James Shaw new Green co-leader

Kia ora Peter

I’m James Shaw. I want you to be one of the first to know that I have just been elected as the new Green Party male Co-leader.

This is a huge privilege. I do not take it lightly.

You can help me get the word out about my election by sharing this facebook post.

The last few months have been amazing. It’s been great to get across the country and meet so many of you and hear about your ideas and passion for a better, cleaner future for our beautiful country.

It’s been an inspiring and tough contest, and I want to acknowledge the hard work, passion and vision of all the Co-leader contestants. It was a pleasure to campaign alongside them and I value and respect them all highly.

I’m looking forward to working with you, my fellow Green MPs, and all the people who care about the future of New Zealand.

I know this will be hard work, but it’s worth it – because we can change the system. We can win. And we have to, because our current system is broken.

We have an economy that encourages people and companies to extract as much short term wealth as they can, from the environment or from their workers, regardless of the damage they cause, because they don’t have to pay for it.

The Government is supposed to help those who need help the most, not those who need it the least.

With your help the Green Party will change that, we will lead the change to a system that is sustainable and looks after all our people.

Together we can do it – the campaign to put the Greens in Government in 2017 starts today.

I’m excited, I hope you are too.


James Shaw

Green Party Co-leader

PS – if you want to find out more about me and hear about my vision for the Green Party and New Zealand, you can watch my first speech as Green Party Co-leader live tomorrow, Sunday 31 May at 11.30am.

Hague or Shaw? Does it matter much?

The Greens choose their new co-leader this weekend. As predicted it has come down to a contest between the reliable and experienced Kevin Hague and the newbie with potential James Shaw.

I think either would probably do a good job as co-leader. It’s up to Green Party members to decide whether they want to play it safe-ish with Hague or take a punt with the green Green MP Shaw.

Will either make much difference to what the Greens can achieve? Maybe a bit. But they will only be co-leader alongside Metiria Turei, and they will be governed by the wishes of the membership on key things like which parties they would work with in Government.

Whoever gets the promotion the Greens will still have a major challenge – how to appeal to and get votes from the constituents they seem intent on representing, the poor and the oppressed.

The Greens are praised (or grudgingly admired) by many for their ideals, but rated by far fewer as being realistic, or of being able to deliver their utopia.

The new co-leader will somehow have to keep appeasing their membership on their utopian ideals while appearing to the wider voting population they can somehow be practical and successful.

Back bench benefits

It’s sometimes said that a big back bench can spell trouble for Governments – idle hands make trouble sort of thing. To an extent there’s probably some truth to that, if those who are idle are ambitious and impatient, or have been demoted and believe they deserve a better status again.

But there can be benefits in a back bench as well, especially when the back benchers are electorate MPs. It can help keep the party caucus in touch with the electorates. Cabinet ministers have very busy lives and can get isolated in their bubbles. Their bank bench colleagues can help maintain a link with electorate reality.

There’s been talk of a possible bank bench ‘revolt’ in National this week over proposed changes to workplace health and safety legislation.

Tracey Watkins comments in John Key’s rural New Zealand problem.

Amid the various claims circulating this week was the suggestion that Collins and Williamson were leading a back bench revolt over the legislation, which imposes stiff rules and punitive penalties for health and safety breaches. Collins’ arch denials left more than enough room to read between the lines.

Key’s announcement after Tuesday’s caucus that the health and safety legislation was on hold for another two months revealed the extent of disquiet in National’s ranks.

The row has been rumbling along quietly for months, but the bill’s imminent return to Parliament brought matters to a head.

“Leading a back bench revolt”, “disquiet in National’s ranks”, “the row has been rumbling along” etc. Is National about to fly apart?

Or is this a sign of healthy democracy in action?

From their positions on the back bench, Collins and Williamson are closer to the ear of the back bench MPs, who are wearing the backlash from their constituents and local board members.

For recent MPs, this will be a new new experience. For older ones, they will remember the last time they had to wear the backlash for a Cabinet decision  – that was over class sizes.

Cabinet was forced to execute a hasty u-turn.

For any MP whose future rests on the goodwill of voters, any backlash is a cause for panic.

The fear of the back benches is that measures like the health and safety bill will open up a new anti-PC or “political correctness” front in the battle for hearts and minds in rural New Zealand.

This is dripping with negative terms. Perhaps there are some negatives, or potential negatives.

But could also be a positive sign of healthy debate, of back benchers communicating with their constituents and giving useful their caucus colleagues.

