Comments on: Labour selections under Clark

By: Paul Williams

Paul Williams — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:06:08 +0000

The lie of ommission David? You held yourself up as a champion for victims with your legal work for SST and your advocacy for the ridiculous three strikes law all the while knowing you’d illegally obtained a passport in the name of a deceased child.

In my opinion, the Parliament deserves better than Prasad and all the other do-nothing backbenchers from across the full spectrum of parties.

I also think disgraced former MPs ought to think twice before they condemn the efforts or lack thereof of other MPs.

By: David Garrett

David Garrett — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:16:40 +0000

I never “lied about [my] criminal past” either fuckhead…aside from minor points like my being discharged without conviction, please do point to some time where I lied about what I did 28 years ago…

By: burt

burt — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:36:47 +0000

It’s refreshing that the supporters of a Clark are no longer screaming at everyone that she was the greatest PM ever.

By: Paul Williams

Paul Williams — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:20:18 +0000

I remember when I was an MP there was a brown skinned chap who was always sitting in the Labour benches but never said anything. I wondered if he was a “stranger”

You know David, aside from the gratuitous racist imputation, you’ve got a point about the person. As far as I can tell, Prasad’s done fuck all.

Then again, neither has he lied about his criminal past!

In that regard, he’s like, I don’t know, most of the National Party caucus (a largely talentless bunch who’d struggle under any reasonable scrutiny once Key’s moved on).

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:54:21 +0000

“I think the 2014 Labour Party list ranking will be fascinating. Think if Cunliffe is ranked No 3!”

Mr Farrar, you are doing the thinking and writing that the MSM are not.

The Conference changed many aspects of how the Party works.
The current leadership and the MSM have been so blinded by the anti Cunliffe spin of Mold/Robertson that they have failed to see the sea-change that happened under their noses.

Cunliffe knows what happened at Conference. (leadership coup was NOT a menu item).

The membership(most of) knew what happened at Conference.

The Constitutional Review will have reverberations throughtout the Party.

It is all for the good.

By: Steve (North Shore)

Steve (North Shore) — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:48:27 +0000

Dear Leader seems to spend a lot of time here in NZ, given she was railroaded.
Dear Leader’s influence on Liarbore is coming to a sad end – she knew, the Unionists are learning now

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:39:37 +0000

@Graeme – In National, a nudge is as good as a wink.

However, I take issue with the claim about nil HQ interference in National Party selections. A selection has 60 Delegates, which the local electorate get 1 delegate per 20 members (from memory). For seats with less than 1200 members, the Regional Chair nominates the shortfall. In a seat with less than 600 members, that means they provide the majority of electors. Although they cannot be controlled any more than any other delegate.

By: mikenmild

mikenmild — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:21:33 +0000

Governments tend to destroy themselves, at which time the opposition party suddenly starts to look like a viable alternative and its leader of the moment acquires instant credibility. Everything else becomes what-ifs. Labour governments led by Rowling in 1981 or Moore in 1993 were very close. If Holyoake hadn’t clung to the premiership too long, could Marshall have held out in 1972? Was it wise for National change leaders in 1997, on a promise of Shipley getting tougher with Peters, when Bolger’s more pragmatic management could well have earned another term in 1999?

By: Reid

Reid — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:53:58 +0000

Clark was firmly in control. Now, no one is. This is the nub. Clearly Clark's tentacles insinuated themselves so assiduously into Labour's very arteries and veins, that when they withdrew, it became all rubbery and soft. Basically, they've lost their little guy who used to do this. Consequently Labour's machine is lurching rudderless, a ship in a storm with no-one at the helm. It's like they really really need a Scotty, but he's nowhere to be found.

