The battle getting heated

September 10th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Tracy Watkins at Stuff writes:

The numbers are being done daily, the lead changes depending which camp you talk to, and the gloves are well and truly off in the race.

Warring between David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson supporters spilled into the public arena yesterday, after MP Clare Curran accused Cunliffe supporters of using Mr Robertson’s sexuality as a mark against him. She singled out “Leftwingers” in the party and accused them of “dog whistle” politics for suggesting New Zealand was not ready for a gay prime minister.

Very disappointing if some Labour members are doing that.

However Grant did himself no favours by hiding his partner from the camera in the pub, and denying he was even there, when he was. That shows he himself does think it is a factor.

Some feathers within the party have been ruffled, meanwhile, by Robertson supporters pushing the line there will be an exodus of the party’s rising stars if Mr Cunliffe wins – seen as an attempt to exert pressure on the outcome.

On a different front, the picture over second preferences of the third candidate, Shane Jones, is getting increasingly murky after Mr Cunliffe believed he had been promised them, and Mr Jones denied that.

However, there are rumours that some of Mr Jones’ supporters are openly encouraging his backers to give their second preference to Mr Cunliffe, despite those denials.

In other words, the fog of war has well and truly descended over the Labour leadership race and you can no longer be sure who is telling the truth.

I think there is no doubt Robertson will win a plurality of the Labour caucus votes over Cunliffe. But by my reckoning they do not have a majority and how the six or so Jones voters assign their second preferences will be important. I have two thirds of them going for Cunliffe at the moment leaving it 18 – 16 Robertson-Cunliffe after preferences.

According to some MPs, for instance, the numbers in the caucus remain rock solid behind Mr Robertson at a “solid 18, and probably 20″. Others suggest some of those previously rock solid numbers have crossed to either Mr Jones or Mr Cunliffe.

Still others suggest that the second preferences of Mr Jones’ supporters will swing the caucus vote Mr Cunliffe’s way.

The unions, meanwhile, are split, although a number of small ones have endorsed Mr Cunliffe.

All four of the smaller unions have endorsed Cunliffe. They only make up a third of the union vote. However I am assuming the SWFU members will favour Cunliffe, while most EPMU delegates will vote Robertson. Overall though Cunliffe should win the union vote. My current spreadsheet (which is highly speculative) has Cunliffe get 48%, Robertson 39% and Jones 13%, and then Cunliffe 56% to Robertson 44%.

If you combine that with the caucus vote then Robertson has 30.1% overall and Cunliffe 29.9%. Whomever wins the members vote should win overall unless Robertson can pick up more than 18 votes in caucus.

What it all adds up to is a party as divided over the leadership as ever – and as the election across the Tasman proved, that is not a place where Labour wants to be at the end of this race.

Some Camp Robertson people refer to David Cunliffe as David Ruddliffe :-)

UPDATE: Things are going from warm to boiling. Duncan Garner writes:

Cunliffe’s nose may just be ahead – but it’s not over: Robertson’s people won’t give up; they seriously dislike Cunliffe, they really do.

They really really do.

I have spoken to a number of Labour MPs in recent days who openly despise Cunliffe. The hatred and bile towards him has not subsided. It actually seems to have got stronger and louder in the final stretch of this race.

One senior MP in the Robertson camp described him to me over the weekend as “an insincere prat” who is “a fake that would be shown up bloody quickly”. Others have described him in similar terms. You get the point.

So what does this mean if Cunliffe wins:

If Cunliffe wins, he will win with just a third of the caucus support. That is unprecedented in NZ politics. Leaders always enjoy the support of at least 50% of their caucus. It’s how politics works.

It means that 20 odd MPs in a caucus of 34 will have voted against Cunliffe becoming leader. Astonishing isn’t it? How sustainable is that?

Grab the popcorn – it ain’t over yet.

The theory I’m now hearing is they give Cunliffe six to nine months if he wins, and if things implode then they roll him and Jones is put up as leader unopposed for the election. Assuming he doesn’t win, then you get Robertson take over after the election. Machiavelli would be proud!

UPDATE: Cunliffe has stood Jenny Michie down from his campaign team for her cements on The Nation. They seemed pretty innocuous to me.

Tags:

97 Responses to “The battle getting heated”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    I have spoken to a number of Labour MPs in recent days who openly despise Cunliffe.

    It’s not open if they aren’t named, Duncan.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    Some Camp Robertson people refer to David Cunliffe as David Ruddliffe

    Aren’t all the Roberson people camp.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Elaycee (4,322 comments) says:

    One senior MP in the Robertson camp described him to me over the weekend as “an insincere prat” who is “a fake that would be shown up bloody quickly”. Others have described him in similar terms…

    Wow. So some of Cunliffe’s ‘colleagues’ are actually saying it like it is.

