Labour’s Party-Vote fell by 4938 votes in Robertson’s Wellington Central, compared to a decline of just 2954 votes in Little’s New Plymouth.
The difference being, of course, that the 3000 votes in New Plymouth went to National (which increased its party vote there by 3,457 from 2008-2014), whereas most of the "lost" Wellington Central votes went to the Greens (which increased by a little over 3000 votes, while National's party vote increased by just over 100).
It may not be one member, one vote – rather union solidarity – But it’s not some unelected executive providing a bloc of votes either.
Sure. I know the theory. But I've been in a union long enough to know the reality, too.
I agree with everything you’ve written.
This makes me deeply uncomfortable and causes me to wonder where I've gone wrong :->
We appear to be in some sort of weird dimension where you, I and David Farrar are all saying the same thing. Mark this moment as one for the ages … .
Oh. Now I see. If Little squeaks in it is bad. If one more caucus vote had had gone to Robertson then would have been Ok for Grant to squeak in but not Andrew.
Yes. Because I think Grant is a better person to lead Labour than Andrew Little. So of course any result that delivers him the leadership is "OK"!
But if Grant isn't going to win, then the next-best outcome would have been for whomsoever did win to do so by a strong majority in at least 2 of the 3 voting blocs. To lose quite heavily in 2, but be elected by the 3rd is (IMHO) a bad place to begin with. Especially as I think the way the affiliate vote works in practice is deeply problematic (being in a union myself and having some cynicism about the heirarchical influence involved).
These are just my reckons. Others will have others. But
It's bitcoin or nothing!!
I think the suggestion might rather be that you identify the source of your criticism a little more acutely.
As I happily acknowledge upfront, much of it is personal disappointment that a close friend didn't get the job I think he's made for. But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.
Now, maybe he'll go on to do great things. Maybe he really is the better guy for the job. None of us really knows. Alls I's sayin' is that in terms of all the possible process outcomes that the election could throw up, I think this one is the worst.
And that is what I think. Sorry if it is inconvenient, but sometimes these damn thoughts just have a mind of their own.
Funny that Russell, Andrew and others are so quick to voice the Key lines?
You're right. Sorry. I now see that 2 + 2 = 5, for the good of the Party.
The people who actually vote a party in (unions, communities) have said no to Grant Robertson and yes to Andrew Little.
You do realise that the affiliate vote is effectively determined by the executives of most unions, not the actual members who cast ballots at election time. So, yes … Little got the institutional support of the leaders of the organisations that provide Labour with cash and some foot soldiers. But it's a stretch to say that affiliated union members wanted Little over Robertson, much less that the members of unions not affiliated with Labour wanted this (they vote at elections too, you know!)
As for the claim that "communities" said "no" to Robertson - this is meaningless waffle.
And I’m concerned that the more you or Chris Trotter or Andrew Geddis throw around words like “disaster” and “tragedy” the more it plays into the hands of the Nats and their MSM acolytes.
You can be concerned if you like. But I hope you are not suggesting I (and others) don't say what I think just because it might be bad for Labour?
Or, at the least, if is what you are suggesting, can I at least be paid some money for my silence? I'll happily go down the you-know-who path of having/not having opinions for cash!!!
Guarding an ammunition dump enhances the ability of ISIS to carry out terrorist acts.
But was that the PURPOSE that the NZer had when carrying out the action? Because section 13 isn't entirely clear:
(1) Is it an objective test (if you participate with the purpose of doing anything that in practice results in ISIS (or similar) being better able to carry out terrorist acts, then guilty)?
(2) Or is it subjective (you must not only do something that in practice results in ISIS (or similar) being better able to carry out terrorist acts, but you must be doing so for the reason that you want to help in that way)?
And if there is a lack of clarity, then the benefit goes to the defendant, right? Or, at least, I'm sure that's what you'd be arguing if you were defending our putative Kiwi fighter on his return!