Labour leadership

**Ocean1** · 2nd October 2014, 11:51

Originally Posted by Oscar

You'd have to get them all to agree.

Good luck with that...

No more difficult than getting the three conflicting ideologies within the Labour Party to agree on something Shirley.

**oldrider** · 2nd October 2014, 21:41

Originally Posted by Oscar

You'd have to get them all to agree.

Good luck with that...

Originally Posted by Ocean1

No more difficult than getting the three conflicting ideologies within the Labour Party to agree on something Shirley.

Well it would show the Labour party and the electorate just how irrelevant Labour is and help them to disappear altogether!

That would have to be a worthwhile exercise! ... Wonder if the MMP rules allow that?

**Motu** · 2nd October 2014, 21:46

So you would like there to be just one party in New Zealand, and the only option being National? And ACT, so it will still be a democracy.

**Ocean1** · 2nd October 2014, 23:18

Originally Posted by Motu

So you would like there to be just one party in New Zealand, and the only option being National? And ACT, so it will still be a democracy.

Well at least you'd have a pair about evenly split either side of centre rather than a herd of socialist wannabes all fighting over how much of our money they'll spend where.

**Banditbandit** · 3rd October 2014, 08:16

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Well at least you'd have a pair about evenly split either side of centre rather than a herd of socialist wannabes all fighting over how much of our money they'll spend where.

All Governments argue about that ..

**oldrider** · 3rd October 2014, 08:41

Originally Posted by Motu

So you would like there to be just one party in New Zealand, and the only option being National? And ACT, so it will still be a democracy.

Lost me ... I really don't know how you came to that conclusion!

**Winston001** · 3rd October 2014, 09:48

Originally Posted by Motu

So you would like there to be just one party in New Zealand, and the only option being National? And ACT, so it will still be a democracy.

Can't see that happening in New Zealand because we waste a lot of time and energy arguing among ourselves and seldom agree as a nation. What would be interesting to see is a Grand Coalition where Labour and National join to govern, taking the best from each party's policies.

Anyway just for interest, there are democracies where a dominant party holds the government benches for decades. There are other parties who sometimes join in coalition or stay in opposition but one main party gets the greatest support. In Washington DC the local state government has been held by the Democrats since 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominan..._system#Europe

**Swoop** · 21st October 2014, 18:57

Gotta love Bob Jones' point of view!

Bob Jones: Labour's choice - nutters or normal.

There’s just one obvious candidate for the next party leader, but will the zealots be allowed to queer the pitch?
Currently Labour's best chance of victory in 2017 lies in National's total demise through their MPs all dying of laughter at Labour's leadership woes.

Seeking a fifth leader in six years has to be a world record for any democracy's main party. It counts, as the evidence is plain in democracies worldwide, that for all the talk of policies, a hugely decisive factor in electoral success lies in the competing leaders' respective imagery. Labour's leadership problems singularly emanate from their apeing their British counterpart and foolishly taking leader selection from those who know best, namely caucus, and placing it with the outside party membership factions.

Well, who belongs to centre-left political parties nowadays?

Nutters, agenda-driven zealots and diverse social misfits, all utterly ill-suited to judge normal people's sensitivities. By contrast, most MPs have their feet on the ground and are in tune with the public mood.

Thus today, the British Labour Party is hamstrung by an odd-looking, unpopular and widely ridiculed leader, just as occurred here with David Cunliffe. Why was Cunliffe so universally disliked, as indeed has now been openly reported by some frustrated Labour candidates?

Certainly everyone I discussed him with across the political divide expressed their disdain, yet many when pressed couldn't proffer reasons. They just didn't like him. He reminds me of the famous rhyme coined over three centuries ago in England, by a scholar angered at his tutor.

I do not like thee, Dr Fell,
the reason why I cannot tell,
but this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Dr Fell.

When such an antagonistic sentiment is rife, policies become irrelevant and appearances all-important. And in that appearance respect Cunliffe, with a face resembling a turtle's, certainly drew a loser's hand. I can only assume he must have been a terribly wicked bugger in a previous life to be so punished in this one, not that I've any disrespect towards turtles, but they're best left in the wilderness, as Labour has now discovered.

To a lesser extent the same consideration disqualifies Harry Potter clone David Parker. He has the whiff of a train-spotting Boy Scout in his visage and will never be viewed by voters as Prime Minister material. So too Andrew Little, a decent bloke and more normal looking, to be sure, but with a wooden demeanour unlikely to attract public warmth.

His union background is a handicap in the contemporary world, middle New Zealand voters, whom Labour must win over, having a decided antipathy towards unionism.

The obvious choice is Grant Robertson who is by far the best debater, emanates warmth and - unusual for Labour leaders - looks normal, hand-in-hand with his deputy of choice, the photogenic and industrious Jacinda Ardern.

If Labour again reject the obvious candidate, which given their out-of-touch-with-the-public-sentiment character, they probably will, then I'm going to accord credibility to Dr Mujahid Kamran, vice-chancellor of Pakistan's largest university. In a recent book, Kamran claimed that absolutely everything happening everywhere is in fact CIA-controlled on behalf of international banking cabals. Nine-11 and al-Qaeda were CIA instigated, he insists.

A Massey University graduate, I imagine you're thinking, but surprisingly not so, Kamran having earned his doctorate in physics from Edinburgh University.

Presumably, therefore, Labour's leadership selection madness is all at the cunning string-pulling instigation of the CIA, to ensure their puppet Key keeps up the good work on behalf of his international banking paymasters. Then again, Labour's zealots knew that all along, at least judging by their hardcore lunatic blogging zealots.

The best that can be said about this state of affairs is that it provides wonderful spectator entertainment, even though it's at the price of a robust democracy. Still, like all troubles, time will sort it out.

**oldrider** · 21st October 2014, 22:13

Labours continual American style leadership fiasco is simply non stop electioneering long after the election is over ... is that behaviour actually legal?

**Swoop** · 22nd October 2014, 18:43

Originally Posted by oldrider

Labours continual American style leadership fiasco is simply non stop electioneering long after the election is over ... is that behaviour actually legal?

Surely this is the beginning of the next election campaign?

Interestingly, even Parker knows the Labourite-sect is madness personified.
"Like a cult and too red" - Parker on Labour
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11346117

**admenk** · 22nd October 2014, 18:47

Originally Posted by Swoop

Surely this is the beginning of the next election campaign?

I can hardly wait

**oldrider** · 22nd October 2014, 19:10

Originally Posted by Swoop

Surely this is the beginning of the next election campaign?

Interestingly, even Parker knows the Labourite-sect is madness personified.
"Like a cult and too red" - Parker on Labour
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11346117

[Quote] from that clip:[Quote]

Savage success
Its best election result was in 1938 when it won 55.8 per cent of the vote and secured 53 of Parliament's 80 seats under the leadership of Michael Joseph Savage.

Noteworthy is the fact that Savage was a monetary reformer and Labour needed the 10% reformer vote to get into office so they were lobbied to join Labour!

Labour made M.J. Savage leader and posted the other reformers into posts that rendered them useless and never followed through with all their policies promised.

Walter Nash became the Minister of finance and continued to drive orthodox monetary practices of tax and borrow themselves out of favour.

Labour have only ever proved themselves to be untrustworthy and that given the chance they will shit on you every time! ... Nothing has changed with Labour!