    Maybe there’s hope for Labour after all. 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. stigie (970 comments) says:

    I am still not convinced that there will be unity within the Liarbore Party !!
    The bitching has just started it seems.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nigel Kearney (904 comments) says:

    I don’t understand how a majority of caucus:

    A) Can’t stand Cunliffe, and
    B) Wouldn’t support Shearer staying on

    What did they think would happen? It doesn’t make sense unless the number who really hate Cunliffe is very small and there is a larger number with a mild preference for Robertson but don’t mind if it’s Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (7,852 comments) says:

    “It doesn’t make sense”

    Well, its the Labour Party. What would you expect?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    However Grant did himself no favours by hiding his partner from the camera in the pub, and denying he was even there, when he was. That shows he himself does think it is a factor.

    It also shows that Robertson is a blatant liar. Many MPs will lie but not in a way that can be proved. For example they have very selective memories. I heard that Robertson is trying to spin somehow that he did not lie but have not heard exactly how.

    I say he is also lying in his claim that he is just an MP who happens to be gay. He also has his staff lie on his behalf.

    I will make sure Grant replies to your concerns.
    Kind regards, Sheila Linton, Electorate Secretary to Grant Robertson

    I have yet to get an answer from her on whether it is true that he wanted to put the NZ public’s health and lives at risk by allowing active homosexuals to donate blood.

    Is the New Zealand public ready for a Prime Minister who is a lying homosexual activist?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    Trougher Mallard and the other useless buggers need to leave. The Labour membership have given them more than enough time for no result, and even had to change leadership selection policy because of their intransigence.

    If Trougher and his friends believe they have a right to be in politics, then they can go off and start their own party, like everyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stigie (970 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird says….

    Aren’t all the Roberson people camp.

    Yep, camp as a row of tents !

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan (1,073 comments) says:

    A mafia guy once said, rather than control 100 judges, its better to control 1 judge and the clerk that assigns cases.

    Whoever wins now, will surely use this principle and control the ranking for the list. It doesn’t take much to push someone down a few places and someone else up a few.

    If Cunliffe wins a solid majority amongst the members would the MPs dare roll him ?

    Are we at the stage where people are looking at an ABR candidate ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. davidp (3,551 comments) says:

    It’s like someone has decided to write a play about the incompetence, dishonesty, and instability of the Australian Labor Party. And they’ve cast David Cunliffe as Kevin Rudd. Grant Robertson as Julia Gillard. And Shane Jones as Craig Thomson, except Jones has to rub one out himself while Thomson paid prostitutes to do it for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jawnbc (55 comments) says:

    However Grant did himself no favours by hiding his partner from the camera in the pub, and denying he was even there, when he was. That shows he himself does think it is a factor.

    Nah, Grant was clearly having a piss-take at the expense of Seven Sharp (hard to resist, really). If he REALLY didn’t want his partner around his partner wouldn’t’ve gone near the pub.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Alan (1,073 comments) says:

    Replacing Gillard with Rudd proved to be a very worthwhile thing for the Australian Labor party. They were always going to lose, but the scale of the defeat was mitigated and a lot of seats particularly in Western Sydney and Queensland that were going to be lost under Gillard were saved under Rudd. The Labor party survived to fight another day.

    Electoral prospects were vital, with every poll showing that the NZ public prefers Cunliffe to Robertson in large numbers surely mps are going to do what’s in their own best interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Alan (1,073 comments) says:

    “Nah, Grant was clearly having a piss-take at the expense of Seven Sharp (hard to resist, really). If he REALLY didn’t want his partner around his partner wouldn’t’ve gone near the pub.”

    First rule of politics; never lie. By all means dissemble, talk round issues, don’t address questions directly. But never ever lie. You always get caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. James Stephenson (2,077 comments) says:

    Very disappointing if some Labour members are doing that

    For a certain value of “disappointing”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    @Alan: I disagree. Gillard was low in the polls because off the instability. If Rudd hadn’t been destabilising she wouldn’t have been so low. Rudd was higher because people thought the instability was over. Having said that, Gillard never could have won either, her political judgement was far too poor. But I don’t buy into the “Rudd was right” meme – it just isn’t true. Well, it’s true in the sense that it’s a self fulfilling prophecy, but that’s not the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Jaffa (82 comments) says:

    They are going around the Country, stirring up apathy wherever they go.

