overtime and (e) was responsible for his poor performance at the Q+A, to remove themselves from any position of influence in the campaign.
I’m quite glad to be in a party where unions do not control selections.
Related posts:
- Not a surprise outcome
- Campaigning for votes in Mana in Australia
- Phil Quinn on Mana and Faafoi
- Faafoi confirms Mana nomination
September 19th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
This story could be written about many many Labour Party selections. A similar event to this happened against Ken Gray when that Union backed light-weight Graham Kelly got the nomination for the old Porirua seat. But keep blogging about this, the machine wins though and everyone will fall into line once this is over.
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
It’s an indictment on the Labour Party that 60 non-members can turn up to a meeting and vote in a candidate selection. What is the benefit of membership of the Labour Party if you are just over-ridden by the party leadership at every turn. Perhaps that is why Labour Party membership (excluding ‘affiliates’) is rumoured to be a only few thousand.
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
…and while the Labour hierarchy treat them as “useful idiots”, the simple but loyal burghers of Mana will get what they richly deserve.
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
EPMU members are members of the Labour party by virtue of their affiliate status
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Reminds me of the CTU in GB out for dinner. ” should we have red wine or white wine?’”
Vote:Fireworker rep said Red, Social Worker rep said Red Teachers rep said Red Transport and General Workers rep said 3 million votes for White. So White it is for all of us.
September 19th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Why this is terrible news. This means not only is it a festering wound in the democratic fabric the Maori Party can put up a really strong candidate and whup his arse. Thereby beating Liarbore in yet another seat.
Oh dear.
Another clever move by Phil on the political chessboard. This wasn’t one of David’s suggestions, was it Phil?
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Can someone please explain how this voting works?
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Caroline – a relatively simple process.
Vote:You give the locals a whole lot of votes so that they can choose who they want to represent them. You then give the boardroom boys a whole lot more votes so that the local don’t make the wrong decision. Democracy at work.
September 19th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
This presents a prime opportunity for the real locals to really vote on a candidate of their choice. Stand a strong independent candidate and create a better Epsom electorate. If there were several strong independent electorate candidates around the country it helps give the major large party more options, and it gives more electorate voters a real influence on election outcomes.
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
If Labour lost the byelection because of this theyd need another list mp, bringing Tizard back in. Correct?
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
If Labour lost the byelection because of this theyd need another list mp, bringing Tizard back in. Correct?
They won’t lose. Labour could put up a dog with a note in its mouth and win.
[DPF: Incorrect. If Labour lose the by-election they do not gain an MP as compensation]
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
as an add on to Caroline’s comment .. WHY does the party want Fa’afoi .. is because he has potential or because he is of Island extraction, maybe he is gay .. I don’t know or maybe they don’t want Pagani?
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I’m aware of that. But ‘if’
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Phil Goff, please never change, and make sure the Labour Party never changes the way they select.
Vote:See you in 2020
September 19th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“Labour could put up a dog with a note in its mouth…
I’m confused.
Isn’t this what they always do, anyway?
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Pete George suggests:
Hell yes. And if someone does, count me in for whatever message design help I can give from here (teh internetz is a wondrous thing). I’ve had a gutsful of these hand picked flunkies whose loyalty is solely to the politcal arsehole in whom their nose is buried.
I could rant but I defer to pollywog over at The Standard no less, who describes the situation perfectly:
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Stop the press *** Right wing blog finds fault with Labour nomination process ****
The whole thing seems about as shady as the Melissa Lee nomination for Mt Albert.
[DPF: The complaints are not coming from me. They are coming from the local Labour party members]
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Do you have no concerns about the Labour nomination process in the case YesWeDid?
Rex, it would need to be driven be people within the electorate. I’m keen on trying to get something going here next year with Hodgson retiring:
- a candidate selection process including anyone in the electorate who wants to participate
- candidate commits to a written pledge of compliance
- an online discussion/feedback/polling system to support/guide the candidate
etc
(I have no ambitions to stand, I’d just like to help facilitate)
You would only need a few to start making a difference, and it would give each electorate that succeeds more direct connection with the democratic process. Surely it would interest a few.
Vote:September 19th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Ah democracy, it can be so dashed inconvenient at times, can’t it!
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Labour, unions, their rules. Who really gives a flying fuck about all that. And the teachers can forget about their claim. They ain’t worth it, so long as they remain 95% unionised so the worst get paid as much as the best. If the good ones get out of that union and negotiate with their Boards of Trustees and let the shit sink to the bottom of the tank they just may have a future in that profession. Hell, I may even join it that were to happen.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 12:35 am
Wrong thread, sorry.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Stop the press *** Left wing shill throws out lame ass red herring as per daily orders – gets shot to shit in seconds ****
On second thoughts don’t bother, its hardly news.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 9:14 am
There is no doubt the locals were outvoted. Yet National is equally able to get up to dirty tricks. Look at the the Quin debacle in the Hutt prior to 2008-read the Hutt news for the stupid comments from Patricia Morrison who was caught flat-footed cheating to get her favoured candidate in place.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 9:20 am
It’s a problem with party selections, isn’t it CJD. How did Garrett get where he was on the list?
