Shearer needs 61% of caucus to survive

November 17th, 2012 at 1:24 pm by David Farrar

Camp Cunliffe have done well at the Party Conference.

Most of the caucus and hierarchy were arguing for a high threshold to trigger a leadership ballot.

The NZ Council in July proposed that you need a two thirds petition of caucus to trigger a leadership ballot. This met a backlash so they watered it down to 55%.

But the party delegates went further and reduced it to 50% for unscheduled votes. However here is the real big news. They lowered it to 40% for scheduled votes which are the ones held just after each general election (which will only be an issue if Labour loses) AND the vote scheduled for February 2013!

Vernon Small tweeted:

Labour votes to give 40pc pf MPs the trigger for a vote on the leadership by 264 to 237. Big win for Cunliffe.

It seems that the move to 40% was lost on the hand vote, but the unions used their bulk voting power to win the card vote.

This means that come February 2013, needs to have at least 61% of caucus vote for him to remain leader – or a ballot is triggered.

The fact the unions have backed this, suggests that Cunliffe could win both the 40% members votes and the 20% union votes and be forced into the leadership no matter what the caucus votes.

Shearer will face immense pressure to perform tomorrow. It has already been reported that only a quarter rose to give him a standing ovation at the beginning of his speech, compared to 100% standing ovation for Goff and King as they were thanked. Shearer did get a full ovation at the end of the speech – but that is near compulsory.

UPDATE: Just calculated that just 14 Labour MPs can trigger a leadership ballot, under their new rules. Game on.

UPDATE2: According to Vernon Small (who gets the best Labour intelligence) the following MPs voted for Cunliffe in 2011:

  1. Nanaia Mahuta
  2. Charles Chauvel
  3. Moana Mackey
  4. Lianne Dalziel
  5. Louisa Wall
  6. Rino Tirikatene
  7. Sua William Sio
  8. Carmel Sepuloni
  9. Sue Moroney
  10. Rajen Prasad.

So he needs just three more votes to get a leadership ballot. Who were the unknowns:

  1. Parekura Horomia
  2. Shane Jones
  3. Megan Woods
  4. Ross Robertson
  5. Andrew Little.

I’d say he’d get Parekura easily with Nanaia behind him. Shane Jones is known to have turned on Shearer after Shearer asked the Auditor-General to investigate him. So Ross Robertson could be crucial! More likely is Andrew Little is the power broken and can deliver four or five votes, plus the likely endorsement of the unions if a ballot is called for.

UPDATE3: Carmel didn’t make it back after recounts so Cunliffe needs four of the five who were listed as unsure. Of course he could also try to pick up someone who voted Shearer but has changed their mind.

Tags: , , ,

60 Responses to “Shearer needs 61% of caucus to survive”

  1. jaba (2,142 comments) says:

    oh dear .. oh well watching Silent T lead Labour will be far more exciting and the Gweens will in for a bitch slapping as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nigel Kearney (1,016 comments) says:

    What was that saying about the difference between your opponents and your enemies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    I know a couple of good brickies that can knock up a bloody good wall at short notice if required.

    Posts are extra. However I have a couple of chippies that are available at even shorter notice! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    David S blocked me on Facebook this morning. He put a post up about how he was looking forward to winning in 2014. I just asked if this was a Tui ad? Comment instantly removed and I’m blocked from commenting.

    Weird thing is that I’m a really floating voter that could potentially support labour under certain circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Who thinks that Grant Robertson is not now negotiating with Cunliffe on retaining the Deputy Leadership role if he switches his support to Cunners?

    I suspect he is also talking with Andrew Little – the real power in caucus is now with the likes of him, Fenton, Moroney and other former unionists

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (3,111 comments) says:

    Weird thing is – expecting anything different from a lefty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Reid (16,491 comments) says:

    So what has Cunliffe promised the unions that’s the question isn’t it.

    What d’ya reckon: compulsory membership back in play?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Reid,

    I imagine some very serious concessions. Andrew Little’s best personal prospect would be to let Shearer limp through, lose in 2014 and then Little can take the reins with the union vote in Feb 2015.