    Shearer at least held them apart.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    There is no place in politics for a homosexual activist, one who would want to see his ilk become blood donors, and adopt children. And to think one of these is an aspiring PM, makes this country the pits of the western world.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Duxton (589 comments) says:

    The issue isn’t whether NZ is ready to accept a homosexual PM: rather, it is how our major trading partners choose to respond. I would be very surprised if a few meat/dairy deals on the Middle East and Russia came to an end.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. edhunter (510 comments) says:

    PaulL: but Rudd did destabalize Julia, the whole Death by a Thousand Cuts was not very pretty to watch. But Rudd along with a dislike for what Campbell Newman has done in the 1st year of office in the Qld govt enabled Labour to hang on to all their Qld seats, something that Julia couldn’t have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    The issue isn’t whether NZ is ready to accept a homosexual PM: rather, it is how our major trading partners choose to respond. I would be very surprised if a few meat/dairy deals on the Middle East and Russia came to an end.

    You can’t be serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    The winner in all of this is not Cunliffe, Robertson or Jones. The winner is National and those plebs in the Labour party are going to find out that the rule change allowing this to happen will come at a big cost. All candidates have come out of this very poorly. As a National supporter I could not be happier with the way things are playing out in the Labour party and it’s only just begun.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ChardonnayGuy (1,169 comments) says:

    Was that “camp” designation inadvertant, or was 3 News trying for a lame double entendre?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. backster (2,106 comments) says:

    So the A B C voters get to choose between a lying homosexual and a low class loud mouth. Jones won’t win but he will continue in the style of Hodgson and Mallard.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. flipper (3,766 comments) says:

    As a Electorate Executive member of the National Party, and proud to say so, if I were voting, I would vote for Robertson.

    The chances of the tubby rainbow making an impression in “westie” land, in the provincial towns, and on the West Coast (good by red melon Hague!), are absolutely zip. No matter what all the MSM, the blogs, and the rainbow labour MPs say, there is a massive disconnect between them, rainbow Robertson and the ordinary Kiwi voter, that is more attracted to Jones.

    En passant, all the Parliamentary debate/question follies are just that. The voting base is unaware of those dances and the “vote Robertson” bullshit, promoted by the MSM…and by blogs, for which I accept a share of responsibility.

    So:
    Vote Robertson
    Vote National :)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Assuming he doesn’t win, then you get Robertson take over after the election. Machiavelli would be proud!

    Which harkens back to a point made a number of times: Robertson’s plan was always to have Labour lose in 2014 so that he could pick up the reigns.

    That is how he and others in Labour value personal power above their own Party; above their own members and their interests.

    There are rumours that that is exactly what Helen Clark and her supporters did in 2003. One anecdote from that election had Mike Moore storming into the garage of an Auckland candidate, taking away their hoarding material and erecting said hoardings himself, as that person refused to leave their dinner party to actually do any campaigning activity.

    [Edit: It's also a potential, and dearly hoped for, lifeline that might see Mallard, Goff and King not resign if Cunliffe wins this leadership contest.]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. PhilP (158 comments) says:

    @ Stigie
    “Yep, camp as a row of tents !”

    But are the tents in a “straight” row or “bent” Stigie?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Alan (1,073 comments) says:

    @PaulL, look at some of the detailed results, strange though it seems, there was actually swings towards Labor in some Sydney seats, esp in the west. Men who would never have voted for Julia (and didn’t last time) voted for Rudd.

    Are there parallels from this in NZ? I think there are. Grant Robertson by virtue of who he is, is toxic in large parts of NZ and unelectable. I don’t say this is a good thing, nor gloat about it like many on here, but it’s true.

    The decision for Labour is feel good about itself and lose with Robertson or feel less good about itself and go with one of the other two but win.

    I’ll go on the record with a prediction that either Cunliffe or Jones would be able to govern next year with support from Winston. I wouldn’t be happy with it, but I think it’s probable. Robertson couldn’t, the demographics are all wrong for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    I’ll go on the record with a prediction that either Cunliffe or Jones would be able to govern next year with support from Winston.

    That is a big if. Sir Winston would probably rather be an influential coalition party with National than play second fiddle to the Greens as well as put with Mana.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. s.russell (1,578 comments) says:

    Ahh, but how well would Julia Gillard done if she had not had three years of being white-anted by Rudd? I suspect she would have done a lot better than Rudd ended up doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. s.russell (1,578 comments) says:

    I’d say the winner of the Labour leadership race will be Andrew Little. All three in the present race have shown themselves unsuitable, so when Labour loses next year, it will want a fresh start with someone else. He then becomes leader at a far better time: voters might be getting tired of National after three terms, and maybe John Key won’t seek a fourth term.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. redguarded (3 comments) says:

