That’s setting a pretty low standard for leadership of a party, and a person who wants to be prime minister Craig.
No, it really isn't. I've been a member of the National Party for twenty years, including several years as an elected officer at electorate and regional Young Nats levels. I've also been a voting delegate at candidate selections, conferences where election of officers was contested the party presidency was contested. I was also peripherally involved in a full scale review of the party constitution. None of which always came out to my liking, but that's grown-up politics.
And we're really going to bring Dirty Politics into it? If you want to go there, Kyle, I'll ask whether that label is better applied to people who only respect the rules when they find it politically convenient to do so. I totally get why a lot of people around here would have been a lot happier if Cunliffe had resigned on Election Night and taken a vow of silence on the backbenches. You can question what levels of good judgement, if any, he'd shown since. I just find it disingenuously naive that anyone would believe any political leader would find being white-anted an acceptable position to be in if they had any other alternatives. Cunliffe does, whether you like it or not.
More unwanted headlines, of what benefit to the Party Mr Quin?
Maybe it's of considerable benefit to the public to get some insight into how The Party that would really like to be The Government one day operates.
first – you give me “but Cunliffe isn’t “forcing” anything ”
now it’s “Sure, he forced the issue ”
You're being spectacularly disingenous there, Sue, and while you're perfectly entitled to disagree with me you're NOT entitled to totally misrepresent me.
Now, could you please answer the question: Has Cunliffe behaved in a manner that's contrary to the Labour Party's own rules? Not "has he behaved in the manner you think he should" or "is this leadership contest happening at a time of your liking".
Again, as far as I'm aware he's perfectly entitled to test his mandate in the way it's happening. And I'd certainly argue that if you think the prospect of months of being white-anted is a tenable position for any political leader, I'd say you're rather naive at best.
Elections aren’t a waste of time. Democracy isn’t a waste of time.
And it's not anti-democratic or a "waste of time" for Cunliffe to test his mandate -- and in a way which obviously some people would rather didn't happen, but which is entirely lawful and legitimate under Labour's own rules.
I'm not sure what "male gene" is required to respect an organisation's own rules and democratic processes, Sue, even if you don't agree with them.
Caucus didn’t pass a vote of no confidence
No, instead members of his caucus have slagged him off publicly as an incompetent egomaniac who was so deep in denial after an electoral thumping he’d cheerfully burn the Labour Party to the ground? You can’t have it both ways, Sue.
Serious question – has Cunliffe behaved in a way contrary to the rules and constitution of the New Zealand Labour Party? Sure, he forced the issue – but I’m no more inclined to curse him for doing so than when John Major called his critics bluff in 1995. Unless I’ve really missed something, he’s perfectly entitled to test his mandate. And if I was a Labour man, I’d say that would be a lot less damaging than months on end of Cunliffe as a lame-duck leader getting white-anted Gillard-style.
But Why force this expensive process straight after an election?
Sure it makes great media entertainment & the best fun ever for national .
FFS, Sue. Unless I’m very much mistaken, this “expensive process” is the one laid down by the Labour Party in its own democratically-determined constitution and rules. The media don’t get a say in that. Neither does the frigging National Party.
I don't know why I'm saying this, but Cunliffe isn't "forcing" anything but acting entirely within the rules. Those rules might be inconvenient -- or downright embarrassing -- but it's hardly dirty politics, and nobody outside Labour itself is in any way responsible.
They couldn’t deselect Mallard – he had enough support in the LEC to withstand orders from above, and that’s no bad thing so long as party democracy means anything
Totally agree with you there -- and unless there's a very nasty surprise coming down in the next few days, Mallard (however narrowly) will be confirmed as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Hutt South at the return of the writ. In the end, that's the only poll that really counts.
I wonder now whether their votes for Cunliffe last round were trying to send the message to Labour that they wanted Goff/King et al gone.
I obviously can't speak to Labour's internal processes, but the best way to indicate you want a sitting MP on a substantial majority to get gone is to deselect them and dump their arses so far down the list they need a canary and a hurricane lamp. I don't think I'm talking out of school in saying, at least in National, even incumbent MPs need to be reselected. Most of the time, it's entirely pro forma but not always.
The ability to effectively engage with opposition, criticism and just general bullshit is a mandatory requirement for a successful MP and most definitely a quote/unquote would be Prime Minister.
And a mandatory requirement for successful "engagement" on the internet is you get out what you put in. Seriously, if someone is convinced you're a liar with a secret agenda what exactly do you engage with? I've learned the hard way that getting on that crazy-go-round ends up nowhere worthwhile for anyone.
Much as I appreciate the verbiage, your not being James Dann only further underlines my point. Find another Guest blogger in recent memory on your site who has after two posts completely declined to engage with the discussion on your site about their and I’ll concede your point.
I don't know how or why James should "engage" with anyone, here or elsewhere, who've pretty much called him a liar with a covert agenda who has acted in the very worse of bad faith. Russell is right, more fool me for looking but some of the shit thrown at James on The Standard is vile. "Tribal" in the very worse sense of the word.