This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 10:22 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Shearer may be making a mistake by “annointing” H3Robertson as deputy. Labour have to get away from the obsessive Clark Simpson era. Robertson will be the tail wagging as Shearer will not be his own man. Robertson is a more powerful person, who is used to getting it his way.
We have to get away from the long shadow of the UN. When did it become a graveyard and training ground for our leaders?
Shearer did OK out of his years there – not too much danger, a fat pension and a lot of gooey-eyed stuff about his valiant service. You only have to see these guys in action to understand what a corrupt, feather-bedded organisation the UN is. And let’s think about what exactly a ‘Somali war lord’ would look like. Certainly not a fearsome Samurai.
And now according to Whaleoil he has two trusts, the UN pension and a portfolio of properties. Why don’t we see his affluence as part of the total picture?
After senior Labour member Trev Mallard’s gutless smearing of Brethren women (“chinless scarf-wearers”) revealed the party’s queer prejudices, it’s obvious that the chinless wonder-boy David Cunliffe doesn’t really stand a chance…Shearer will be the chosen one.
re BeaB “I am so tired of being fed crap by Labour.”
Lord, aren’t we all – but an amazing feature of this “struggle” is that it’s cleared the smoke obscuring just how tense are relations between Labour MPs. Undercurrents and divisions show clearly that parliamentary Labour is a very divided ship – and how could it not be, when all remaining incumbents seem focused first and foremost on the self-interest, way before they consider anything else. The fact Labour types are always spouting “unity and brotherhood” underlines this – so it’s even more surprising that the media has never once attempted to focus on what’s, transparently, a blatant lie.
Again. how many times has it been reported that Cunliffe isn’t liked? Yet neither the manifold implications of that, nor especially it’s lack of relevance to the rendering of effective leadership, have been remotely examined. Our media spend far too much time on the trivial – and too often completely fail to seek what is indeed substantial. I don’t care whom Labour elects – it’s a poisoned chalice for either one. However it’s certain that with either one they’re not going to score in the next six years – but they’d do far less poorly under one style of leadership than they will do under the other.