    Regarding Michie being stood down, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a tactical play by Cunliffe. By Michie talking about his sexuality, the idea gets out there a little further, but Michie is far enough removed from Cunliffe that he doesn’t get tarred by it (she is like a caporegime, delivering hits).
    But, in swiftly and decisively removing her, Cunliffe looks like a “fair player” vis a vis Grant, but more importantly, he looks like a strong leader. Both Shearer and especially Goff were shown to be weak for not having control over their team (Shearer) or not being able to demote someone close to them (Goff with Darren Hughes).
    Cunliffe wins from this. I wouldn’t be surprise if this was planned.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. greenjacket (429 comments) says:

    “However Grant did himself no favours by hiding his partner from the camera in the pub, and denying he was even there, when he was. ”

    Robertson has shown that he is a coward, ashamed of his partner.
    It is not just that Robertson lied so easily – it was that he was so gutless.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    Robertson has shown that he is a coward, ashamed of his partner.

    That’s kind of mean. The guy just doesn’t want his partner in the spotlight. (A) because it’s no-one else’s business; (B) because he’s had enough of the media shouting “fag” at him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Zapper (949 comments) says:

    He may also be worried about his own party heckling him in parliament with “Tinkerbell”, not just the media

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    Hey Tom, If somehow he was PM would he take his partner to meet Abbott in Oz or Putin in Russia not to mention countries in the Middle East? Those on the left live on a different planet. DPF is strongly libertarian and supportive of most homosexual demands but he like the woman Cunliffe sacrificed understand political reality.

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

    The guy just doesn’t want his partner in the spotlight. (A) because it’s no-one else’s business; (B) because he’s had enough of the media shouting “fag” at him.

    Quite rightly so.

    But someone who answers “He’s not here” when he knows full well that in not the case is either (A) a bald-faced liar, or (B) too stupid to be a party leader (let alone PM)

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. davidp (3,551 comments) says:

    greenjacket>Robertson has shown that he is a coward, ashamed of his partner.

    Most guys would find themselves in a whole lot of trouble if they chatted some random chick up at a pub while they denied the existence of their partner. I’m not sure this applies to Robertson.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Keeping Stock (10,161 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson said

    That’s kind of mean. The guy just doesn’t want his partner in the spotlight.

    Then why did Robertson just not say that from the outset? No-one would have questioned him is he’d just said something like “Look, Alf is a private person”. Instead he told a blatant lie, and got caught out on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (7,852 comments) says:

    “(B) because he’s had enough of the media shouting “fag” at him.”

    That’s a damn joke. Most mainstream media are besotted by homosexuals, and prostrate themselves at their feet. Name one who has used the word “fag” to denigrate Robertson.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Was his “partner” out having another fag? I thought Labour wanted to ban this practice, after all, we can’t have a fag in the bar per se.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    I agree. He was dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Has Robertson clarified where he stands on homosexuals becoming blood donors . . . he was an activist promoting this dangerous practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Alan (1,073 comments) says:

    Not sure I really want to know the answer to this but, what’s the problem with homosexuals being blood donors ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Even if Grant has got an ugly “missus” and doesnt want him around, when the final selection is made, whether it be Silent T , Tugger or Tubby some poor partner is going to have to stand up beside them and the whole world will know that they have to fuck ‘that’. I bet they didn’t sign on for this!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    I have been thinking a bit about the leadership battle within Labour. Given the caucus candidate seems to be the least preferred by the labour membership, and the candidate disliked by the caucus is the one favoured by the membership, we need to ask some questions.

    Does the political wing of the party reflect and represent the party membership? I would have to say no. If that is the case, how did these people get into parliament in the first place? What mechanism existed that allowed this sort of representation? If the result is as expected, and Cunliffe is appointed leader by the party, in charge of a caucus that is known for working behind the scenes to remove those it does not like, expect an even higher level of dis-function as the left cannibalises itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Alan (523) Says:

    September 10th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
    Not sure I really want to know the answer to this but, what’s the problem with homosexuals being blood donors ?

    Alan , when Chuck gets over swallowing his tongue, recovers from the coronary and stroke you have just caused him by your very innoucous question, he will fill several paragraphs with unproveable opinion as to why.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @Alan

    Not sure I really want to know the answer to this but, what’s the problem with homosexuals being blood donors

    The problem is very simple. Homosexuals have a far higher rate of very serious STVs inclining HIV. It is indisputably that on average they have a far higher number of sexual partners. If someone picks up a STDs on Monday and donates blood on a Tuesday it is very unlikely that test will show the blood could be very harmful to the recipient. Aside from that there is the possibility of human error. The people who determine NZ Blood Services policy are not a bunch of so called homophobes. Their policy covers a number or high risk groups who are also excluded. These other groups do not complain. It is only the militant homosexuals like Robertson who make a point of it most of the time who want to score a political point. Robertson could easily answer and say he changed his mind on new evidence but he won’t because he would upset the militant homosexual lobby who are keen for him to be in a position of power. I hope that answers your question Alan.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @PEB

    Go back to school you moron. When you can get a high school pass in math instead of 15% you may be qualified to comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Good to see you back on your feet Chuck.