    Even he probably doesn’t think he is ready yet to takeover in 2013. A switch in Feb 2014 would mean he would likely lead the party to a loss (although it could be spun as ‘taking one for the team’ so they could start 2015 in a better position than changing leaders after another loss.)

    So the unions could support Cunliffe for enough policy concessions. The risk to Little is that Labour actually win under Cunliffe, but he would probably think that he can still mount a coup with the union voting power when he s ready.

    One thing is for sure – there will be all sorts of side conversations going on now over different permutations of support and caucus roles. David Shearer is now only leader for as long as the unionists let him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    “Weird thing is that I’m a really floating voter that could potentially support labour under certain circumstances”

    So am I if the make John Tamihere leader and Su’a William Sio deputy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Viking2 (11,484 comments) says:

    Kinda like this senario I’d reckon.

    One sunny day in January, 2013, an old man approached the Lodge the Canberra
    residence of Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard

    he’d been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the guard and said,

    “I would like to go in and meet with Prime Minister Julia Gillard.”

    The Guard looked at the man and said, “Sir, Ms Gillard is no longer Prime Minister
    and no longer resides here.”

    The old man said, “Okay,” and walked away.

    The following day the same man approached the The Lodge and said to the same Guard,

    “I would like to go in and meet with Prime Minister Gillard.”

    The Guard again told the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday,

    Ms Gillard is no longer Prime Minister and no longer resides here.”

    The man thanked him and again just walked away.

    The third day the same man approached the The Lodge and spoke to the very same Guard,

    saying,”I would like to go in and meet with Prime Minister Gillard.”

    The Guard, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said,

    “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Ms Gillard.

    I’ve told you already that Ms Gillard is no longer the Prime Minister and no longer resides here.

    Don’t you understand?”

    The old man looked at the Guard and said, “Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.”

    The Guard snapped to attention, saluted, and said, “See you tomorrow, Sir.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    UPDATE: Just calculated that just 14 Labour MPs can trigger a leadership ballot, under their new rules. Game on.

    That seems about right for a party that is now just the parliamentary arm of the unions. It seems the message that being a Labour party member isn’t the way to influence the party needs to be made clear… The way to control the party is to be [ in the elite management group ] of an organisation that extracts money from low paid workers and then donates that money to highly paid politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    One other thing to consider – the “Aunty Helen” factor.
    “Aunty Helen” was recently here, supposedly having a “holiday” as well as having a couple of speaking engagements.
    I’m sure the timing of the “holiday” was no accident.
    My guess is that she is trying to shore up Shearer’s leadership, and anything that Aunty Helen wants, she tends to get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    So….. its easier to throw out the leader…………
    But how do they replace him? Have a ballot for a new leader – on which they will need a majority…..??

    A minority can trigger it all – but that doesnt mean there is a majority for change.

    And what happens if he stands and a majority want him back.

    Something like this could go around in circles for weeks……

    Typical left lot – all about negative things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “My guess is that she is trying to shore up Shearer’s leadership”

    Wherever did you get that idea from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. lprent (101 comments) says:

    It seems that the move to 40% was lost on the hand vote, but the unions used their bulk voting power to win the card vote.

    No. The usual voice vote which was indeterminate and then it went straight to a card vote. The vote was 264 to 237 and the support for the amendment covered a wide range of delegates both for and against. The speakers seemed to be pretty unconcerned about the

    You are rather overestimating the voting power of the affiliates. Are you sure that you have left the 90’s? The affiliates have a small percentage of the membership votes these days.

    An amusing reaction though. Practising for the Truth?

    [DPF: Thanks for the clarification]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Good old lprent!

    When you really need a throw back to the bolshevik revolution he/she/it is always available! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. annie (539 comments) says:

    Great. So the electorate votes in one PM, and 3 months later they can replace him/her with the wild-eyed leftist of their choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Probably a good thing for the Labour party to move closer to the unions as their best vehicle for attracting committed support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    That got the children into a delirious tizzy.
    In a few short days we’ve shifted from Shearer being rolled this weekend, to sometime in February and now it’s become sometime in never-never land.
    ‘Once upon a time’ should because the compulsory opening for such attempts at straw grasping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Are you sure that you have left the 90′s? The affiliates have a small percentage of the membership votes these days

    And yet they have 20% of the leadership vote. On top of their support in caucus (which is 40% of the vote). And their members, who will also be encouraged to become full party members (the other 40%.)

