cheers

David Prosser

And a funny follow-up comment:

karol 6.2.1
12 November 2012 at 12:05 pm

For me it wasn’t so much the content of PG’s comments, but the amount. He was flooding discussions with comments, making it a little more difficult than necessary to follow the main threads of a discussion.

The resident trolls (protected by lprent) would flood many of my comments with attacks to make the main threads of the discussion difficult to follow – and then I’d get the blame, and the warnings, and the bans. And the trolls never had any sort of reprimand at all.

The Standard button pushers trying to control the machine.

I was amused to read the bit in The Standard’s follow-up where they hang on your every word:

DPF also conveniently ignores the posts that don’t support his theory – and is taken to task for it in the first comment on his post.

I couldn’t resist mentioning this this in their own comments, will have to wait & see if I make it through moderation…

RRM:
And who “Took DPF to task”…?
None other than Pete George, who is banned from commenting on The Standard…
It’s funny how the seasons change, isn’t it?

Shuffle the caucus deck

The reason is that I have lost confidence in the parliamentary caucus being capable of even trying to head towards a electoral victory. As a group they seem to spend more time posturing to each other and to the media in the beltway than doing the job they need to do across NZ.

Labour isn’t going to grow their actual vote without getting people to go to the polling booths – a lesson driven home over the last week with the techniques used in Obama victory. The ability of the party to do that is diminishing as activists across the country get frustrated with the obstruction of the parliamentary caucus. The caucus appears to be the main impediment to building the type of party organisational activity that would be required to build that victory and sustain it over several elections.

Labour needs someone who can control the ill-disciplined and incoherent rabble in the parliamentary caucus or at the very least get them moving in the same direction. David Shearer and his support team don’t appear to me to be those people or if they are even trying then they are failing miserably.

Somehow I don’t think that a single speech is going to fix that. It is a structural problem with the caucus and the elevation of David Shearer to the leadership is more of a incidental symptom than being the problem.

http://thestandard.org.nz/shuffle-the-caucus-deck/

What lprent says here is a fair reflection of a significant number of commenters at The Standard, but he goes further than some by spreading the blame (fairly) across the Labour caucus.

Whatever happens with Shearer, and whatever happens at the conference, Labour have a major problem to deal with. Otherwise even Anthony may speak against them.

Thanks DPF for my laugh of the day

Written By: Anthony R0bins

DPF is peddling a conspiracy theory that The Standard is acting on instructions for a coordinated attack on Shearer. I can see how he’d make that mistake, being used to a command and control structure for his Nat blog – but here at The Standard we don’t take orders from anyone.

http://thestandard.org.nz/thanks-dpf-for-my-laugh-of-the-day/

(blog Emperor lprent may wishfully disagree with “but here at The Standard we don’t take orders from anyone”).

Anthony is right, not all The Standard authors are on the same campaign. Anthony seems nothing but a loyal promoter of Labour, has supported Shearer and I haven’t seen him promote the ABC line nor the Cunliffe-the-saviour line.

But a button has been pushed, in a virtual sense at least. There’s been an avalanche of MSM and blog interest in Shearer’s last chance saloon in this weekend’s conference – many don’t think he should even last that long.

Blogs often play games and both sides have digs at leadership uncertainty – in his post Anthony tried to divert to Key uncertainty (saying plaintively that at least Shearer’s problems were solvable and Key’s weren’t).

But in the relatively short time I’ve been watching politics closely I’ve never seen such a flurry of activity on the leadership of a party, except perhaps for when Brash took over Act.

There may not be a single person pushing a button here, but the floodgate has been opened nevertheless.

[DPF: I never said The Standard as a whole had taken a line. I know they are independent. I am saying that Eddie and Irish Bill as individuals chose their timing very deliberately to put the pressure on Shearer to quite, so their candidate can take over]

premature ejaculation-ers beating themselves to death

The Standard should have that as a byline.

Good and decent man he might be, but he’s branded now, as being a bumbler and weak.

I support the Labour activists who call for Shearer to go. He’s too big a risk. And if he hasn’t learnt to think on his feet, and communicate clearly by now, he never will.

than having the premature ejaculation-ers beating themselves to death

I think Espiner called Cunliffe the same thing N-NZ. Just with slightly different language…

“Who do you think will be Labour Party Leader in 12 months time?”

But Rajen Prasad has close to the top vote. Funny and sad.

yes I realise I’m being highly optimistic in thinking they might be only six years away from being a credible political force.

And at the moment, Labour is in tatters – Shearer lacks the ability to unite the various factions within Labour and as a result, he is facing drawn knives coming at him from all quarters. And if the answer to Labour’s woes is Cunliffe, then I agree with other commenters – Labour isn’t asking the right questions. Any elevation of Cunliffe to the leadership role would change little – the only difference would be the factions holding the knives.

A once credible party, is currently rooted. It’s traditional vote has been cannibalised by other left parties and unless there is an urgent introduction of fresh (non-union / non-tainted) talent, they will remain buggered for some time yet.

The only way your strategy will work is if Labour can inject some actual talent in 2014. They had a dismal first term of non-renewal, capped by an appallling lack of regeneration party list.

And if the union faction dominates up to the next disaster (election) it’s logical to expect they will dominate both electorate candidate selection and the party list. If that happens and the talent pool is further diluted the party is probably stuffed.

“….lets enjoy the show while they throw him under the bus in denial that their party is actually rotten to the core….”

Yep, people are over ‘identity’ politics as it does’nt help them but makes them ever more reliant on the state.

Being yourself is never going to be enough in the new composite NZ under Labour.

Take a kiwi female, in fact, she can’t be anything without massive assistance from Labour every step of the way, from their WFF program at age 3 through to their Social Security benefits at the age of 67. Everything good in her life she owes to ‘them’.

When she writes her memoir, it will be thanks to a subvention from the Ministry of Women’s Publishing Assistance Program for Chronically Dependent Women but you’ll love it: Sweet Dreams From My Rich Prick Sugar Daddies.

She’s what the lawyers would call “non composite mentis”: She’s not competent to do a single thing for herself – and, from the Shearer/Cunliff point of view, that’s exactly what ‘they’re’ looking for in a woman, if only for a one-night stand on a November day next year.

This will ensure you have no capacity for free thought, and will do exactly what the faceless bosses at the top tell you to do. That way, when you find yourself being a member of the NZL Party with an eye on the leadership , you can safely sit there and drone on about nothing, and everyone in the party can be assured that you will toe the party line and not rock the boat.

Shearer, Cunliff, Robertson?…….the choice doesn’t really matter, for the doctors anyway, the hardest part is first finding the brain in order to carry out the lobotomy.