The Labour Party Leadership Contest

Thoughts on process and perception

Shane Jones, David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson on the hustings

For the first time in living memory a NZ political party has opened up the election of its Parliamentary leader to the wider constituency of its members and affiliates.

The decision has created consternation among the opinionistas employed by the NZ media as many of them have no real idea or understanding of democratic electoral processes. 

In fact, Paul Little, an opinionista employedby The Herald on Sunday, opined, from a position of abysmal ignorance, that the process was of little value as it acknowledged that the elected Leader was obliged to articulate and work to implement Labour Party policy developed and framed by the membership through its annual conference rather than the Leader dictating policy as of individual right.

The TV networks, not to be out done, deployed their cameras around the streets of South Auckland to solicit voting intentions and attitudes to the contenders from any one who could be stopped by a thrusting microphone and intruding camera with no regard to the fact that the only people who could vote for the Labour leadership were card carrying members of the Labour Party orthe affiliated Trade Unions. However, as the TV networks were looking for a story based not on leadership or policy but on the candidates' personal lives reality was to be sacrificed in the quest for salacious comments that could be used in a sound bite and could be construed by the opinionistas  to be a reflection of the Labour Party membership.

Then, in pursuit of "scientific data" the media commissioned "research companies" to conduct surveys of the public to "discover" the voting intentions of the Labour Party members. However, conveniently ignored by the opinionistas, the surveys did not canvass the intentions of the voting constituencies within the Labour Party which, of course, rendered any data and subsequent opinion of little value.

To further confusion about a very clearly written and laid out electoral process and to boost his ratings the TV3 opinionista, Patrick Gower, deliberately chose to construe an answer to an open ended question about perceived public attitudes to homosexuality as being an attack on Grant Robertson from David Cunliffe. Then, in the blogsphere, Chris Trotter wrote a piece based on an overheard conversation in a local bar between two unidentified and unnamed "activists" that accused the parliamentary wing of the Labour Party of trying to hi-jack the election  by circumventing the process in some undefined manner. However, as neither the drunken conversationialists or the eavesdropping Trotter had bothered to refer to the Labour Party constitution or the readily available election process being followed one must conclude that, like Gower's attempt on TV3, Trotter was engaging in an exercise in ego boosting political mischief making in order to "secure" his reputation as the "prime opinionista of the Left." 

For the Party membership the choice of Leader has been difficult as they have been faced with choosing between three very articulate and informed candidates. Each one presenting the Party policy in different ways. Shane Jones in his blokey, rough hewn manner. Grant Robinson in his Norman Kirk inspired and acid humour laced manner and David Cunliffe with a presidential style, politically aggressive and articulate manner.

For the members these contrasting styles and candidates has called for earnest, well informed consideration and debate uninfluenced by direct lobbying by the contenders or their supporters. 

While the media, like the English Rugby Football Union in the 1990s which was asking itself - "Who can defeat Jonah Lomu?" rather than "how can we organise to defeat the All Blacks?",  has directed itself to the simplistic question of "Which man can defeat John Key?" the membership, recognising the fact that when John Key declared, on coming to office, that the economy was on the edge of a precipice took a giant leap forward and who, when wrestling with his conscience, can only secure a draw, has been debating far more fundamental issues - like:

Which man can articulate the Labour Party policy clearly, succinctly and positively in such a way that there can be no misinterpretation, no misconstruing of principle by opinionistas or self serving bloggers.

Which man can connect to the voting public through the radio talk back, TV and print media in such a way that their statements cannot be manipulated to meanother than what was said and, more importantly.

Which man will be able to organise and focus the Labour Party in Parliament and at large to recaptureand develop  its organisational skills and systems to defeat the National-ACT party in the electorates and for the Party vote for these are the real factors that will impact on the Labour Party as a political force in an MMP parliament.

For me, the decision was based on the evidence of solid Labour Party policy articulation, of obvious organisational skills and campaigning ability as well as a desire to get on with taking the fight to preserve New Zealand's society, New Zealand's education and welfare systems and New Zealand's economy from the asset strippers and from ideologically flawed policies imported from the play books of discredited theorists and incompetent right wing administrations either from the USA or the UK rather than the interpretations of the opinionistas whose knowledge of constitutions and democracy are always shaky if not shonkey.

Has John Key lost his mojo?

Has PinoKeyo lost his mojo?

Key's distortions and misinformation over his badly drafted spy on NZers GCSB bill has added to his loss of Mojo.

Despite the razamattaz at the Rutherford Hotel over the weekend of the National Party Conference there were back room deals being made as the two major groups jockeying to unseat Key attempted to make sense of secret private polls taken to assess Key’s recent performance in The House and in front of the TV cameras and its impact on the credibility of the National-ACT government.

Our informant, C.L.Dodgson, revealed that the ABK group around Joyce and the ABC group around Collins (heavily and openly critical of Key and the Henry enquiry ) have had very similar poll results. Both indicating that Key is losing his mojo and credibility with the NZ public across the political spectrum.

Both camps are apparently cock a hoop with the results as they continue with their clandestine feuding and plotting to gain advantage when the opportunity arises to push the Crosby-Textor created “great manipulator” off and send him back to his residence in Hawaii.

The pollsters used by both camps were rumoured to have asked respondents to free associate all words they’d use to describe Key’s performance this year. When the results were presented to the ABK and ABC camps there was gob-smacked astonishment at the strongly negative word associations connected to brand Key.

Key's cold dead eyes have begun to lose their hypnotising powers.

Contrary to the perceived wisdom that Key is invulnerably popular with the public the pollsters apparently discovered a strong negative reaction to Key and his performance in The House and in public.