By: Ancient Dan

Ancient Dan — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:42:59 +0000

If you like a bit of Ironic politics here is how clark started lining up her candidates.
In 1988 the backbone club to the right of the party was afraid of the election of Jim anderton. as President of the party.
The President then was very influential in the selection of Candidates.
Jim was whiteanting the Party soon after to found New Labour
They went to a lot of trouble and effort to support a candidate for the Presidency against Jim.
Someone in Backbone should have done a little research as to who the new President Ruth Dyson was supporting for the long term.
1990, 1993 were races between Mike Moore and Helen Clark as to who could get their supporters into Caucus in the various selections. Since the membership had fled to various other parties, Future NZ, New Labour whatever and Clark had control of the head office machinery the result was inevitable.

By: mikenmild

mikenmild — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:37:20 +0000

Yes, David – Kiwiblog is smoothing your once-rough edges!

By: David Garrett

David Garrett — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:34:16 +0000

Mikey: This is a major worry…either you are changing or I am…agreeing with you yet again.

While we have had poor MP’s under MMP we certainly had plenty of dross under FPP. As the old joke went, you could stand a Romney wether for National in Clutha-Southland and it would romp home… then there was Ben Couch, Keith Allen, Air Commodore Gill…On the Labour side, you had the likes of Tirikatene- Sullivan, (right name, no brains), Fraser Coleman and Mat Rata…again as the old joke on the bill board went, “Mat Rata reads comics”…to which some wag added “NO, he only looks at the pictures….

Graeme E: If you are still here give me a call plse…a matter of mutual interest…

By: mikenmild

mikenmild — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:34:11 +0000

Political parties don’t usually plan for transitions, in the wake of either victory or defeat, but it is naturally much harder after the defeat of a governing party. Labour’s problems now are nothing new. Despite many prediction in the last 20 years, MMP doesn’t look like ending or essentially two-party system. That means that when National fall apart (as all governments do), a Labour-led government will replace them. I’m sure many Labour MPs would like to now which leader has the magic formula, but there will be a large element of randomness.

By: mavxp

mavxp — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:28:05 +0000

Where did Labour go wrong after Clark showed how it was done? They were effectively decapitated by a powerful Clark-Cullen 1-2 leadership model departing with such swiftness in 2008 after their election defeat. A smoother leadership transfer to someone ready to take the role would have been wiser. Perhaps Cullen should have stayed as an interim leader, for say 1.5 years allowing Labour to regroup and decide on the future leader. Goff tried to do this a whole election cycle, and failed, dragging Labour lower.
Shearer should have elevated Cunliffe to the ‘Cullen’ role immediately he was made leader: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” If Andrew Little is smart, when it is his turn he will take Cunliffe with him as a 1-2 leadership combo, now that Cunliffe is out in the cold and his supporters vexed. The unions have quite a say in any future leadership vote – it could be interesting if someone thinks they can unite the party under a 2-person leadership team model like Clark-Cullen. Could it be Little-Cunliffe?

By: mikenmild

mikenmild — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:28:00 +0000

Yes, or pretty good ones. Depends on whether one is a pessimist or an optimist.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:06:39 +0000

Does anyone really believe we have a poorer quality of MP since the change to proportional representation?

I’m confident we’ve had pretty dire MPs throughout our history.

By: mikenmild

mikenmild — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:37:09 +0000

Does anyone really believe we have a poorer quality of MP since the change to proportional representation?

By: David Garrett

David Garrett — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:18:39 +0000

Rex: Nice to see you back safely from the benighted desert that is most of Australia.

Rajen Prasad…that name rings a bell….who is he again?

I remember when I was an MP there was a brown skinned chap who was always sitting in the Labour benches but never said anything. I wondered if he was a “stranger” (and thus not permitted to sit in the House) and took a point of order to enquire if that was the case…His name was Choudry…I dont think he is there any more. Mind you, how would anyone know?

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:50:01 +0000

That conspiracy theory holds as much water as the illuminati piece Reid posted on the “Plunket on conspiracy theorists” thread here a couple of days ago.

Funny, because I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it on Kiwiblog

By: Monique Watson

Monique Watson — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:39:19 +0000

I doubt they are missing Auntie. She seems awfully accessible.