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 9:49 am
The needs of the party outweigh the will of the people. It is up to the people to decide if this is acceptable.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Maybe ACT should stand a candidate as ACT is the only party that cares about the elderly and the poor who are struggling to to pay their power bills particularly winter. The ETS is a tax. Only ACT opposed this unnecessary tax on the poor that is also going to undermine our exports with a flow on to freezing works that employs many low income people.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I’m not sure if you noticed Chuck but Act is currently more concerned with seating placement in the lifeboats having rubbing up against an iceburg of internal self desturction merchants.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 10:02 am
wot a lot of bitchy acrimony from the right!!! (awesome job DPF also represnting labour faithful too). it would seem then Chris is obviously very sound and has prospects. Did anyone here hekia chanelling her inner Martin Luther when talking about her :convictions” on Morning report this morn, little OTT i thought…
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 10:11 am
I have not seen you at any meetings. I presume you are a member as you seem to know what ACT is doing. I was at the Waikato meeting yesterday. Rodney has the full support of the membership aside from a very small who are attempting to destroy the party. Rodney fronted up and gave a very satisfactory explanation about Garrett. Some members asked some probing question. These explanations were completely accepted by the membership.
Other parties have known about criminal convictions and serious driving convictions and have kept quite about them.
I beleive that Tamihere had 5 DICs. He may still be an MP if he did not make his comments about Helen while under the influence.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 10:19 am
How does National select its candidates? Someone I know was cold-called to be one of theirs precisely because they would be a “good look”.
Labour’s selection on Saturday was a democratic process.
[DPF: I think your friend was mistaken because there was only one candidate for National's nomination so hence no need for selection delegates.
But generally local branches select delegates on the basis of 1 for every 15 members. If less than 60 delegates the Regional CHair appoints top ups to reach 60. Head Office gets no say at all, except the traditional and rarely used ability to veto someone totally unsuitable]
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Thats lovely Chuck… meanwhile whats been done to deal with a element within Act thats seeking to take it out of the game because they are personally miffed?
The membership doesn’t decide on public perception, the media does, and they’re bloody idle and not very good at their jobs.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 10:54 am
@Nicola Wood-Paul Quin was selected in the Hutt after Patricia Morrison decided that the people of the Hutt were not competant to select their own canidate. The majority of the delegates were bussed in party patsies (mostly from Wellington Central-all loyal to a particular faction) that were sure to vote for Quin. There were two other extrmely competant candidates, one of who pulled out because she felt she could not compete against the cheating.
Vote:National sucks! Hypocrits one and all!!!
September 20th, 2010 at 10:56 am
If the Labour leadership force the wrong man into the job, well more fool them come 2011.
I generally vote left but I don’t belong to any party, this sort of thing is one of the reasons.
Ain’t no Party like my Nana’s tea Party.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The Labour party put party and union interests ahead of the voters – knock me down with a bulldozer.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
National’s selection process is as fair as it may be – and quite robust. Electorate selection committees are numbered so that they represent a percentage of the electorate’s party membership, and the selection committee’s choice becomes the candidate. No outside party influence at all.
As has been so recently seen in Mana, Labour controls every part of its organisation from the top, showing no confidence whatsoever in its electorate organisations despite all their work and efforts on misguided behalf of that “democratic” party. The electorate membership is treated with utter contempt, it’s use is to keep those at the top of Labour in their jobs and hopefully, in office. Head office and parliamentary leadership determines who will sit and where.
Labour’s inherent organisational stupidity and lackings as to any sort of tactical skill was yet again demonstrated when it announced Fran Mold’s replacement of Chris Faafoi long before Faafoi had been actually selected for Mana – and in spite of it being well known that another candidate was highly favoured by that electorate. For Faafoi to succeed, Labour’s system had to be preset by jack-up – and so it was.
But by then media focus was well and truly on that circus, and the form and extent of the jack-up in its totality was clearly displayed. The fact that Labour’s candidates are anointed by their own influence within the party underlines why Labour’s parliamentary team is as demonstrably poor as it is. Labour has long proven that those who hunger for political positions aren’t usually the best ones to be so placed. Geoffrey Palmer wanted the National Party’s nomination for Nelson in 1972 – but refused to complete against other contenders. Being tapped by Labour for Christchurch Central – having had to face no competition – was so much less hassle.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
The fiddled candidate selection in Mana is nothing new in the labour party.
Seen it before on many occasions over the years., just surprised that the rort was flagged so early in the piece, by the appointment of Mold. I thought it was unlike the party to make its intentions known before doing over the local members.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Big News has already corrected the assertion on his blog that “none of the unionists were locals” – so should David Farrar. The fact is that nobody gets a vote in a Labour Party selection unless they are resident in the electorate. The so-called unionists at the selection meeting were all working people with families doing their best to make a living in Mana but who did not have to be there – they made their own choices. Anyone who does not think they work for Labour has also got it wrong. As for Phil Quinn, his blog states he no longer lives in New Zealand – hardly a local commenter.
This is quite different from the process in the National Party. As David Farrar says here in response to Nicola Wood, if there are less than 60 delegates the regional chair appoints a top-up. What he did not say here is that top-ups do not have to be from locals within the electorate.
Check it here re Mt Albert: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/05/nationals_mt_albert_selection_tonight.html. Farrar said there “I would be amazed if Melissa Lee did not win the selection – her maiden speech to Parliament was superb, and she is clearly a star for the future”. But rather more clearly not the choice of the locals.
I’m glad I’m from a party where members living and working in the electorate get to have a real say.
Vote:September 20th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Mike, if you truly believe the crap you write – you’ll swallow anything.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 11:18 am
And the Left give ACT shit about a loose association with the BRT and Sensible Sentencing.
Vote:September 21st, 2010 at 7:36 pm
I see the Standard are reporting that Kris Faafoi first approached the National party about becoming a member.
So, the people of Mana have been saddled with a candidate that they do not want and a candidate who would prefer to be a member of the National party.
Vote: