When confronted by this news on Firstline Shearer reacted as he often does – he started reciting his same old rehearsed policy lines, as if after saying them a hundred times people will suddenly change their minds and think he’s wonderful.
As much as I don’t like the man, I think Labour should cut it’s losses and push for Andrew Little. He stands for what Labour always stood for; the worker. He would be an angry opponent passionate about his cause which would be very different to what they have now……Shearer stands for path of least resistance for the factions within. Robertson is a lightweight externally and won’t resonate but heavy within policy creation and Cunliffe is FIGJAM and NZ don’t like that. If Labour want to own a space in NZ politics again, Little may well be the best option.
In the meantime, nice result for National although I would have thought the Greens would have lost ground back into the 7-8% given the trainsmash they have been of late.
Bluntly Morgy. I dont think Little has the brains, he strikes me as jo average at best but then again the only thing ive paid attention to wa a michelle hewitson interview he did, his responses were really inane
To put it bluntly, Shearer is not a leader, he is a rallying point for a concensus that does not exist within the Labour Party. Although he is the Figurehead, the ship has no sails, one underpowered engine, and the steering wheel appears to be attached to the anchor.
“Iceberg dead ahead?”
Popular. Like or Dislike: 220 You need to be logged in to vote
Providing the economy continues its steady improvement and with the ACC tax cuts and no major stuff up the Government should win the election. People will vote to give National a majority. It does require careful management including avoiding mean spending cuts and the like. The Government seems to be managing that.
I must admit, Shearer always sounds like someone who hasn’t quite woken up yet. I still think one of Labours weaknesses is it is not a nationalist party and it cannot attack National on that point. That leaves Labour trying to appeal to vague principles where lollies will be shared with all the boys and girls of the world (even those with big families).
“Little …..He stands for what Labour always stood for; the worker” Lol. The worker. Too funny.
Parasites who claim to represent “the worker” are content to let the worker waste away in the welfare system if it turns out too uneconomic to employ said worker at the rates demanded of the workers so called representative.
20th century failures like the so called Labor movement have no relevance in the 21st century.
Another poll putting NZ First over 5%. Not unexpected given Winston’s well played bluff over Dunne, but still disappointing. Guess we can only hope they fall back before 2014.
Question – The overhang seats are the result of electorate seats won by parties getting under 5%(Act, UF, Maori), yes? So if one or more of these went to National or Labour, how would that affect the number of overhang seats?
Since Clark lost in 2008 Labour have kept repeating the same mistakes – and look like continuing to do that. But it’s not all Shearer’s fault – he’s the least inexperienced MP in Labour’s senior caucus.
So, cuddling up to the Greens gives the Greens more legitimacy and loses votes in the centre. Who would have guessed. If people wanted the Greens’ policies, they’d just vote for the Greens. When you pretend those policies are actually sensible, you just encourage people to shift their vote across.
A part of me wants Labour to understand this, because it’s cringe worthy watching them be so incompetent. Another part of me is just happy to watch them implode.
Its not just Shearer, its their cosying up to the Greens and their very left wing policies. The NZ Power policies and Manufacturing Crisis enquiry helped the Greens and not Labour one bit.
Its time to move to the centre-left and stand on their own. Unfortunately, replacing Shearer with Cunliffe or Little is not going to help that.
Andrew Little is as much a represenative of “the workers” as I am a candidate for the diplomatic corps. A lawyer-unionist…just what Labour needs. From my limited acquaintance with him, I would doubt he has the cojones or force of personality to herd the cats that is modern Labour…. But isn’t it fun watching them all flail around trying to even FIND some direction for that crippled ship Right of Way refers to…
I think the projected overhang is higher than it needs to be; As an example I don’t think United Future, sorry I mean Peter Dunne, independent MP will be back. ACT may survive, it’s 50 / 50.
3 Seats for the Maori party also looks on the high side; 2 is more likely. I’d estimate the CR on 61/121 with a 1 seat majority.
As for this poll, it’s just the anti National vote bouncing about between Labour / Greens / NZ First depending on how they are doing this month.
Politics in this country is very fixed, there appears very little movement between the blocs. There hasn’t been a convincing election win since 2002, although Clark could count on 66 votes for confidence and supply in 2005 – 08.
National have killed their coalition partners whilst Labour have nurtured them. Ultimately the next election comes down to one thing, can the left muster an effective GOTV operation in the poorer areas of urban NZ, if they can they win like in 2005 (81% turn out), if they don’t like in 2008 (79%) and 2011 (72%) then they lose.
The missing voters in these elections are mostly in the Maori seats and South and West Auckland.
One of the over-educated idiots writing in the MSM, or was it the Jack Rabbit, described J. Key as suffering “death by thousand cuts”.
The intellectual elite snobs should be asking themselves whether their promotion of numerous mini scandals (that are of little or no interest to those outside the chattering classes in academic cities) is working.
