Union update for Labour vote

September 6th, 2013 at 7:31 pm by David Farrar

I understand that three of the six have now endorsed David Cunliffe for the , and in fact have asked delegates to rank Jones 2nd and Robertson 3rd.

The DWU were previously known to have endorsed Cunliffe. I understand RMTU have also. I do not know if the 3rd union is MUNZ or MWU – I have assumed MUNZ as they are stronger in Auckland.

The updated table based on vote assumptions (and they are assumptions) are:

Round 1 Cunliffe Jones Robertson Union % Cunliffe Jones Robertson
EPMU 25% 10% 65% 41.0% 10.3% 4.1% 26.7%
SFWU 55% 15% 30% 24.8% 13.6% 3.7% 7.4%
MWU 40% 20% 40% 17.0% 6.8% 3.4% 6.8%
DWU 70% 15% 15% 7.8% 5.5% 1.2% 1.2%
RMTU 70% 15% 15% 6.4% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0%
MUNZ 60% 20% 20% 3.0% 1.8% 0.6% 0.6%
Union Total 42.4% 14.0% 43.6%
Election Total 8.5% 2.8% 8.7%
Round 2 Cunliffe Jones Robertson Union % Cunliffe Jones Robertson
EPMU 28% 72% 41.0% 11.4% 29.6%
SFWU 65% 35% 24.8% 16.0% 8.8%
MWU 50% 50% 17.0% 8.5% 8.5%
DWU 82% 18% 7.8% 6.4% 1.4%
RMTU 82% 18% 6.4% 5.3% 1.1%
MUNZ 75% 25% 3.0% 2.3% 0.8%
Union Total 49.9% 50.1%
Election Total 10.0% 10.0%

The EPMU has such greater voting strength that their (presumed) support for Robertson balances out the smaller unions support for Cunliffe. If Robertson does not in fact get most EPMU votes, then Cunliffe will win the union vote.

I’ve not heard reports of shifts in the caucus vote, apart from uncertainty over Huo. If so, then the members vote will be all important. I hope to have a stab at how that may go early next week.

Tags: ,

18 Responses to “Union update for Labour vote”

  1. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    ‘Cos they don’t want a poofter as their leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    Oh, just great, union heavies get to choose the next leader of the opposition, and are greased with favours in return for their vote. At least the Mafia made sure the pizzas were delivered on time. God I hate Labour, whoops unions, no I mean Labour. Is there a difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dishy (248 comments) says:

    It gives me no joy to say this, Mr Prick, but if those vermin unions get their way, you’ll be looking for a new first name after the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Oh, just great, union heavies get to choose the next leader of the opposition, and are greased with favours in return for their vote.

    They are organisations affiliated to the party. Why wouldn’t they get a say? It would be weirder if they didn’t.

    I’m surprised nobody is calling for a similar process to elect the next National Party leader. Plenty of people on this blog complain that John Key is too left wing, so that would be your chance to change that and bring the National Party closer to the views of the membership.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dishy (248 comments) says:

    Tom, it’s simple: National has leadership. Labour has leadershit.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom, it’s simple: National has leadership. Labour has leadershit.

    You better hope that Robertson wins, because Cunliffe would eviscerate this government.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Cunliffe, the next great hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    I am surprised that Jones has even 14.0% of any vote. He is an utter numpty, a red-necked throw-back that makes Sarah Palin seem like a graduate of Oxford. His recent intemperate comments regarding John Key speak volumes to his lack of intelligence, wit, and political nonce. He is like a streaker at a rugby match: entertaining for a moment or two, his full wares on display but utterly lacking in any substance or sustainability. A tease who can not deliver anything. That he is even spoken of as a serious contender of a mainstream political party, speaks volumes to the place of Labour Party in New Zealand – utterly bereft of anything approaching a considered, intelligent or practical approach to the very serious serious business of governing a country.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Liberty (267 comments) says:

    Meanwhile the sham election rolls on.
    No one has yet explained how you get one winner out of 40/40/20 split?
    without the central committee gerrymandering the result.
    The election of sorts even makes the election run by Magabe look convincing.

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

    “I am surprised that Jones has even 14.0% of any vote. He is an utter numpty, a red-necked throw-back that makes Sarah Palin seem like a graduate of Oxford. His recent intemperate comments regarding John Key speak volumes to his lack of intelligence, wit, and political nonce”

    I’m not the biggest fan of Mr Jones, but the guy went to Harvard on a Harkness fellowship. He’s a seriously smart guy, that’s beyond doubt.

    btw I assume you mean nous, not nonce (“nonce” is a derogatory english term for child abusers).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    btw I assume you mean nous, not nonce (“nonce” is a derogatory english term for child abusers).
    Goddamn spell-checker fail. I bow to your superior knowledge of such things. Nonetheless, whatever formal educational qualifications of Mr Jones, as impressive as they may be, he is a tosser, both literally and figuratively.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    “I’m not the biggest fan of Mr Jones, but the guy went to Harvard on a Harkness fellowship. He’s a seriously smart guy, that’s beyond doubt.

    btw I assume you mean nous, not nonce (“nonce” is a derogatory english term for child abusers).”

    The Harkness fellowship is not an academic one provided for smartness but talks about promoting “leaders” and other soft nonsense – it also explicitly states it is not aimed at academics (I paraphrase). So, not really a measure of academic smarts. I also am aware of a number of business people who basically pay to get short courses out of Harvard mainly for the kudos and those courses are not really comparable with the otherwise very high standard at Harvard. A number of the top universities do similar but try and keep it under the radar so as not to dilute the brand.

