What’s wrong with a Union?
Nothing at all. But their inordinate effect on the leadership vote is. As I said earlier, the vote should've just been made by the caucus.
It’s not credible to stand a leader who does that badly in his own electorate, especially one who also failed to win a majority of caucus and party membership votes in becoming leader. I presume they start looking for a very safe Labour seat for him now.
He'll be parachuted into Island Bay or Mt Roskill or one of the other ones currently held by someone that ought to have retired as an MP by now and is preventing young blood entering the party.
Wow, he’s talking UBI. Now I officially actually like him.
What's "UBI" please ?
Well yes, *most* people in Ilam had fairly minor quake damage. Fletchers were pretty quick (at least for those I know) to turn up and pull down chimneys, fill cracks, repaint walls and provide signoff. I’m sure they made lots of money doing this and left a majority of voters happy.While they were doing this, of course, they weren’t helping the minority with uninhabitable houses.
Maybe, but as I said, my friend stood in the 2002 election, some years before the quakes. So obviously he was talking about his abilities as an MP in that era, not post-quakes.
I appreciate that Brownlee's been criticised for his alleged failings post-quake, but that doesn't negate the fact that he was seen as an effective, hard-working MP beforehand.
At best, Brownlee came across as an entitled jerk.
He does. However, I don't thionkl he's a total mug. A mate of mine stood for Labour against Brownlee in Ilam in the 2002 election. I asked him what he thought of Brownlee and he said "he is a very effective MP".
Obviously he didn't share Brownlee's politics, but he was decent enough to appreciate that at a local, electorate level, Brownlee worked hard for his constituents.
If you are not happy with the result, there’s the door bozo.
Really ? That sort of shoddy personal insult, as opposed to commenting on the actual facts, says a lot more about you than it does me.
Gawd, I hope that Tony Blair isn’t meant to be our saviour, though. It’s bad enough that our right wing PM wants to join the War On X.
Well no, of course not. I was specifically referring to his initial popular appeal to voters and uniting the British Labour Party, not his evenrtual, shoddy legacy as a war apologist.
An utter balls-up by Labour. Grant Robertson hosed in in both the caucus and party membership votes.
It should've just been solely on who caucus voted for, simple as that. Instead, Labour remains deeply divided and backing a leader that doesn't have the wide confidence of his caucus or party membership.
Labour will remain unelectable while this form of leadership voting process remains.
Andrew Little is undoubtably a decent, good, well-meaning man. But like, Cunliffe, Shearer and Goff, he has - no pun intended - little public appeal. He can't even win New Plymouth against a National backbencher.
The British Labour Party were hampered by the same leadership voting process in the '80s to mid-'90s and they too suffered having a donkey imposed upon them by the unions, contrary to the wishes of caucus.
It wasn't until that changed to a caucus-only vote that they gained a strong, popular leader and thus government. It beggars belief that the NZ Labour Party haven't learnt from the mistakes of their British cousins.
The Labour Party is its own worst enemy these days. I wish it wasn't, but it really needs to chuck out this voting process for its own good, both short and long term.
Best. Junket. Ever.
And with that, I’m off. By the time of next week’s Friday Music I’ll be in London.
What's happening over there ?