On the others hand, perhaps their question should: Whose death?
Little. Oh goodness, where to start. He has all the management and leadership ability of my long dead nana, bless her.
The left supporters mock JK for the fact that he has no real world experience, merely being a money shuffler. Not only does that display ignorance of what he actually did for a living, it serves to highlight their hypocrisy. A lawyer and a unionist. Leadership? Please.
And Little has all the charisma of pond scum. He was in my local cafe before the last election, asked for a photo with the regulars and the staff. Owner refused and said not whilst she was paying taxes. Bless
And before our Government starts polishing its nails, a message from abroad.
I asked a colleague in the UK whether the previous Labour Government Treasury boss had copied Cullen’s infamous jibe: “I have spent it all”. His response:
” Yes, it’s true all right, but then, under any left wing administration, the economy is invariably a clusterfuck – in this country one only has to recall the previous Labour government when the IMF had to be called in. In the States under Obama, the national debt has become stratospheric and, under his former Democratic counterpart, Clinton, the seeds of the banking crash were laid by the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. The Aussies think they’ve got a monstrous deficit (piddling compared to ours!) and, no doubt, NZ has comparable perceptions.
Champagne socialists always seem to have a specially tender social conscience provided, of course, someone else is paying which comments, also no doubt, they will attribute to my right wing prejudice. Couldn’t be further from the truth. The right is just as self-serving but less given to sanctimonious, vomit inducing hypocrisy.”
There is a message for all politicians in that note.
I agree that National is lacking in coalition partners. But coalition partners where? A coalition partner needs to do one of two things:
1. Bring in votes that you cannot get yourself. This can be on the fringe or in the centre, OR
2. Motivate people to vote who would otherwise not vote (another form of bringing in votes), OR
3. Induce an overhang to allow your bloc to get more seats
So, look at the potential partners:
– ACT. Brings an overhang in Epsom, otherwise brings nothing at the moment. They motivate no-one to vote, and their voters would otherwise vote National. So long as they can win Epsom they still exist.
– Peter Dunne. Brings an overhang in Ohariu, and may make that seat more winnable (although I’d argue that seat is otherwise a National seat). Brings access to some votes in the centre that otherwise would go to NZ First or similar
– Conservatives. At the moment, bring nothing except for association with a crazy, and the opportunity for Labour to demonise based on them going into coalition with that crazy. Those votes otherwise go to National.
- NZ First. Unreliable, brings no overhang, maybe brings some votes in the centre, but at the risk of going with Labour, doing bizarre things, and associating with a leader who is dodgy in everything he does
- Maori Party. Unreliable, but bring an overhang. The Maori seats are basically a guaranteed overhang every election, ignoring them is deciding not to be in power.
Look at Labour’s potential allies:
– Greens. They lead the young and the urban to vote where they might otherwise not, but they cost by association with crazies.
– Mana. Again bring in votes and maybe an overhang. But they cost by association with crazies
– NZ First. Same downsides for Labour as National, arguably they bring access to people who’d never vote Labour, but they also make it almost impossible to run a coalition
– Maori Party. Perhaps more reliable for Labour, but they’re also in competition with Labour for the Maori seats, so it’s harder for Labour to embrace them than for National. I’d guess the Maori Party would support Labour in a flash, but after one term realise they’d been treated worse than they were by National.
Bottom line, I don’t think there’s much in it for the major parties to “nurture” coalition partners. Basically coalition partners need to make their way on their own, and if they can’t, then by and large their votes flow back to the major party about in proportion to their likelihood of having formed a coalition with that partner (i.e. all the ACT votes go to National, all the Green votes to Labour. In the middle they split on some proportion – probably more of the United to National etc).
I’d not like to see National giving the conservatives a free pass.
And whoever said the Nats had failed to “nurture” their potential partners on the right… the ACT caucus of 2008-11 fucked it up nicely all by themselves…The Nats did everything they undertook to do…including giving three strikes a “full and fair consideration of the evidence put before them”, as the confidence and supply agreement required…and that in turn resulted in them supporting it past first reading – something all of the smug pointy heads within the beltway said would never happen. ACT at least has no-one but its then caucus members to blame – one empty headed blonde bint in particular….certainly not the Nats for not “nurturing” or supporting them…
We don’t want that sort of crap in NZ. Hate Gillard’s politics all you want, but no female New Zealand political leader has been subjected to anywhere near the bigoted, sexist bullshit that Gillard has to put up with.
So Gillard knits. Well, so does my mother. Does the fact that I am occasionally the recipient at Xmas of ill fitting, garish jumpers make my mother unfit to stand for public office? Of course not.
Unfortunately, the Stuff story is a cut down version of the orginal , which made Little’s character even more plain by adding the facts that Janes ws not prosecuted because the SFO did not believe him responsible for any wrongdoing (Little claimed no reason had ever been given), and that Janes’appointment to the ACC and MRP had been made by te former Labour Govt (contradicting Little’s assertion that he was a favoured appointee of National).
