Stuff reports on the National Party's Epsom candidate selection last night. Author and former Auckland City councillor Paul Goldsmith was chosen to contest the electorate, although Goldfinch has suggested that he will be campaigning for Party Votes.
That has led to an expression of derision from Grant Robertson - read on:
Labour's campaign spokesman Grant Robertson said the selection of Goldsmith was "a laughable stitch-up".
"The people of Epsom deserve better than a faux battle between the biographer and his subject," he said.
"It's becoming hard to see where the National Party ends and ACT starts."
Labour would choose its candidate on Friday in the same blue seat and would offer a real choice.
Grant Robertson may refer to "a faux battle", but his utterings are very much of the faux outrage variety. After all, it was only 20 September 2010 when we blogged this:
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Labour's head office and leader's office engineered the Mana selection, against the will of Labour Party members in the electorate. We will treat any future protestations by the Labour Party over perceived abuses of the democratic process with the contempt that they deserve.
That's right; turn your mind back less than one year. There was a candidate selection for a by-election in Mana. Josie Pagani was the preferred candidate of the Local Electorate Committee, but the Goffice trucked in Labour Party staffers and union members to ensure that Goff's former press secretary Kris Fa'afoi won the nomination. That WAS a stitch-up!
Grant Robertson can bleat all he likes about stitch-ups in electorates where Labour has no chance whatsoever of winning. His own party is just as bad, and its cavalier treatment of the Mana LEC almost led to Labour losing one of its safest seats, a defeat which would have been without parallel in recent history.
We realise that rewriting history is Labour's default setting. But the Mana candidate selection wrangle is barely even history yet, having taken place only 10 months ago. All we can say to Grant Robertson is this; pot; meet kettle!
21 comments:
You draw a very very very long bow.
Also, I doubt Grant Robertson cares what you think.
It's nice you care what he thinks however.
What about this? Do you care that there is money enough for this but assets need to be sold to do it?
Brownlee's mates... stitched up or cashed up?
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/1000-day-quake-panel-members-4312408
Wonder if it's tax free...
I'm kindly letting you know INV2 the more you ignore the shocking behaviour of your beloved government, the less what you have to say matters to anyone who has credibility.
Grant Robertson is touted as a potential Labour leader in years to come. If he wants to live up to that potential, he's going to have to improve his memor
What else do you expect - he has the same disease as Clark, Goff, King etc - therefore a natural for a Labour leadership role.
"It's becoming hard to see where the National Party ends ACT starts"
Becoming!
The man must have been asleep for the past 3 years!
Brash - Leader of the NACT Party. What could be clearer?
There must be some fascinating moments of theater when the swindling Labour faithful gather and start wondering just who is still singing the "Red Flag' and who is waving the white one.
I mistyped dwindling but it still reads as accurate,
Weak post. Disappointing really.
(And I'm a National voter).
I get the feeling the right leaning blogosphere are falling into the same bad habits the left did at the end of Labour's last days in power.
They cannot see the wood for the trees and won't hold their party to account for what is, in all essence, a well below par 2.5 years thus far.
I'd hate to see National supporters blindly accept the poor economic and social performance of the government for the sake of some cheap shots at a reasonably weak opposition. I voted National because I thought they'd manage the economy better. They're not, unfortunately, and it would appear there's a quite sycophantic element who is not prepared to halt this slide by getting tough with their own.
I don't come online often, and the general tone from what I've seen is not grounded in the reality out in the communities of New Zealand. Politics is not about 3 year cycles. It's about generations of citizens.
Thanks,
M.L. Bailey.
@ ML Bailey - I appreciate your comments, and the spirit in which they are given. I would defend this post though; the hypocrisy of a front-bench Labour MP criticising National's candidate selection process when his own party was just as dodgy in that regard was worthy of comment IMHO.
@ Rich and Kind - I doubt that GR cares what I say either. But on this issue, he ought to have remained silent as Labour aren't the babes in the wood he would have us believe.
M.L.Bailey - it's so refreshing to have a new voice here to bring some balance to the commentary. Don't be put off by the sense of unreality you feel when you're at keeping Stock - it is possible to retain your equilibrium, so long as you regard the most disconnected of the commentators as an amusement. Pdm's my fave, though jabba can wring a chortle from me almost every time he comments. I2 is I2, you'll soon learn what that means. Kia kaha new chum, stick with it and don't give up on John Key just yet. These guys certainly won't!
@ ML Bailey - meet Robert; contrary to the way he writes and conducts himself here, he's NOT actually the blog owner. He just likes to be difficult!
Anyway, don't be deterred; you're welcome here any time.
Inv2 - when you say here (Flappy-feet's blog, several days ago):
"@ Roflcopter; better still, spam this hash-tag – #Labourishistory – The VRWC wants to see this one topping the trend list! Labour is trying to fight the election on social media sites because the party is broke, so we’ll stuff them at their own game :-)"
do you mean SPAM or did you mis-type?
Why I ask is because it seems you are inciting Kiwiblog readers to SPAM a social media site, or does it means something else? I ask because it seems wrong to encourage spamming, as described by Ol' Flappy Feet himself and I know how much you model yourself on him.
Keen to hear what you have to say.
Minor technical points.
Party staffers have no vote in by-elections. To vote in them you have to live within the electorate boundaries except for the New Zealand Council Reps vote. If any party staffers voted they were local electorate members. Most likely Winnie Laban's office staff actually.
The union members who voted via their affiliate status would also all be from within the electorate so they were not exactly "trucked in" they already lived there.
Also Grant's comments were not about the voting system but that National was deliberately running candidates to lose.
*by-elections = selections
@ Rob Carr, your evidence is?
I see Kiwiblog is saying Parker is to be the Labour candidate in Epsom
@ Anon - if the rumours are true (and WO is also running them, and has had a VERY good success rate of late), one would have to ask why Labour is putting up Parker, the man who LOST his electorate in 2005 and couldn't regain it three years later in a seat that Labour has never won, and never will. It wouldn't be a good look for a potential Labour leader to come third in an electorate contest.
@ Rob Carr; of course Labour has never done anything to help Jim Anderton turn Wigram into a Jim's Progressive Party fortress have they? Then Jim retires, and what happens; the JPP support suddenly goes red again. Pots and kettles mate; it's the reality of MMP.
If Labour so opposes what National has done, the party should advise its supporters to reject MMP!
Lastly, @ Robert. Repeat your comment on the post where we have already had this exchange. I'll then respond, but in context rather than in isolation. Repeating stuff all over the blog is a bit like spamming ;)
I've lost interest Inv2.
Rob Carr's comment is interesting in that it elicited a 'confession' from you Inv2, where you accept (Good Lord!) that National is gaming in Epsom. That's low behaviour. I suppose now you'll bleat 'everyone else does it' and sail on with your head held high.
Some things never change.
Of course National is playing the system Robert. My "admission" of that came in the initial blog post where I referred to Goldsmith campaigning for the party vote.
This, of course, is the legacy of MMP. And you're quite right; everyone does it, including your beloved Green Party. How else other than "gaming" can you explain the decision to stand Mike Ward and Cath Delahunty aside from the list positions their peers had given them so that Russel Norman could enter Parliament in 2008, and campaign with all the benefits that MP's enjoy. How else do you explain Labour not standing candidates against Jim Anderton? How else do you explain Louisa Wall's return to Parliament this year when 5 MP's ranked above her on the list were encouraged by Andrew Little and Phil Goff to make way?
Maybe the Vote for Change people are right; maybe MMP is stuffed!
And let's not even mention the waka-jumping of Alamein Kopu!
You did bleat!
I despair of you Little Happy Foot.
Almost Robert; similar shape, but more hair! I note though that you can't argue against any of the quoted examples.
Post a Comment