And a caucus of fifty nine is always going to have differences of opinion and differences in desired approaches and outcomes.

National are lucky to have over half of their caucus in closer touch with their constituents, able to relay the wishes and concerns of their electorates into the core of the Government.

If there is strong concern and disagreement over the health and safety proposals then they should spend more time investigating, getting feedback and considering.

Good legislation should achieve a good balance. On contentious issues that can take time.

And the benefit of a big back bench is being able to listen to electorates and respond to what the people want.

This also shows the benefit of having electorate MPs – it ensures a wider and closer connection with a range of voters.

Parties with all list MPs – like the Greens – can become blind in their own bubbles, only having to communicate with people with similar interests and leanings to their own.

There’s benefits in having back bench electorate MPs that are more significant than giving journalists reasons to overstate the implications of debate and thrashing out a decent balance in any policies..

ABP/Labour policy suggestions

An interesting bunch of policy suggestions from  the ABP Branch of the Labour Party (Dunedin South) via Colonial Viper at The Standard:

With regards and credit to the ABP Branch of the Labour Party (Dunedin South):

1) A UBI for all NZers 18 and over set at 45% of the full time minimum wage.

2) Citizens Grant: at ages 21, 40 and 65 a one off ‘citizens grant’ of $10,000 is distributed to each person which they can use towards their education, setting up a small business, paying off a mortgage or their retirement plans.

3) Direct government creation of money. Each month, the Reserve Bank shall credit the Government’s operating bank account with a sum equivalent to 10% of the Crown’s tax take for that month as averaged over the previous 5 years. (Giving the government an additional ~$500M to spend per month without borrowing or taxation).

4) The minimum wage will auto-set every 3 years at 2/3 of the average wage.

5) A top income tax rate of 49% will be introduced at 10x the average wage.

6) The lowest income tax rate shall be reduced to 10%.

7) An FTT shall be introduced allowing regressive GST to be halved to 7.5%.

8) NZ jobs guarantee: minimum wage employment to be provided for each and every citizen who wants to work and who has been resident in the country for at least 12 months; citizens will have the option of full time or part time work as best suits them, but must perform to all normal employment standards.

9) MMP threshold to be halved to 2.5%.

10) Electoral MPs to be elected via STV> ranking.

11) All entities registered or resident in NZ shall incur an annual wealth tax of 0.25% on each dollar of financial assets (including property), held whether in NZ or overseas, over a NZ$1M threshold. (Across generations this tax will effectively act as an inheritance tax).

12) Compass to provide all meals on Parliament grounds: all existing food outlets on Parliament grounds are to be shut down and replaced with self-serve kiosks supplying Compass frozen meals flown in from Auckland daily.

Most of those are unrealistic ideological dream stuff even for the Labour Party.

Number 9 is ok (and could go further). Number 10 is worth considering.

Number 12 is funny (especially if you know about food proposals for Dunedin Hospital).

Williamson speaks, doesn’t deny ACT attempt

ACT leader David Seymour dumped Maurice Williamson into an embarrassing situation with his claims that Williamson approached ACT with a view to jumping from the National ship.

Seymour also implied that Williamson lied about it to John Key. See Williamson flayed, National frayed.

Yesterday Williamson responded, very briefly. Stuff reported:

National Party MP Maurice Williamson has broken his silence on claims he sought to desert National, saying

“I don’t want to join the ACT Party”.

It was the only comment he would make on the issue.

That statement fails to address the allegations.

Of course he won’t want to join the ACT Party – they say they have rejected his advances, and they have dumped on him big time.

But Williamson doesn’t deny approaching ACT, nor sounding them out. He doesn’t deny attempting to join ACT.

In politics this leaves the obvious assumption that Seymour’s claims were reasonably accurate. And that’s certainly how it’s being seen going by this discussion between Paul Henry and Patrick Gower.

Henry: Maurice Williamson, let’s just finish up talking about him. Is he in the naughty corner? What, what is, is John Key going to be forced to do something now it appears Maurice lied to John.

Gower: Ah, I think John Key will do nothing about Maurice, um, John Key will just ignore Maurice, and that’s probably how this whole thing started altogether. Maurice ah and Don Brash are essentially in the netherworld of failed right wing politicians.

Um they tried to get something going on with the ACT Party. ACT didn’t want a bar of it. In fact David Seymour went straight to the ninth floor and narked on them, went straight in, knocked on the door of the principle’s office, said John Key “are you going to do it”.

I don’t think anything will happen to Maurice. He’ll be left um to suffer quietly which he obviously doesn’t like doing.