All in all, the story shows just what a slimebag Little is: smearing Janes, lying about the facts, and making nasty insinuations of corruption without a shred of evidence, just because that suits his agenda.
Tom, Gillard is playing the sexism card for all it’s worth, but the bottom line is that her media advisors (most of whom appear to be about 10 years old) appear to have decided that the Women’s Weekly is for middle aged women, and all middle aged women like knitting, so the right thing to do is to put her on the cover knitting. Which was blatantly stupid, and not exactly prime ministerial. If John Howard had been on the cover knitting he’d have gotten the same treatment.
We’ll also mention that Tony Abbott still gets pilloried for his surf life-saving, and for the budgie smugglers he wears whilst competing. Many of the cartoonists still draw him in his swimmers in every single day in the paper. If they were doing that to Gillard people wouldn’t yell?
Sorry, Gillard is using sexism as a cover-up for the fact that she hasn’t governed well. I don’t entirely blame her, I think Gillard herself is reasonably competent. Swan is a disaster, her advisors are giving her bad advice, running a minority government is hard, and she’s not sharp enough to work that out for herself.
@PaulL and @DG, I think that Labour has played a smart game in nurturing the greens, I think it’s block gains votes from younger, urban people that have been brought up believing the “green” myth. (it’s all bullshit of course), big support amongst students who otherwise may not vote.
I don’t think they lose that many votes from the association with crazies. My gut feel is they probably bring in 2 or 3 votes for everyone they cost.
ACT committed collective suicide 2008 – 11, I accept. In a way National is too much of a broad church these days, it doesn’t leave any space to it’s right where a partner could thrive. There is 2% – 3% that will vote for the CCCP regardless, these people could easily put labour into power.
Why write off ACT. They hold a seat, which is gold for a small party, and should be able to be levergaed off. Epsom voters know that a John Banks vote helps National, and may be the only thing between National and the Opposition benches. Other potential ACT voters in the rest of NZ need some encouragement.
Sure ACT did some really dumb things between 2008 and 2011, but a revitalised ACT should be good for 2 .5 to 3%. That would be 3 or 4 MP’s. That would be enough to pretty much guarantee a National led government.
After all we know there is a specific right wing vote that National does not really represent. And the Conservatives are not in that space. More importantly they do not hold a seat and are not likely to win one
If ACT was strategic they would recruit some reasonably well known and credible candidates, who could actually get the extra votes. These candiates need to look like the future, but they should not be the youth wing of ACT. A broader appeal will be necessary. One of them could replace John Banks in Epsom, perhaps in 2017. It will require some smart thinking by ACT, a credible amount of money (not zillions) and a campaign focusing on the new candidates (as well as JB) and aclear and interesting set of policies targetted to the likely voters.
Labour has been hard done by in this latest poll. Clearly the methodology is suspect and weighted against where the Labour voting demographic resides ….. Mangere, Manurewa, Porirua, Wigram, Dunedin and the local lunatic asylum ….. correct that bias and Labour might get to 33% ….. just.
June 26th, 2013 at 11:21 am
but Little was roundly rejected by the electors last time out
all the labour contenders are weak as”
My point re Little (and remember I don’t like the guy) was he is an angry mongrel who, despite his personality quirks, would fight a fight eye to eye. He would ‘stand alongside’ the worker and thus would have the capacity to rebrand Labour. Whether it would get more votes is debatable but lets face it…..who/what is Labour today? At the end of the day, Labour need a quantum shift to purge the disaster they have become.
I think Cunliffe will be their next leader but I still don’t think Joe Blow Kiwi is going to warm to that FIGJAM demeanour ‘normal’ NZ’ders despise. So again, another dilemma.
Isn’t it better for National that Labour do keep Shearer as their leader? This will only highlight what a weak leader he is. As for Little. NZ does not need an ex-union rabble rouser to run the country. Not that Labour would be in office.
Little thought he could get in standing in New Plymouth on the exiting Dynhoven move,but it was a town that is blue underneath and the locals hated the fact he thought he had a free ride to Wellington.
Shearer is simply out of his depth,don’t blame him he’s trying his best which is well short.
Blame the Labour system that elected him,my god they must have been drunk,high,asleep,wasted or in a coma when Shearer stood and appealed for their vote.
He simply is a disaster movie awaiting a promoter.
I agree the Greens pull in votes, and they don’t drag down Labour as much as the CCCP would National. But, Labour’s current poll numbers show what happen when you cuddle up too much. ACT is a different problem. Right wing voters tend to be a bit more politically involved – and John Banks simply doesn’t represent ACT’s core values. They need somebody who does, but somebody who’s not crazy (not sure if we can have both of those any more).
I actually liked Rodney, and voted for him. I won’t vote for Banks. Stephen Franks perhaps, but he’s a bit too cerebral for retail politics.