I think Helen assumed that Maharey would succeed had he not retired and on the basis that Cullen went as well. Whether the Party would've elected Maharey is another matter.
He’s clearly got a brain on him, and a lot of experience, and seems like a very good fast talker. I feel pretty stoked really. If he goes through with 70% of what he’s talking about there, I might even switch back to voting Labour, and if you’d asked me that yesterday I’d have said that was impossible.
Andrew is an impressive individual who will, as Mathew said, still have to grab this chance but he has to have the party's support and as Sacha said, Grant Robertson has been nothing short of emphatic in his position and support for Andrew. This is typical of Grant too. He's a entirely principled individual who realises the narrative has to change regardless of him not being leader.
Less than 24 hours after the result of our leadership election has been announced? I think it’s okay to keep on talking it over for a few days. If people are still talking about it say, when the New Year rolls around, then I’d be deeply worried. I’m hoping that the internal focus will shift by 2015, and preferably sooner.
Point well made. I guess I was just slightly disappointed that the moment, and I do mean moment, the announcement was made I was reading criticism of the process like it was somehow new or a surprise which it most certainly wasn't.
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.
Ditto Andrew, sort of. Grant is a genuinely remarkable individual who I'd also have liked to be leader. However, Andrew certainly has many similar qualities that could well make him very successful.
However, it troubles me that so many people in Labour are still talking about Labour, and in ways that play directly against unification, and still not talking about matters that impact on the electorate.
I'm sorry if this is something that's been said upthread that I've not acknowledged.
Robertson’s problem however is that he has hitched his leadership ambition to the the dead wood of the ABC clique.
It may be the other way around of course?
For Robertson to unify the caucus, he must have more supporters than detractors surely? And although Mallard, Goff and King aren't hugely popular here, they win their electorates and generally win the Party vote too. Trevor's lost some ground in Hutt South, but that's partly boundary changes and his relative decline is still a lot better than many others I suspect.
I want to see change in the caucus like others here but can I say that personal preferences might need to be balanced against individual performances at the polls and on that count, the three you've mentioned aren't so poor (by contrast, Ross Robertson should have been excised in 2002).
.. if she wants it. The pressure is not fair if she isn’t ready, for the good of the Party. Think about it.
I've got no great read on Jacinda. She does do well in Akl Central but can't yet win it, that's risky?
Exactly. And the complacent warriors of the soft left wonder why we’re concerned.
Treasure what you’ve got in NZ.
Agreed, the Australian electoral experience specifies how far boosters must stay away from polling booths, but they're free to hand out 'how to vote' cards outside that modest distance and frequently have to be asked to back off.
National will probably win a third term this month, but there is a huge taint in all this. There is simply too much here for it all to just melt away -- and it won't, if for no other reason than that we need to find ways for what has already been revealed to not happen again.
Isn't it a bit early to call the election? I see the polls this morning and appreciate why, but there's almost three weeks left in which a lot can happen. Regardless, post-election, I entirely agree with you that this shit has to be cleaned up as a matter or urgency. That said, I can't quite imagine what changes - rules and regulations in the Cabinet Manual presumably - could mitigate against this kind of maladministration when the PM can simply refuse to see it.
Yes, in the latest dump. An error of judgment indeed. If true. Which is something we need to keep in mind.
For mine, Ms Pagani's history was sufficient to not prefer her relative to many other longstanding members.. This just helps me rationalise my prejudice.
I think the Paganis may be regular hunting partners of the Lusk/Williams nexus. Also Nash. Obviously people can be mates with whomever but really
I can't generate that level of equanimity.
FWIW, I find Hooton a more credible in all this, 'cause I know what he believes... Then again, I was surprised by Mora's/RNZ's subtle bias so perhaps I'm up for the Pollyanna award?