Um but big ups to David Seymour. He took on um these old boys, these crazy old uncles of the right wing.

Went public and said “we don’t want a bar of you, no longer ACT might not be, ACT might be on political life support, we don’t need a couple of crazy old uncles um hogging hogging that life support, um I’m going to do it on my own”.

Big ups to David Seymour.

So Seymour and ACT get a bit of a boost from this.

It shouldn’t do National any harm, unless a now grumpier old back bencher causes trouble before being squeezed out of his electorate and out of Parliament by the end of this term – if Williamson waits around that long. National have proven to be quite effective at clearing out dead wood.

Williamson flayed, National frayed

Paul Henry interviewed Act leader David Seymour this morning about the alleged attempt by Maurice Williamson to jump from National to ACT.

As a result of clarifications Henry stated that Williamson has lied to John Key about having no contact, and Seymour didn’t dispute that assumption.

Williamson has been flayed by ACT (and Henry), and National looks more frayed around the edges.

This started with a ‘tidbit’ in Free Press 25/05/2015 ACT PARTY / NEWSLETTER:

Where’s Maurice Williamson Going?
Betting site iPredict has opened up stocks for a by-election in Pakuranga, and for incumbent Williamson to be the candidate by 2017.  The interesting thing is the opening odds, respectively 30 and 25 percent likely.  iPredict’s operators, who have deep political connections, set these odds.  Something’s up.

ACT’s Board has unanimously rejected an approach by the hapless Don Brash (no joking, this is too good for us to have made up) for Williamson to join ACT’s caucus.  “My own party don’t want me no more” is not an attractive pitch. For similar reasons, what poor country would accept him as ambassador?

Henry’s interview Is National MP Maurice Williamson a waka-jumper?

The transcript:

Henry: Ok the reason we all know about this is that you went public in a newsletter and said that this approach through Don Brash had come to the party and the party said no.

Seymour: Well that’s right we put a tidbit at the end of our newsletter, um and a lot of people seem to have found it very interesting.

Henry: Well because it makes a fool of Maurice Williamson. Was that your intention?

Seymour: Ah no not at all, but what I do know is that you can’t lead a party, try to rebuild a party, and offer a party that voters can confidently vote for, ah when you have this kind of back door swirling stuff going on, so ah we put it out in the open and made it clear this is not how we do politics, ah if we want to expand the ACT caucus and we certainly do, ah we’ll put it to the voters at a general election.

Henry: What you’re doing is something quite unusual in politics, you’re taking the moral high ground, ah and and given the story to date you deserve the moral high ground. However the opposite is true of Maurice Williamson, or as for some reason I’m referring to him as ‘Maurice’ [sort of a French pronunciation]. Seems more appropriate for some reason.

Um for him it’s not the high ground. You must have known by going public with this, that people were going to point the finger at Maurice and say at the very least you are disloyal, this is about you party hopping and causing problems for the National Party.

Seymour: Well bear in mind we’ve just reported the facts of the case, which is that ah Don approached our president, ah and we said no, ah we’ve left it up to them to explain ah where they’re coming from.

They haven’t been prepared to do that, ah which was as we suspected, um but nonetheless I’d rather ah do things out in the open, ah than have innuendo and swirling rumours around the party.

Henry: All right, lets just establish one thing. You understand, and the president of ACT understand that Don Brash was acting for Maurice Williamson, with the clear knowledge the request actually of Maurice Williamson. Is that correct?

Seymour: Well, I’ve known Don for a long time and one thing I know about Don is he’s certainly a very sincere guy, ah so if I was to bet on the character of Don Brash, ah which is very very good, I can’t imagine ah that he woke up and fabricated it, but who knows? Ah Maurice seems to be saying the opposite.

Henry: I agree entirely with what you’re saying there, but did Don Brash make it clear to your um president that he was acting for Maurice Williamson?

Seymour: Yeah that that that’s the assumption for sure.

Henry: But that’s the assumption. Did he make it clear?

Seymour: As far as I’m aware he did, yes.

Henry: All right, in which Maurice Williamson is now lying to John Key.

Seymour: Well certainly, I mean the other thing is that you know ah John did follow up ah and ah call Maurice and had several texts, ah and of course he’s saying there’s been no contact. Um so but that’s look that’s that’s for them to work out, we’re just telling um…

Henry: Ok, hang on, just make sure I’ve got that right because this is an actual fact you’re dealing in now, you’re saying the the ACT president John Thompson has specifically spoken to Maurice Williamson about this.