    Groups with such a small percentage of the membership vote given such extraordinary weight on selecting the leader.

    Interesting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Probably a good thing for the Labour party to move closer to the unions as their best vehicle for attracting committed support.

    It makes it easier to design policies that lure back the urban white liberal middle-class housewives who’ve defected to the Gweens but many of their husbands want the conservative economic policies that Cunliffe could bring, if only the bloody unions would let him.

    I find it amusing the someone is prepared to tolerate a faction like the unions who block vote en mass in the political party they belong to. What about hijacked agendas don’t Labour Party members understand? And yet most of them blindly experience the warm fuzzies in their tummies whenever they think of their beloved “democratic” cause movement.

    Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    “Aunty Helen” was recently here, supposedly having a “holiday” as well as having a couple of speaking engagements.

    Maybe she came to see her husband?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    You really are a fuckwit Chuck.

    She came to see her wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’s probably not a bad thing for the unions to be mobilising their members and enjoying a close relationship with the Labour Party again. It is difficult for the two major parties to remember where their core support is and spend all of their energies wooing people in the mythical middle inhabited by Peter “where’re my baubles” Dunne.
    We have a broad degree of consensus between the major political parties on most policies – most disagreements amount to fuck all. Hence you get lots of scathing comments here about National being ‘Labour lite’ etc, and probably lots of criticism of Labour and its direction on ‘left’ blogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    Johnboy I thought you were a little brighter than that. I obviously was not serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    Id be grateful if someone could set out in simple terms how the party elects the leader of he parliamentary party under the new rules. It appears that the next leadership ballot is automatically scheduled for Feb 13′ is that right, or does D Cunliffe still need to gather 40pc of the caucus?

    Then what? Do the three courts of the party (caucus, party and unions), vote for the candidate? How does that work? What happens if D Shearer gives the game away? It still seems unclear to me how the party can regroup to present a challenge to National, esp if so many in the caucus dislike D Cunliffe, as reported. If Cunliffe enjoys strong support in the party, a caucus challenge would gather momentum. A narrow victory would be no victory as the factions would continue to fight on.

    I also fail to see the logic of working to lose the election in 2014, that strategy would see the party decline at the expense of the Greens and other potential coalition partners. Under that scenario, Little hopes to lead Labour and friends into govt in 2017′ and hope the rigours of govt will see Labour regain votes at the expense of its coalition partners to have a stronger bloc in 2020. Really? Seems a bit far fetched to me.

    Surely pulling out all the stops to win in 2014 involves winning the leadership in Feb 13, then reshaping the line up by addressing candidate selections and having some control for making the party list, to renew the line up.

    So far all the commentators dont seem to believe Labour really wants to win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Should have tossed a smiley in Chuckie.

    Then I would have got your drift! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    So far all the commentators dont seem to believe Labour really wants to win.

    Warren,

    Perhaps that is a major problem within Labour – too many competing egos. David Cunliffe wants a David Cunliffe-led Labour Party to win. Grant Robertson wants a Grant Robertson-led Labour Party to win. Andrew Little wants an Andrew Little-led Labour Party to win. (Little’s speech against the remit was more about keeping potential winners out before he is ready to take up the mantle.)

    About the only one who would be happy simply for Labour to win is David Shearer.

    The other major problem is that Labour no longer know how to be relevant to the electorate. The list of remits shows that problem is much wider than just the caucus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Reid (16,491 comments) says:

    It’s probably not a bad thing for the unions to be mobilising their members and enjoying a close relationship with the Labour Party again.

    You mean after being bashed and bwuised by the SisterHood mm?

    I know.

    Wasn’t it awful.

    Day after day. Night after night.

    Now it’s finally over. It’s all gone. To NY.

    Those poor, innocent darlings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    I think ego and survival will drive rational behaviour. little hasnt been in govt. it would be better for his career and ambitions to align with Cunliffe, rather than prop up Shearer to lead Labour into defeat in 2014. If Little has the unions in his pocket and cunliffe has the party on his side, they could be a formidable team. That is what the party needs, beyond the leadership decision next year.