    In general usage nonce is more of a generic insult for being an idiot (wanker or tosser come to mind as synonyms) or homosexual though in prison it always meant a paedophile locked away for their own safety. I think the original meaning was hijacked especially by Cockneys.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    I think people forget – Grant Robertson is a lazy student politics schemer. He was the worst Health opposition health spokesperson in recent memory – he had environment too, and was utterly hopeless. He had something else, but I can’t even remember. I was amazed when they said he had health. He made Ruth Dyson look excellent in Health.

    Cunliffe delivered a budget in 2011 that had a 10-15 billion dollar hole in it. They said they would replace the revenue they would relinquish from not adopting the mixed asset model through capital gains. Well to start with that was 4 billion. Then it turned out that was on the basis of capital gains at income tax rates, which halves that. Then it turned out that their costings assumed taxes on accumulated, not realised capital gains – so that halved it again. Then it turned out it was to be realised over 15 years against a minimum 10billion dollar deficit in the next year. Finally, at the time in 2011, there was good reasons to believe due to National’s 2010 tax switch that there wouldn’t even be more then nominal capital gains for a time. You cannot trust that pompous bullshitter with anything resembling a piggybank. Cullen is correct to despise the idiot.

    These people didn’t have anyone at all in govt, not one individual, dealing with student loans, as Mr English found out in 2010, which was a ten billion dollar asset at the time. He had to write off over a billion dollars in loans due to the Labour parties pathetic, stupid, pathological incompetence.

    People forget – they delivered 5 billion in housing stock that was too small, in the wrong place, without insulation, rotting, and uninhabitable. 5 fucking goddamn billion dollars. That was just managing the govts own housing stock for low income state tenants. It’s taken National until recently just to insulate all those houses that were rotten and uninhabitable. And these muppets want to repeat the same overwhelming incompetence on a truly monumental scale, building their imagination houses that will cost a penny and have a nice back garden. ACC was in such a bad mess in 2008 that there was a serious working group that considered scrapping it as the only viable option. They took the proudest realisation of state monopoly publically funded community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement etc etc left oriented principles, and almost fucked it to the point of it being utterly non-viable. They had no idea about finance, so delivered Mr English a broken non-banking finance sector. They are completely, utterly bereft of any new ideas, and kind of substantive policy – there’s a reason their most energetic efforts in opposition have been around, of all things, voluntary student union membership!

    I think we often forget just how hopeless, incompetent, and actually criminal this bunch of idiot student politicians are, and just how much of an awful tragedy it would be for people if they got back in. They hurt the most vulnerable people through their stupid policies and never never land schemes. Keep that at the top of your minds. If you feel strongly about your country, don’t forget how much it needs Labour to stay out of government.

    I hope Shane Jones can pull a swifty on the young Mr Robertson and the other Goose. At least Jones has some notion of reality beyond fantasy land, where the GCSB and student unions are the biggest issues in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Is it possible to get a breakdown on the costings of this sham, not missing the outside leeching costs of Soper, Vance, Espiner, and any despicable losers following these plonkers on their taxpayer-funded junket?

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

    So, I take it none of you will be voting Labour then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson I have time for Phil Twyford, a little bit – he got shafted by Labour many many times around keeping Helen’s mates in when he was clearly a better performer. I’m glad he’s doing all right now. Rick Barker is not a bad bloke for what he stands for. Michael Cullen was the glue that held Labour together. Helen Clark was and is hopeless. She had a good public brand, and was a good political manager, but I wish that she hadn’t poked her nose into Cullen’s portfolio. The UN deserves her mismanagement. To his credit, Cullen could actually craft an idea, create a plan, and execute it. I give him eternal credit for his well founded opinion of Cunliffe. It was Helen Clark who intervened in Cullen’s portfolio who really created that Labour brand of magic. Only NZLabour however could turn the best 10 years the developed world has ever seen, into a 20% increase in the non-tradeable sector of the economy, and a 15% decrease in the tradeable sector, alongside, amazingly, big reductions in after tax wages. The only reason no one really felt it was because of all the massive increases in borrowing to fund net transfers to households fuelled by debt. You Tom Jackson, you too could deliver surpluses and ‘low’ unemployment if you moved enough people from the dole onto the sickness benefit, used ACC to cover up awful health outcomes, grew the non-tradeables sector so much that it was the most decoupled from the productive sector of the economy it had ever been, and build 20,000 houses, that whilst not being able to be lived in, did need to get built by bad builders etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Liberty (267 comments) says:

    Tom

    “So, I take it none of you will be voting Labour then.”
    That’s like asking a turkey if he wants a early Christmas.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    Farrar’s analysis of the leadership contest leaves me wondering how Labour will recover. If the party and caucus is so divided, surely the fighting will go on as the loser(s) continue to undermine the winner.

    The notion that Cunliffe will sweep aside the old guard seems at odds with their ability to cling on. When you’ve got nothing to fall back on, protecting an MP’s salary is vital to your survival. They wont go quietly.

    Then there are the outrageous promises these clowns are making. Jones wants to reengage non voters, but their hollow promises will achieve the opposite.

    The rabble that Labour has become makes the Greens and NZF look disciplined.

    What does that say about the 30 odd percent that support Labour?

    Thanks up&comer for reminding us of Labour’s potential greatness

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