    Blood is keep for several days before its goes into the system Chuck, the donor can have it destroyed if they wish as well. I can’t remember the exact length of time but its quite a while.

    The percentage of donations that are used as whole blood these days is small. Most of it is used as plasma.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @PEB

    Maybe that should have a separate blood bank specifically for homosexuals, libertarians and morans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @PEB

    If you or a loved one needed blood in a hurry would you take mine or Robertson’s?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The point being Chuck it might be a plan to have some idea what you are talking about prior to launching another attack on the homo’s.
    If you are a blood donor Chuck you know the procedures and are being disingenuous by your comments if you are not a blood donor and don’t know the procedures……. well its obvious isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    In case stupidity is transmitted by blood Chuck, I’m in Tubbys line.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @PEB

    I am a blood donor and have been for many years. I know exactly what I am talking about.

    The following is a quote from NZBS.

    There was a perception that, if only behaviours mattered, then deferral should apply equally to men who have had sex with men (MSM) and to heterosexuals. The reason this is not so is because what matters (as well as behaviour) is the prevalence of HIV among sexual partners. It needs to be emphasised that the prevalence of HIV infection is 40 times greater among MSM than heterosexuals in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Homosexual men – can homosexual men donate blood in New Zealand?

    Deferrals for sexual behaviour are based on what you do or have done and not on sexual orientation. An independent expert review of the NZBS behavioural donor criteria in 2008 recommended a change to the donor acceptance criteria. Since March 2009 the criteria has been:

    You must not give blood for FIVE YEARS:

    Following oral or anal sex with or without a condom with another man (if you are male).

    Its not about being a homo Chuck its what you do sexually.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Duxton (589 comments) says:

    Putting aside the Chuck vs PEB debate, Alan raises a good point. I recall Labour and their media allies trawling through any number of John Key’s previous (as in, years before entering Parliament) comments, and trying to use them to hang something on him. One example was his tongue-in-cheek remark about having taken clients to strip joints when he was working in the corporate word. This was clearly done in an attempt to put him offside with female voters.

    I’m not sure how many voters would be uneasy about having a gay PM, but suspect that it would likely only need to be about 5% to decide the outcome of an election. Robertson must be clear about his position on this and other ‘gay agenda’ issues; and, in the absence of this, the media has a responsibility to find out, and report same, with the same zeal that it pursues Key’s links to big business.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    in the absence of this, the media has a responsibility to find out, and report same, with the same zeal that it pursues Key’s links to big business.

    You have just added a third fantasy to my list Duxton, but the kate Moss one has more chance of coming to fruition than the media behaving like they should as you have pointed out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @PEB

    “Its not about being a homo Chuck its what you do sexually.”

    I am almost speechless. You were a police officer?

    If you are a man and have sex with another man (that is you are a homosexual) you cannot give blood.

    If you are a heterosexual and a man and lick a woman’s pussy, fuck he normally or or up the arse with or without a condom you can give blood.

    If you are a heterosexual woman and suck your partners dick or take it up the arse with or without a condom you can give blood.

    Go back to school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    Not sure I really want to know the answer to this but, what’s the problem with homosexuals being blood donors?

    They are frightened that they will catch homosexuality from blood donated by gay men.

    I’m surprised you haven’t heard of this disease. It’s called catamititis and the full blown disease generates an irrational desire to be penetrated through the catflap by well endowed, buff men. Early symptoms of this horrible affliction include worrying about gay men donating blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Its five years Chuck.

    You can be homosexual and be celebate its the activity not the orientation but you can now carry on and use the seven words you can’t say on television.

    You must not give blood for FIVE YEARS:

    Following oral or anal sex with or without a condom with another man (if you are male).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @Duxton

    <blockquotethe media has a responsibility to find out, and report same, with the same zeal that it pursues Key’s links to big business.

    In theory you are right. However the MSM are liberal and will not do so. The Herald had a so called Live Chat.

    They blocked my question about his homosexual activism.