Seymour: Well he did, he undertook, he said to Don “look Don, sounds a bit crazy to me but you know we’ll  give him a call um and John tried to do that, ah then several texts. Ah Maurice never properly returned his call, ah but certainly ah there was some contact.

Henry: Well did they talk to each other or not? Was there actual contact or not?

Seymour: Well what happened is that John called, ah Maurice Maurice said “I can’t talk now, I’ll get back”,  um they had a couple of texts back and forth ah and…

Henry: So there was contact.

Seymour: There was contact, that’s right.

Henry: Maurice Williamson is in fact lying to John Key.

Seymour: Well ah that’s up to up to Maurice to ah decide, um but we’re just reporting what’s happened with ACT and  saying  this is how we play, ah we’re not really interested in party hopping or waka jumping, that’s for others to say what their position is.

It looks like Seymour and ACT have really dumped Williamson into an inextricable position.

This must rule out any chance of Williamson getting back into the National  Cabinet – but for Williamson to approach ACT one could assume a return had already been ruled out by John Key, hence seeking some other party opportunity.

I can’t imagine Williamson being happy about this being out in the open. Nor Key.

If it’s true I don’t see how Williamson can continue being a National MP. Resigning from his Pakuranga electorate would seem to be the honourable thing to do. That would mean an interesting by-election.

If Williamson chooses not to budge then it could mean a very awkward two years for National as he may be less loyal and more difficult to deal with than National’s coalition partners.

This looks like more fraying around the edges of National’s third term.

And it indicates a bit of political ruthlessness from Seymour and ACT.

Woe is MickySavage

Anthony Robins has posted on the dismal news for Labour in Roy Morgan for May – 25.5% to National’s 54% and points out:

This poll was taken after Key’s ponytail harassment, clearly National have not suffered any damage from that fiasco. It was also before the budget, so the effects of that (positive or negative for National) have yet to be factored in.


Even allowing for the variability of the Roy Morgan I find this a very surprising poll, I don’t think anyone predicted it.

Anthony may not have noticed any predictions or reality, he has been too busy trying to attack John Key and National, but I don’t find this poll surprising at all.

Greg Presland adds:

RM bounces around. General confidence was up. More than anything else this one statistic is vital in determining how people are going to vote. They are willing to forgive all sorts of strange behaviour as long as their job looks secure.

Two major problems:

1. The right’s resources are way more than the left’s. Whether it be sycophantic media mouths placed in positions of power by corporates or Government appointees or campaign dollars progressives are missing out big time. And National’s resources are significant. All this flowing of resources to the top 1% is showing and they are not going to give up without a fight.

2. National is willing to sacrifice good public policy to retain power. Their micro management of issues is at one level inspiring but at another level terrifying.

It feels like progressives have one hand tied behind our back …

Another who has been too busy running negative attacks to notice reality.

Your hands aren’t tied Greg. You have become bogged down in negatives because you aren’t creating positives. You’ve tied yourself up in nots and seem to have forgotten progress is made by looking at whats.

The floggings will continue until moral improves.

When Greg and Anthony are enthusiastically promoting a credible Labour alternative then there could be some hope, but the nasty them, poor us, woe is us laments are why Labour is languishing, in part at least.

And they are still blind to it.

If you have a dead horse and all you can do is try and kill the other horse in the race then your chances of winning aren’t great.

Cullen analyses Labour’s challenges

Sir Michael Cullen discussed political strategy at the “Destination- Next Progressive Majority” seminars held recently by the Fabian Society in Auckland and Wellington.

It’s an interesting analysis – that highlights how far Labour is from recovery as a major political player. At best Cullen sees them as a combo with Greens and NZ First, and not a direct competitor with National.

Mike Smith has posted an interesting summary of Cullen’s speech (or you can listen to his whole speech here).

So many people on the left ignore that simple point – my view is that we get elected so that we can do some good things and shift the balance over time and win the debate over the direction of society.

Don’t get hung up about language of left and centre-left: we lost the vast majority of the population because they are not interested. We are interested in the left’s language because we are part of it and the distinctions are sometimes useful.

Even with the language of progressive and conservative we need to be careful because we need to attract the votes of people who consider themselves conservative.

In the modern world anything up to 50% of the population can be considered as swinging voters. We got 25% last time, National got 22% in 2002 and neither of us hit rock-bottom. To rephrase the obvious we have to persuade enough swinging voter to switch.

There are some facts we need to take into account.

