Tamihere compares Labour to Headhunters!

November 17th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Patrick Gower reports at 3 News:

The Party faithful have queued up to get into their party conference in Auckland this evening.

All members are welcome except one – the prodigal son, – who has not been allowed to return.

“It’s a bit like joining the Head Hunters,” he says, “as I’m trying to walk through, trying to get my membership, they are all there beating you – it’s a bit like a gang, a gang initiation”.

Yes, that’s right, Mr Tamihere compares the Labour Party to the Head Hunters, Auckland’s most feared gang. That’s because while he’s paid his membership fees and wants to be an MP again, his colourful past – including a Serious Fraud Office investigation – means that membership is yet to be approved by the party hierarchy.

He says he is being blocked by forces from within.

So Tamihere isn’t even allowed to attend the conference despite having been a Labour Party Cabinet Minister!

3 News tried to talk to Labour Party member about Mr Tamihere, but found the door closed. Mr Te Pou was a key figure in the Bill Liu citizenship controversy – a series of events currently under investigation by the Auditor-General. But while Mr Te Pou is allowed into the conference, Mr Tamihere isn’t.

Of course Shane is welcome – he is a Labour Party fundraiser!

Tags: , ,

25 Responses to “Tamihere compares Labour to Headhunters!”

  1. George Patton (351 comments) says:

    All the more odd because Tamihere was already patched in Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. GPids (18 comments) says:

    Do Labour (and those muppets over at the Standard who applauded this decision) not realise the message that Tamihere’s exclusion sends to people like myself who are former Labour voters?
    It tells me that the nasty culture within the party, which was the main reason why I switched to National in the first place is still alive and well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott Chris (5,974 comments) says:

    So Tamihere isn’t even allowed to attend the conference despite having been a Labour Party Cabinet Minister!

    Oh spare up the faux surprise Farrar! You know Tamihere’s history and personality. Another persona non grata.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Scott Chris (5,974 comments) says:

    Tamihere compares Labour to Headhunters

    A disingenuous statement. Is that what Tamihere actually meant? Perhaps Slater should employ you as a headline writer. Would be a good fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RF (1,343 comments) says:

    Labour the nasty party of Double Standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Keeping Stock (10,177 comments) says:

    I’m guessing that Lprent, Irish Bill, Eddie and Sprout from The Standard are responsible for security at the Labour Party conference. Banning anyone who disagrees comes naturally to them :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Keeping Stock (10,177 comments) says:

    @ Scott Chris; a direct quote from John Tamihere:

    “It’s a bit like joining the Head Hunters,” he says, “as I’m trying to walk through, trying to get my membership, they are all there beating you – it’s a bit like a gang, a gang initiation”.

    Still, if you must try and defend the indefensible, I guess that you’re not going to worry about minor details such as direct quotes from the person being quoted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. burt (8,025 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock

    I’m guessing that Lprent, Irish Bill, Eddie and Sprout from The Standard are responsible for security at the Labour Party conference. Banning anyone who disagrees comes naturally to them

    And don’t forget, anyone who says “the conference didn’t want him there” will suffer being lectured about how “the conference” doesn’t have any opinions itself…. then be banned from it as well.

    I think you have made a valid association though, the behaviour of the moderators at the standard is indeed representative of the Labour party/union mentality that if you are not fully in agreement with them then you are the enemy and must be denigrated and run out of town.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. burt (8,025 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    Come on; tell us how Cullen never said “Rich Prick” to denigrate Key ….

    Regrets, I’ve had a few … Michael Cullen reflects

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wat dabney (3,721 comments) says:

    Seems a perfectly apt comparison to me. Labour is nothing but a predatory gang of plunderers and rent-seekers. The fact that they organise to make their predations legal doesn’t change that fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    I see on The Nation this morning that they have a large Labour sign for their conference with “This up way.”

    I imagine that can only be because no one knows what they stand for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott Chris (5,974 comments) says:

    Still, if you must try and defend the indefensible

    What on earth are you talking about? I’m not trying to defend anything.

    I guess that you’re not going to worry about minor details such as direct quotes from the person being quoted

    He’s not comparing Labour to the Headhunters, he’s referring to the nature (as he sees it) of the initiation rite. Not hard to understand when you’re not a cheerleader.

    Y’see, being honest is all about interpreting words as they are meant to be understood, rather than interpreting them to suit your own ends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Scott Chris (5,974 comments) says:

    And just as an aside, Tamihere is a smart but devisive person, and as a fractious and weak opposition party, Labour needs him like they need a hole in the head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    Again, why is Tamihere wanting to join the Headhunters Labour Party?
    And why should the Labour Party welcome him, given what he says?

    Labour needs Tamihere like a hole in the head. A distracting, self-centered individual who will do nothing but make headlines about only about himself.

    Let him join NZ First. Will be amusing to see him and Winston try and fight it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott Chris (5,974 comments) says:

    Snap

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Scott: You must be joking Sir, surely? Referring directly to trying to get back into Labour as being like trying to get into the Headhunters…and he’s NOT comparing their …ah…screening process to that of a gang? I doubt he’s suggesting that a killing or a rape is required to get back in with the socialists…

    But then I guess when your political experience is all doublespeak “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others…” I think you and Labour are probably a very good fit…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ChardonnayGuy (1,184 comments) says:

    As I’ve said before, Tamihere is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan and needs to learn party discipline 101. He has not only persistently attacked LGBT Labour MPs, but also baseline government policy during the Clark era.

    To use a comparative example, consider John Banks when he was a Radio Pacific shockjock and neglecting his Whangarei National MP responsibilities during the late Bolger and Shipley eras in the late nineties and shortly afterward. Given his blistering attacks on the contemporary National Party leadership, after he’d left Parliament, would he have been allowed back into a Nat conference if he’d let his party membership lapse? What about the other erratic Nat deadwood MPs that ended up in New Zealand First? (Personally, I think ACT should replace Banks with Catherine Isaac as candidate when the time comes, but that’s another matter).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Matthew Hooton (126 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy, with respect to your question about Banks I think the answer is yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ChardonnayGuy (1,184 comments) says:

    Thank you, Matthew, although I’m not sure which question you’re answering. If ACT isn’t preparing Isaacs to take over from Banks at the next ACT Epsom candidate selection meaning, wouldn’t it show due consideration and respect for its senior coalition partner to let it know why? Although I might not personally like Isaac’s Charter Schools role, she does seem to be an impressive centre-right performer and would be a far greater- and untainted- asset to her party than the problematic current incumbent in Epsom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. calendar girl (1,203 comments) says:

    Scott Chris: “What on earth are you talking about? I’m not trying to defend anything.”

    That’s a “disingenuous statement”, as you yourself are inclined to say. It seems obvious to most of us that you are trying to defend Labour’s exclusion of Tamihere from Party membership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ChardonnayGuy (1,184 comments) says:

    Come on now, do you actually mean to say that there weren’t some deadwood Nat and ACT MPs that the centre-right was relieved to see the back of? I seem to recall Maurice Williamson calling Graeme Lee ‘the lemon from Paeroa’, for instance :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ross Miller (1,681 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy 1.12 pm … wrong. It was Labour’s Bob Tizard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (5,974 comments) says:

    Calendar Girl, to say that I am defending Labour is to infer that I’m on Labour’s side.

    Fact is, I’m not on anyone’s side. When I vote, I hold my nose. Don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. OneTrack (2,818 comments) says:

    Labour – the inclusive party. I think they have a different dictionary to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. calendar girl (1,203 comments) says:

    SC: You are clearly on Labour’s side in defending that Party’s position on excluding Tamihere. That’s all I said, nothing more.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.