    I have said many times here I have no problem with a homosexual MP provided he or she is not a homosexual activist. I was very surprised about Chris Finlayson voting against homosexual marriage. I am not against homosexaul MPs but strongly against lying homosexual activist MPs. I also would not be happy with a homosexual PM. I believe a PM should ideally be a married man or woman,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @TOM

    You would not talk so much shit is you did not have you tounge up you fuck buddies arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    They blocked my question about his homosexual activism.

    I heard they have a rule to block all questions from obviously deranged closet cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @PEB

    The issue is about whether Active homosexuals should be allowed to donate blood and whether Grant Roberson lobbied on this issue. He has so far refused to answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    You would not talk so much shit is you did not have you tounge up you fuck buddies arse.

    Your endless obsession with homosexuality and homosexuals speaks volumes of your secret longing for sweet man ass.

    We straight guys don’t really care about it that much.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Griff (6,966 comments) says:

    They already have homosexuality in spades Tom they just deny it to themselves and the world.
    Most of us dont think about homosexual acts from one week to next. Some religious posters spend most of their life’s worried about what total strangers do to each other in bed. Obsessive thinking about what others do for fun because they are missing out on their own repressed homosexual desires.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    I know Griff.

    I just love it when they keep talking about homosexuals shoving it down their throats or waving it in their faces. You don’t have to be Freud to see what’s going on.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. cha (3,830 comments) says:

    All this talk will have Chuckies turd cutter blossoming in anticipation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    @Griff

    It is liberal morons like you who are collectively responsible for that sick perverted school teacher up north have so many victims.

    If they have of been female he would have been stopped very quick. But because of your lot everyone was scared to say it is not right for a male teacher taking boys to his home. You are paedophile enabler.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Did anyone else watch the 3News streaming of the final Labour’s Got [No] Talent show?

    Deeply insipid as each of them crawled on their bellies pleading for local votes.

    But the crowning moment was as the audience applauded their toadying at the end of speeches. Cunliffe, sitting between, Jones and Robertson exuded the most gauche faux humility imaginable as he gave the thumbs up to both of his opponents and indulged in his own, very overtly showy, applause for them.

    Such unspeakable arrogance. Such overwhelming hubris, not seen his his proclamation of leadership victory at the start of the campaign.

    This man simply must be elected leader. The prosperity of the country [under the continued National-led government which surely must ensue] requires it!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Griff (6,966 comments) says:

    The give away is homosexual = men and sodomy.
    If a heterosexual man is going to be obsessive about homosexual acts its going to be about two woman doing the deed not two men.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    The theory I’m now hearing is they give Cunliffe six to nine months if he wins, and if things implode then they roll him and Jones is put up as leader unopposed for the election. Assuming he doesn’t win, then you get Robertson take over after the election. Machiavelli would be proud!

    Since the last Election, all Labour has done is change their fucking Leader. For God’s sake don’t tell me that is now all they are going to do the whole term, and after the next Election …

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    Chinese Whispers ought to be re-named “Kiwiblogging”…The relative merits of the Labour leadership contenders morphing into a discussion about homosexuals and blood donations?!

    But I am not going to be a chicken and hide, since the discussion HAS gone this way…While he is more than a little obessional about it, Chuck has a point…He quoted some authority saying homosexual men – or men who have sex with men, which appears to be the new term de jour – have HIV rates 40 times that of heterosexuals…I believe my doctor told me it was 50 or 100 times more…

    And PEB, you know very well that Chuck is correct: contract HIV by risky sexual behaviour on Monday, it won’t show up in a test on Tuesday…or next Tuesday, and probably the Tuesday after that. When I last bothered to bone up on this it was accepted that it could be two or three months before a contracted infection showed up in a test.

    I will end my two cents as I began: it is not something I toss and turn about at night, but rubbishing Chuck on this is either totally disingenuous at best, or plain ignorance of reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Griff (6,966 comments) says:

    Dear dear Chucky

    Remember christian heritage?

    The twelve year old asked for a good old fashion Christian fiddling .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    Griff: How is that remotely relevant? I dont see Chuck ever doing a Lucia Maria or an Andrei and insisting we would all be better off represented by Christians…or more to the point THEIR approved Christians…

    As I said, old Chuck is a bit obsessional about gays and their doings…but that doesnt mean he doesnt have a point…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. thedavincimode (6,582 comments) says:

    redguarded (2) Says:

    September 10th, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    By Michie talking about his sexuality, the idea gets out there a little further, but Michie is far enough removed from Cunliffe that he doesn’t get tarred by it (she is like a caporegime, delivering hits).
    But, in swiftly and decisively removing her, Cunliffe looks like a “fair player” vis a vis Grant, but more importantly, he looks like a strong leader

    Au contraire. Given his reference to Sleazy’s “personal circumstances” as the reason for excluding “soft” family news items from the so-called news coverage of this farce, it simply makes him look like the slimey bullshitting hypocritical creep that he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DG
    Chuck says If you are a man and have sex with another man (that is you are a homosexual) you cannot give blood. Chucks wrong.