    John Key will want Labour to sort out its leadership before he does a reshuffle, wont he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    it would be better for his career and ambitions to align with Cunliffe, rather than prop up Shearer to lead Labour into defeat in 2014.

    Why would Little want to align himself with possibly the one person who could derail his own long term plans by managing (just maybe, at a very long stretch) to scrape a coalition win together for Labour that would then allow him (Cunliffe) to rule Labour for some years? That’s a bit like a turkey voting for an early thanksgiving.

    John Key will want Labour to sort out its leadership before he does a reshuffle, wont he?

    I think all recent evidence points to him not having to pay any attention to the Labour lineup at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Little has the unions in his pocket

    He does have that Warren but so far he’s not translating his union success into political success. I have the impression he is struggling with it and I believe he’s a adopting as a consequence to hide his insecurity, a Maharey-like smarmy veneer.

    He needs to relax and be himself. I have a feeling he’d be much more comfortable in a Tamihere partnership than a Cunliffe one.

    You know what the bizarre thing is?

    Labour currently have the following powerful JK-defeating leadership choices on offer: Tamihere, Cunliffe, Little, Jones. But it gives none of these powerhouse combinations a look in, in the senior portfolios, preferring instead a luke warm JK clone who spent his successful career overseas.

    If that’s not bizarre then tell me what is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Little is a creep. Him and Labour suit each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Great. So the electorate votes in one PM, and 3 months later they can replace him/her with the wild-eyed leftist of their choice.

    Since when has Labour’s caucus had an actual leftist in it? Anderton is the last one I can recall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/15406299/labour-members-vote-for-shakeup/

    Reading this it’s the biggest conference for 24 years, also by numbers the union position seems to be overstated to me, along with a presumption that they block vote anyway – somebody else might know the answer to that.

    I’m not sure that the turnout is for the reasons given in the report, taken that the media is fixated about the leadership they seem to be reading it into everything. For the Labour party it might be an awakening of the support they’ve lost, also, or alternatively, a reaction against lack of progress with the economy, or simply the realisation a lot of their support didn’t vote at the last election – voter numbers falling across the board. Somewhere there could also be the message that if the Labour party don’t make themselves relevant to the electorate, different from the Nats and Greens they’ll be relegated further down the pecking order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nookin (3,352 comments) says:

    Cunliffe says he has given no thought at all to leadership. In the next breath he declines to endorse Shearer.
    What other creatures have a forked tongue and a reptilian visage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Paddy Gower has just skewered Labour on TV3 News. At a time Labour want to get the best possible media coverage it is blown up into a renewal of the leadership battle, made easier by the 40 trigger.

    Gower said the change was a win for the Cunliffe camp and it obvioulsy does favour him. And Gower pushed Cunliffe to say he wouldn’t challenge for leadership in February, and Cunliffe kept refusing to rule it out.

    The Standard attack was just a warm-up. The rule changes open the way for a full on war of the Davids.

    David Shearer was asked about his leadership and he said “read my lips, I’ll still be leader in 2014″. But he didn’t say “read my body language”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    This is turning into one of those conspiracies. Hard to accept there was a record turn out, a particular vote on a remit all because of knives being sharpened against Shearer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Guys let’s hope Shearer takes my advice from last night at tonight’s Conference Dinner. Time is running out.

    Fingers crossed.

    God save the King.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    And it’s not just Gower reading it like that.

    @GuyonEspiner
    Very, very strong political reporting by @patrickgowernz on the Labour Party conference on TV3 tonight. He completely nailed it.

    @CTrevettNZH
    @barrysoper while you’re wallowing in your bush bath, we’re enjoying the blood bath here at the Labour Conference.

    Couldn’t get much worse for the party showpiece.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    “read my lips, I’ll still be leader in 2014″

    Brave words. He should ask his Deputy if he believes it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Reid (16,491 comments) says:

    I wonder how many gay red shirts will be worn at the dinner tonight?

    Probably none right? I mean that’s what you’d think.

    Maybe. Probably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Andrew Little:

    “Let’s name what some people are concerned about here, and it is contemporary anxiety about leadership,” says Labour MP Andrew Little.

    And yes, that was an admission – Mr Shearer’s leadership is being openly questioned.