First, John Key is a phenomenon – the modern-day Holyoake. We spent 12 years underestimating Holyoake to our cost – we’ve spent nine years underestimating Key. Every now and then we think the tide is turning but I see no evidence of that in the polling data. Key still has numbers which are stratospherically good by historic comparisons – we must recognise that, and the amount of time that we spend on attacking Key is largely a waste of time.

Don’t expect The Standard authors to heed that advice, they do little other than attack Key and National. Still.

Second, Labour is well behind on leadership and economic credibility – no-one has ever won government by being behind on both. Labour is the core of any progressive government so those things have to change one way or another.

Third in spite of false dawns, there is still a high level of confidence in the government  despite manifold problems with the excessively short-term focus.

What are the three things we have to do?

First establish emotional connection with swinging voters. In the Labour Party we are phenomenally bad at doing this – we see a swinging voter and whip out a manifesto. Secondly have credible policies that address the issues that voters care about – when we have identified the issues that voters care about we have to have answers that we believe in that they can believe in and are willing to vote for. Thirdly we have to develop an image and a reality of co-operative differentiation between the parties seeking a change in government.

Starting with co-operative differentiation. The parties are competitors. Excessive similarity will reduce the chances for a change of government. We can’t be identical twins or triplets – we have to maximise the total vote by maximising the vote each party can get. Labour’s vote is the key determinant but that creates tension – but we can also demonstrate that we can work together so there has to be some spoken or unspoken criteria as to how the parties can work together.

This is being done well – symbols are important – the key moment in Labour’s win in 1999 was Helen Clark being invited to address the Alliance conference. Broad areas of agreement on policy – sustainability which for me is the unifying over-arching concept. Issues of inequality and poverty – but let us talk about levelling up instead of levelling down – that is why growth is important because we have to redistribute the dividends of growth – no government has every got elected by redistributing a static cake. Third area is independent foreign policy.

Second credible issues of policy. Labour in particular has to stop its tendency to look inwards to talk about itself all the time, instead of talking about what other people want to hear about – which is what Labour is going to do to help them. Both New Zealand First and the Greens are much better at doing that.

Both Labour and Greens have tendency to drop into policy wonk mode and lose the emotional connection. Swinging voters are not that interested in politics, they have feelings but not great knowledge, and they are heavily influenced by popular media especially commercial talk-back radio most of which is very right-wing. Finally they are less rational than those committed to those who are committed to one party or another.

Third establishing emotional connection with voters. Policies can be a means to this but rarely the most important means. This is Key’s huge strength – he has enormous emotional connection with voters. The sloppy language we like to make fun of is the language most people speak, not like University lecturers like Helen, Steve and I. The casualness to turn things aside, not important, at the end of the day.

We have to understand that emotional connection but we have one significant advantage that he doesn’t have.  We are three significant parties and Greens appeal to youth, NZFirst has affinity with elderly, Labour’s ability to work the business of government, the stable rock around which the government can be built. Which is why when Labour looks unstable we are all down the tubes.

In terms of Labour itself there are four things we nee to recapture.

First is choice – for young people what they want to know is that we will enable all people to have choice.

Second is aspiration  – party that has stood for hundred years for opportunity has lost the concept that we help all people to get ahead. Need to be careful – attacking the super-rich easily turns into people feeling that we are attacking those who are trying to do well.

Third responsibility, to connect with people who are looking for parties who will talk about responsibility.

Finally  the notion of national pride and independence – we should be able to claim that concept away from New Zealand because we stand for an independent New Zealand.

Spell it out clearly and go out to the people and say this is about us as a people and what we can do. Make and emotional connection as Winston did in Northland – an emotional connection not a policy connection.

Labour are doing poorly on just about all these points.

Coincidentally “the notion of national pride and independence” has just been effectively rubbished by Trevor Mallard on Breakfast where he has talked against considering a flag change apparently because it was John Key’s idea. Petty politics put ahead of exploring a symbol of national pride and independence.

And the first response at The Standard:

Yeah, I’ve read this before from him.
This is a man who has chosen to have other people call him “sir”.
I think he has the intelligence to recognise the craven, self-serving nature of the status quo he continues to advocate in the face of the biggest challenges humanity and many, if not most, other species have ever faced.
Arise Sir michael.
And piss off.

That may effectively sum up Labour party and Labour left attitudes that are so negative and counter=productive.

Voters have been telling Labour to piss off for the last three elections, and the first reaction is to piss on intelligent analysis and discussion.