    Like I stated to Chuck its not the orientation its the activity.

    a bit obsessional about gays and their doings a bit obessional – no shit sherlock. I thought I’d been around abit but Chuck puts images into my head that are straight out of a San Franciso Bath House I assume, but you live and learn

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    PEB: I am not entirely comfortable with this discussion…but having waded in…you ought to know, from your time in the cops, that with very very few exceptions, ALL gay men are far more promiscuous than most straight men…and risky behaviour has always been their thing…I remember reading one of Oscar Wilde’s banned novels at uni…about gay male behaviour in his time…instead of “virus shopping” – or whatever it is called when an uninfected man knowingly has unprotected sex with an HIV positive man – the thrill seekers of Wilde’s day apparently inserted wine glasses made of very thin glass up each other…apparently the buzz was that if the glass broke before it could be safely removed, death from peritonitis was almost inevitable, there of course being no anti-biotics…for most gay men, plus ca change, and all that…

    And YES, I have a number of gay friends, two of them a couple who have been together for 35 years…and still furiously fuck other partners…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Not very often you’ll get a lawyer saying “ALL” DG.

    ALL gay men are far more promiscuous than most straight men

    I would wager all men are promiscuous , orientation having nothing to do with it , the only thing stopping them is bloody women wanting love ,committment and a kitchen to cook in.

    Now I am going to have read and a chances are very disturbed sleep .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    PEB: LOL…Yes, I probably should have said “by far the majority”…but I did qualify the “all” with “very few exceptions”….

    Yes, I’m sorry about the possible effects on your slumber caused by quoting from Oscar Wilde’s lesser known work…but accurate just the same…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Griff (6,966 comments) says:

    I often lump chucky into the rest of the homophobes which you must admit is predominantly christian in its make up.
    I dont think sexuality is a real issue in New Zealand politics.

    At the 1999 general election, Beyer was selected as the Labour Party’s candidate for the Wairarapa electorate. She surprised the political commentators to win the typically right-leaning electorate with a 3,033-vote majority over National’s Paul Henry and become the world’s first transsexual MP.

    The harpy Was labour lesbian and PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    Griff: We seem to be the only ones still “active” on this thread.. I resent the label “homophobe”….this is a made up word created to suggest that straights like me who dont much like the thought of guys having 10 anonymous partners in some toilet in a night have some kind of psych problem….It is in fact homosexual behaviour which is – by definition – ABnormal (deviating from the norm)… whether they make up Kinsey’s estimate of 10% of the population or the now more widely accepted 2-5%…

    And NO, I dont accept that all or even most “homophobes” are Christian…at least as either term is commonly used…

    My position is pretty simple: I have no real interest in what gay men over the age of consent do in private; I do not for a moment equate being gay with paedophilia; I believe anyone who feels the need to bash homosexuals – either literally for figuratively – have some sort of problem themselves…but all of that said, neither do I think it is justified to ridicule guys like Chuck, who raise quite valid concerns…blood donations by active homosexuals being one of said valid concerns…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Griff (6,966 comments) says:

    Chucky has steered this thread into a debate about how filthy homos are .Read his comments. bar his perspective on whinny’s collation potential . The fact that x is a homosexual openly is not a particular issue for or against a labor voter in 2013 Most would recognize that The harpys sexuality was ambiguous.
    He and his cohort focused on the sexual behavior of consenting adults are the filth. Fletch Andriette Harriet Micfag and others of the ilk are predominantly Conservative Christians on kb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. edhunter (510 comments) says:

    seriously all this blah fuckin blah about homosexuals giving blood what about anyone who did their OE prior to 95 & spent a year in Britain? What about people recently tattooed?
    You or a loved is dying & needs a blood transfusion you have 3 options possible Hep C, BSE or AIDS?
    There’s a fucking reason giving blood is voluntary & not compulsory, to donate knowing you’re a possible risk is beyond selfish it’s narcissistic to the nnnth degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    It’s not clear that allowing homosexual men to give blood will substantially raise the risk of transmission of HIV via blood products. Gay men aren’t psychopaths: those who are at risk from HIV are unlikely to want to donate for that precise reason.