Our informant said that the common words to describe or be associated with Key by respondents across the political spectrum, were: slippery, devious, untruthful, insincere, arrogant, inefficient, bumbling, corrupt, doesn’t tell the truth- he only deals in half truths, indifferent, out of touch, disingenuous, false, hypocrite....... 

The shonkey deals over the SkyCity pokies for convention centre deal have added to Key's loss of mojo. Allegedly Poll respondents made frequent mention of this to the National-ACT pollsters.

Key's response to TV3 questioning and Alistar Thompson (Scoop) questions on the GCSB have further fueled the public disillusionment with Key. Much to delight of the ABC camp within the National_ACT party.

POST SCRIPT: The strategic National-ACT polling allegedly commissioned by the feuding camps within the party has been substantiated by the latest IPSOS-FAIRFAX political poll reported on the Stuff website (26.8.13) reports that John Key is not believed by the NZ voters. Extracts of reported comments about Key are, according to Vernon Small's story:

When respondents were probed for the reasons behind their views about Key some themes emerged, including that the pressure was getting to him, that he was coping - just - and that trust was slipping although he was doing well under pressure.
Typical negative comments included:
"I suspect the pressure he is under is making faults more obvious. I don't think there is a better opposition at this stage."
"Weak, always on the defence, and not very much on directions and purpose."
"The Tiwai smelter deal - John Key wants to keep that deal, which comes at a huge cost."
"Not as good as he has been, harder to trust him than it was. He doesn't appear as genuine as he once was." 

With growing reports of a growing disenchantment with the performance of Key we can obviously expect to see even more obvious jockeying for power as the dark closets within which the National-ACT party creates policy, decides who and which foreign corporates can buy influence and state assets and buys and sells its leadership begin to split open.

The response: Crosby-Textor push Key's panic button:
The decision,obviously made by Crosby-Textor advisers, that Key appear on the Campbell Live show to counter public suspicions about the GCSB legislation can be seen as an attempt to counter the polled perception of Key as being out of touch, arrogant and slippery. His performance, much praised by The Herald commentators, was a masterly demonstration of the aspects of his personality that the polling revealed was turning off the public - hectoring, ill informed, often providing false information and bland reassurances based on false analogy and incorrect interpretation. The suddenly announced, exclusive to the Herald, decision, by Key, to “clarify” his interpretation of the GCSB Bill and “Prime Ministerially” order the GCSB not to spy on New Zealanders unless it has the New Zealander’s permission and- of course- Key’s over riding authority to over-ride the necessity to obtain permission, was in response to the polling that revealed Key was not trusted to tell the truth on the issue.

While, too many of our readers, these may sound like the words one normally associates with the National Party - the ABC group around Collins, bouyed by her 11% popularity among the National Party supporters, have, apparently seized on these results and have begun an even more serious lobbying to gain ascendency over Joyce and his cronies as the internal feuding that has been long hidden in the closets of the National-ACT party begins to break into the open as the teflon, so carefully applied by Crosby-Textor to John PinoKeyo Key begins to flake off.

Sums it all up- Key is totally out of touch with NZ. There is no connect with Planet Key and reality.

GIVING THE LIE TO PINOKEYO'S ASSERTIONS ON CAMPBELL LIVE

So John PinoKeyo Key finally decided to front up to TV3 Campbell Live and attempt to persuade the NZ public that his treasured GCSB Bill wouldn't enable the agency to spy on NZers regardless. He tried likening the bill to providing a Norton Anti-Virus patch on a personal computer... an analogy so simplistically ridiculous as to make one collapse in incredulity that anyone even pretending to be a PM would make it.
Despite the cheerleaders around Key praising his "performance" when finally fronting up to a face to face interview with John Campbell closer analysis has demonstrated that Key was exposed as a vacillating (the cheerleaders call this pragmatism) and ill informed about the legal niceties of his hastily drafted GCSB bill which he created, and then fudged with Peter Dunne's "co-operation", in order to protect his (and, ultimately, Dunne's) own, very vunerable back.
This article from the Standard and the opinion piece by Rodney Harrison QC provide an in depth analysis that proves the Key was living up to his PinoKeyo nickname yet again. PinoKeyo should learn that democracies don't work on the dictatorial model he seems to favour.

Lazy Journalism or deliberate misreporting?

I was going to blog on the mischievious and inaccurate reporting on TV3 News last night but The Standard has provided an accurate report of the anti-Key inspired GCSB spy on your countrymen bill and exactly what happened when David Cunliffle responded to a question from the floor about Labour's policy on this attack on our civil liberties and freedom of association.

I am now waiting to see Duncan Garner twitter that he has been informed by his great confidiant, Cameron Slater (aka Whale blubber) that a leadership spill is in the offing because David Shearer and David Cunliffe were seen having coffee together and Shearer was seen to pour coffee that had slopped over his coffee cup into his saucer back into the cup. An obvious leadership spill according to Garner and company.

Such is the standard of journalistic responsibility in NZ I don't doubt that this will be repeated three times and become the Bellman's truth.

The difference between being principled and ethical and being PinoKeyo.

A contrast in principles and ethics was shown to New Zealand on Television last night. First, John PinoKeyo demonstrating his ability to perform a back flip to embrace Winston Peters as a potential partner to protect his sale of NZ to casinos, movie studios and asset strippers. Second, the first of a two part bio-documentary on the strongly principled and honorable ex Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

The report on The Standard analysing Key's inability to demonstrate being principled and ethical is relevant reading as we contemplate further erosion of our economy, civil liberties and loss of our state assets.

The constant brain fades of Key with the report and associated analysis stands in stark contrast to the Helen Clark bio-documentary on last night's TV3 in which we were shown a strongly principled, honorable and focused Member of Parliament and Prime Minister.