Cullen: “Labour is well behind on leadership and economic credibility – no-one has ever won government by being behind on both.”

At the moment there’s no sign of that changing.

And it’s notable that even if Labour do start to get leadership and economic credibility right Cullen still sees them as a combo option with both NZ First and Greens.

Labour seems to have resigned to being one of several minor parties.

A strange ACT

Yesterday an ACT newsletter made a strange implication about Maurice Williamson apparently wanting to jump waka, from National to ACT – Free Press 25/05/2015 ACT PARTY / NEWSLETTER

Where’s Maurice Williamson Going?
Betting site iPredict has opened up stocks for a by-election in Pakuranga, and for incumbent Williamson to be the candidate by 2017.  The interesting thing is the opening odds, respectively 30 and 25 percent likely.  iPredict’s operators, who have deep political connections, set these odds.  Something’s up.

ACT’s Board has unanimously rejected an approach by the hapless Don Brash (no joking, this is too good for us to have made up) for Williamson to join ACT’s caucus.  “My own party don’t want me no more” is not an attractive pitch. For similar reasons, what poor country would accept him as ambassador?

This is a bit vague, talking about “an approach by the hapless Don Brash for Williamson to join ACT’s caucus”.

It implies via an apparent quote from Williamson “My own party don’t want me no more” but that could be just an ACT quip.

NZ Herald reports Act Party rejects Maurice Williamson.

Act President John Thompson says he was left with the clear impression by former Act leader Don Brash that an approach by him about National MP Maurice Williamson joining Act had been made on behalf of Mr Williamson.

Act has rebuffed the bid and Mr Williamson is refusing to talk about it.


Prime Minister John Key said today Mr Williamson assured him through a text exchange that he did not ask anyone to make an approach on his behalf.

“He made it really, really clear that he hasn’t asked anybody – he hasn’t made any approach and he hasn’t asked anyone to advocate for him.”


…Mr Thompson told the Herald that when he met Dr Brash in an Auckland central café the week before last, Dr Brash said something like:

“Maurice has indicated he would like someone to approach the Act Party on his behalf.”

He was also left with the clear impression that the bid to join Act was a plan to “party-hop” now.

“No by-election was discussed,” Mr Thompson said.

The difference in stories is strange, with both Thompson and Key sounding adamant they have it right..

That ACT would put this story out in a party newsletter is very strange.

A symptom of Labour’s core problems

Labour have a number of deep seated problems – see What now for Labour and Little?

The Standard is a window into some of Labour’s problems. It is a blog dominated by National negativity with scant lauding of Labour.

They pretend they encourage robust debate on the Labour left but continually demonstrated the opposite.

Two long time regular Labour activists at The Standard are Te Reo Putake (‘the voice of reason’, yeah right) and Colonial Viper/Rawshark (Tat Loo) have highlighted the divisions and infighting and intolerance of dissent within Labour.

Tat is a party maverick and has recently been speaking up about Labour’s obvious problems. One response from TRP ironically sums up some of Labour’s problems.

Do you have anything new to try, CV? Seriously, your relentless negativity has its bleak charms, but unless you’ve got practical solutions, why bother? What specific, measurable, realistic and time bound ideas do you bring to the table?

TRP seems ignorant of the fact that his accusations sum up his own problems. And The Standard’s. And Labour’s.

When the activist core of Labour is this dysfunctional it’s hardly surprising that Labour is struggling.

CV tried to debate but TRP’s follow up comments demonstrate the deep seated intolerance and lack of self awareness:

So you’ve got nothing at all? Just the whinging?

So, nothing then. Good to know.

We’ve established that you haven’t got a clue, CV. Anything else you want to add?

Yep, nothing but negativity. CV has no answers.

Be honest. You can’t report to anyone, because you haven’t got anything to say. You’re stuck in a scratched groove son, time to change the record.

You enjoy a good sulk. Good for you. But boring for the rest of us.

Do you have anything new to try, TRP? Seriously, your relentless negativity offers little but bleak self harm. Unless you’ve got practical solutions, why bother? What specific, measurable, realistic and time bound ideas do you bring to the table?

Do you have anything new to try, Standard? Seriously, your relentless negativity offers little but bleak self harm. Unless you’ve got practical solutions, why bother? What specific, measurable, realistic and time bound ideas do you bring to the table?

Do you have anything new to try, Labour? Seriously, your relentless negativity offers little but bleak self harm. Unless you’ve got practical solutions, why bother? What specific, measurable, realistic and time bound ideas do you bring to the table?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,079 other followers