    Having said that, people lie about sex all the time, so there will be many men already donating blood who have sex with other men, many of these people being on the down low. Allowing openly gay men to do so won’t make much difference. The screening tests are good enough to deal with the problem. They aren’t perfect tests anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Tom Jackson (2,479 comments) says:

    When the AMA is stating that such bans are outdated, it’s time to review them.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/american-medical-association-opposes-fda-ban-gay-men/story?id=19436366

    Look, I’ve read Randy Shilts’ book. I know that there was a real problem with homosexual blood donations back in the 1980s and that the gay community wasn’t exactly helpful at the start. But we live 30 years later, and things have changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Griff (6,966 comments) says:

    Shane Jones is the best choice of labor seeking a position in today’s political landscape. The greens are becoming the socialist party and the manaless are for the real whackos. Seeking advantage for the working poor is not the aim of the social sciences academia and lbg politicals. The party has to adapt or die
    :lol:
    Labour gets weaker two possible consequence under our present party mix
    Some will go to the Greens making them more powerful
    Others will go to National taking it more centralist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. edhunter (510 comments) says:

    Tom that’s not the point, people who get tattoos aren’t psychopaths either and the odds of getting Hep C from a reputable tattooist are far far less than than getting HIV from casual unprotected homosexual sex but still the blood service doesn’t want to run the risk, THIS IS NOT A WITCH HUNT this is all about trying to minimize the risk to the general public full stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    Thanks David and Ed for supporting some common sense. When people resort to childish name calling it show the are very poor on logic like PEB.

    If I am obsessed I am not half as obsessed as homosexual activists or their moronic supporters who view libertarianism as a religion.

    What I find hyocritial and odd is that many of the libertarians on the blog are anti-Maori racist. There is no denying the fact the Maori are overrepresented in child abuse by a factor of 3. The way many of the libertarian racist talk you would think hardly and white people are guilty of child abuse.

    However, when I point out that homosexuals on average are overrepresented in serious STDs by a factor of 40 I am accused of being a homophobe. I say it is outrageous play such a prominent role in determining sexual health policy.

    An example is HIV screening for immigrants and refugees. When Labour got in power in 1999 under Clark they changed the policy and stopped the screening. After a number of innocent people became infected the policy finally got changed back.

    I am off to tennis after watched the first race shortly so I will not be surprised by more infantile name calling when I return.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. ChardonnayGuy (1,169 comments) says:

    Personally, I think Kiwiblog has been admirably focused on the policies and issues within the Labour leadership debate, even if I have certain philosophical disagreements with David on their substance. So, excellent work that man! And I’ve said as much in my latest Gaynz.Com commentary…

    http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/31/printer_13929.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    Why do you bother using a pseud here, and – presumably – your real name on your own blog, to which you post links? Dont want Mr Google to know you comment here? PROFESSOR Geddis – as he likes to be called – is the same….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ChardonnayGuy (1,169 comments) says:

    Because I have a sense of humour and don’t always take myself seriously, Mr G?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    So…let me pick your brains…was I right that the phenomenon of gay men knowingly having unprotected sex with HIV positive men is called “virus shopping”? If not, what is it called? I ask because the nature of your website suggests that you will know…And I much prefer to make informed rather than uninformed comments…I know…very “un-internet” of me…

    Perhaps more difficult, can you explain what the thrill is? Something similar to BASE jumpers or other participants in extreme sports?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. ChardonnayGuy (1,169 comments) says:

    And of course, HIV-AIDS is never spread through unprotected vaginal sex? And there’s been no recent decline in HIV conversions within the NZ gay/bisexual male community? Yes, some gay men do have unprotected sex because of factors to do with poor self-esteem, alcohol and drug addiction and other dysfunctional personal background elements. And straight men also have unprotected sex with straight women, and contribute to STIs, unwanted pregnancies and HIV in some cases. Unfortunately, behavioural change doesn’t happen overnight, and is mediated by a variety of variables.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    All of which is very interesting, but not what I asked you…I will put that down to “declined to answer” then…

    But as I am sure you know, the chances of vaginal transmission of HIV from an infectoed woman via unprotected intercourse are about 50,000 to 1….I think my doctor says 50,000….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    Thanks for you support David but the risk is a little higher – about 1 in 2000. You can check Hansard 20 March 2006 under Judy Turner. The risk for a homosexual man if roughly 10 times as great.

    However, the way to calculate the chance or infection is first to work out the odds of you sexual partner being HIV+. Then you work out the probability of transmission that is dependent on the activity involved and multiply the two probabilities. Multiplying fractions or decimals may be beyond the capabilities of some of the mathematical geniuses like PEB however.

    In practical terms I do not think there has been a case of a man being infected by his wife with the possible exception on infected immigrants who were allowed in under the Clark government.

    The chance of a man getting infected by a female partner would be extremely low if he was remotely selective.

    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.