    “[I have] got to acknowledge that’s how some people are feeling,” says Mr Little. “But that’s not a reason to put in a rule change that will cause instability.”

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Shearer-denies-Labour-leadership-shakeup/tabid/1607/articleID/277072/Default.aspx

    What Shearer actually said…

    “I am confident I will be leader in 2014,” says Mr Shearer. “Read my lips. Come February, come 2014, I will be leader. Nothing is going to change.”

    Mr Shearer is left refusing to say how he will deal with Mr Cunliffe for his disloyalty, and facing the reality that it may yet be Mr Cunliffe who deals to him.

    …but his body language has changed somewhat freom mid=week when he thought he had seen off Eddie’s coup.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Doug (410 comments) says:

    Damien O’Connor’s saying has come true. “self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    It’s a shame our host is so excited by the goings-on of a party out of power while the party in power fiddles as the economy burns.

    Only political junkies would get their attention so easily diverted from stuff that actually matters. I wonder if a course of methadone would help?

    And if the riposte is that it matters who leads the government-in-waiting, think Tweedledum/Tweedledee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Doug (410 comments) says:

    I wonder if a course of methadone would help? Drugs are for Greenies Luc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    It seems as if Shearer is already irrelevant, with the main players being Cunliffe, Little and Robertson. It makes me think back to when Helen successfully challenged Mike Moore, who came within a whisker of overturning Bolger’s massive majority in a single term. Normally such results would have been to the incumbent’s credit (consider how many elections that Kirk and Rowling were permitted to lose). Yet Moore was disposed of and surely one of Helen’s best moves was to unite with Cullen, who had been a Moore supporter. Undoubtedly it was one of the greatest political partnerships in NZ.

    The players in this drama would do well to consider the lessons of recent history and contemplate whats at stake, being in govt or staying in opposition. If Labour’s strategy is to win govt by waiting for the electorate to tire of National, not only will they have to wait for longer, they will have to watch more support either bleed to other parties at Labour’s cost.

    Luc is mistaken, this drama matters too. Some ineptitude in the govts performance may be painted over in a reshuffle next year, or not, if Labour continues down the path it is currently on. Also, if Labour isn’t able to appear to as a viable alternative Government, perhaps in 2014, JK will be able to do a deal with a party that wants to be in govt and doesn’t want to wait for Labour to get serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    All governments, and their minions such as DDF, find it useful, profitable and entertaining to focus political attention on opposition parties. What else would they do? Boost the achievements of the ruling party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Richard Hurst (859 comments) says:

    David or David? Who cares? John is still PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. infused (656 comments) says:

    Man Labour is a shambles at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    Unions have firmed up their control of the party. Labour has taken the next step to irrelevancy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Paulus (2,631 comments) says:

    Helen Kelly will take over when Annette King goes (soon) in Rongotai.
    Then you will see real Union leadership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’d like to see a Labour Party with stronger union links and less desperate to connect with the ‘centre’ or ‘middle’ or whatever you define that group of lots of people who want stuff and will choose readily between National and Labour on the basis of who promises more free stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @mikey,

    So would I. If you do not appeal to the centre in NZ, you cannot win an election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’s why the major parties in most democracies have virtually identical policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    Mikenmild so you wish to follow the strategic direction of the ACT party. Move to the political extremities and away from where most of the voters are. Lunacy and as the unions have become largely irrelevant since the beginning of the 1990’s so will the Labour party if the Unions gain any form of control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Labour’s new 40/40/20 democratic process – all votes are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz

    Senior Labour MP in Camp Shearer tells me they are looking at bringing forward the Feb leadership vote ‘to finish him (Cunliffe) off’ #abc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Pete,

    As I read it, that would require 50% voting for an unscheduled leadership challenge. Cunliffe could easily head that off by having most of his team vote in support of Shearer now, as they will have another turn in the mandated test in Feb.

    That would buy Cunliffe more time (if he actually believes he needs it.)

    [That assumes that an unscheduled contest within x months of a scheduled test doesn't automatically cancel the scheduled test.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Mark
    I actually don’t think it will happen and predictions that the unions will be stronger in the party are well overstated. National and Labour will both stay in the comfortable middle ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote