In a new system of democracy the Labour caucus is having a supposedly secret vote on leadership in February. If forty percent or more of caucus support a leadership vote then the whole membership gets to vote for their party leader – if more than one MP puts themselves forward.
But there are indications this is sham democracy. The party conference last year initiated a more democratic leadership selection process, but it looks like the current leadership is openly abusing this.
The ‘Te Reo Putake’ pseudonym is being used as a caucus voice at The Standard. It has stated in a post comment…
The issue is settled, CV. The conference votes to dramatically change the process, but as caucus is the trigger for a wider vote and caucus is not going to make that happen, Shearer will be leading the party to some sort of a victory in a couple of years.
That implies that caucus is already whipped on what is supposed to be a secret ballot and will not give membership a chance to have it’s vote and it’s say.
Just after the conference vote for more membership involvement in leadership selection David Shearer squashed his main presumed opponent, David Cunliffe, demoting him to the back bench and removing him from spokesperson roles.
Since then it sounds as if caucus has effectively been whipped in what is supposed to be a secret process.Lack of unequivocal caucus loyalty to current leadership has obvious potentially drastic consequences, as per the Cunliffe warning. Cunliffe was supposedly punished because he wouldn’t pledge total support for Shearer in February.
Te Reo Putake also stated…
The Feb vote will not only confirm the current leadership, it will confirm the strength of the democratisation process that was formalised at conference.
That’s an open and farcical snub of party democracy. It’s a pretty blatant “stuff you” to the rank and file who are trying to have more democratic say in their party.
This follows the post election leadership contest where party rank and file clearly favoured David Cunliffe as leader but caucus overrode the membership and installed David Shearer.
The LP and the Greens will be able to go into coalition knowing that they both have genuine support in their parties, expressed democratically.
The Labour leadership/Te Reo Putake are either totally ignorant of democratic processes or are brazenly trying to convince their members that their dictatorial actions are somehow something wonderful and that all is well in Labour.
The reason I say this post is irrelevant is because the voting public don’t read the Standard (more’s the pity). They will elect the next government despite the whingeing. Sorry to have to inject some reality into the proceedings, but that’s life.
Labour leadership either are convinced, or are trying to convince, that the voting public can’t see the crap and will vote for Labour/Greens.
But most don’t buy the bullshit.
Saarbo
8 January 2013 at 2:55 pmTRP,
Like many over the Christmas period, I have been speaking to people who I don’t normally speak to. I spoke to a number of people who voted for National in 2008 and 2011 but have now become disillusioned, reality has hit them…National are useless. These people are looking for alternatives.
As a Labour member it was sad to note that all of the people I spoke to, none saw Labour as the alternative party to vote for…the main reason is because people simply don’t trust the group that are leading Labour caucus. When I told people that I have become a member of The LP, I received a myriad of responses. None of the responses were positive. This surprised me as many of the people I spoke to were public servants. The perception of Labour is very negative, some of this is to do with a very slick PR campaign by National but also Shearers 2012 performance, the fact that the Greens continually trump Labour in the MSM on the big issues, and the Greens appear to be well run and with unity (this by comparison shows how badly Labour is being run).
You are also wrong about what most of the members are thinking, in our branch most of the members are not impressed with Shearer’s performance over 2012 and also unimpressed with the way Shearer has treated Cunliffe after the conference.
You talk about injecting some reality into the proceedings, quite frankly you have no idea about reality. I suspect TRP that you are operating on hope and optimism rather than reality. In my view as a relatively new member (but a long time Labour Supporter), your attitude is a symptom of what is wrong with Labour. The absolute arrogance by a small clique that Labour are going to walk into power in 2014. Well given my anecdotal evidence you (and the small elite clique leading Labour) are dreaming.
Labour leaders seem to think they have The Standard under control and isolated, and they have the next election in the bag (albeit needing Greens).
I suspect the disgruntlement is much more widespread, and the more the membership is treated with disdain and disgraceful abuse of party democracy the wider the despair will grow and damage the party.

lprent
/ January 9, 2013Te Reo Putake isn’t a “caucus voice”. He has absolutely nothing to do with either the caucus, parliament or indeed Wellington (I know exactly who he is). Your conspiracy theories are getting increasingly stranger and your usual fatuous bullshitting is falling over into outright lying.
Are you sure you’re been taking the meds?
BTW: I keep an eye out for people astro-turfing (you remember that surely – one of the first things I asked you) and especially from parliament.
Pete George
/ January 9, 2013Lynn your credibility is a bit strained here. And your claims about me are getting increasingly stranger. Accusing my of lying (what have I said that’s a lie?) is rank hypocrisy after the amount of deliberate political bullshit you have supported for so long at The Standard.
Why haven’t you challenged the suggestions of a number at commenters at The Standard that TRP is passing on Labour leadership PR? Not willing to be confronted by anyone there?
TRP has changed his tune markedly over the last two months. And his comments over the past week have raised a lot more eyebrows than mine, as if he has taken the baton from Mike.
Your sensitivity to my post is quite curious. There seems to be increasing touchiness in Labour circles at the moment. Is the message management machine getting to you too?
Pete George
/ January 9, 2013BTW I don’t remember what you first asked me, you tend not to ask, you are more likely to lecture.
BTW #2 I don’t know what this has to do with astroturfing. I’m sure even your amazing technical expertise is incapable of detecting whether someone in the Labour hierarchy has been suggesting to TRP (outside TS) what lines he should push and TRP has obliged. Can you rule that out?
There has been some very strange things going on with Labour commenters over the past few months at The Standard, with uncharacteristic changes in behaviour.
Pete George
/ January 9, 2013And an observation based on a lot of experience at The Standard – the closer one gets to the mark, especially something sensitive to Labour, the more hard out the personal attacks usually are, with no attempt to address any arguments.
Joe Bloggs
/ January 13, 2013Ironic that Lynn Prentice can attack the author of a post over here, yet no-one can do that on his hate-blog – the stench of hypocrisy is strong indeed.
As for lecturing you on your own site… what’s next for you, Pete? A four-week ban from yournz?
Pete George
/ January 13, 2013Haha, he probably would if he could, but no, he comes here whinging and then retreats to the safety of his own to get praised by the blog bitches he protects at TS. Special mention to the gutless Te Reo Putake, who is a representive of the Labour party (fact) and is the most active attacker of anyone they don’t want at The Standard. He’ll read this and probably whinge in safety, again. As he did in reaction to this post:
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10012013/#comment-572047
And he and the usual gang of goons are at it again today with their new target:
http://thestandard.org.nz/missing-the-point-minister-of-tourism-fail/#comment-573039
The usual pattern is they’ll harrass Brett until he gives up or lprent bans him. And they want some credibility as serious political commentators.