Labour’s candidacy troubles

When someone like Gordon Campbell slams both Labour and the Greens on candidacy issues then one could suspect that the Labour-Green left may not be in great shape.

Scoop: Gordon Campbell on Labour’s candidacy troubles

So its official. Greg O’Connor will indeed be Labour’s candidate in Ohariu and – as also signaled well in advance – the Greens will not be standing a candidate in the electorate. At this point, you have to question the validity of the Greens’ excuse – “we need to change the government” – for tagging along.

Arguably, by bringing the likes of Greg O’Connor and Willie Jackson on board, Labour is choosing to “broaden its electoral chances” by pandering to the oldest, whitest and angriest part of the electorate.

Ouch.

Meaning: if they roll over this readily now, what treatment can the Greens expect to receive from Labour if and when Labour finally gets its hands on the levers of power? Is it possible now to conceive of anyone that Labour could put up as a candidate in a marginal electorate that the Greens could reject, on principle? Evidently not.

It is obvious that the Greens are so focussed on getting into government that holding their nose on a few things is a necessary compromise. It was always obvious that they would be comprosed by their Memorandum of Understanding with Labour.

Yes, Labour certainly does need to improve its party list vote. Willie Jackson wants a high position on the party list. At this point, its hard to see how his candidacy is going to motivate many of Labour’s activists to go out and work their butts off door to door, in order to bring the likes of Jackson onto Labour’s front bench.

Campbell is also scathing on Labour in Ohariu:

At this point, any social liberals left in Ohariu face something of a dilemma. Do they vote against Dunne in order to change this government’s dismal policies on health, education, the environment, welfare and the economy – or do they vote tactically for Dunne, to try and prevent O’Connor from becoming this country’s next Minister of Police?

Ultimately, they’ll probably vote for O’Connor, but with gritted teeth.

Somehow, Labour’s head office has managed to make Peter Dunne look like a principled underdog. That’s quite some feat.

But Anthony Robins applauds Greens rolling over for Labour in Greens stand aside in Ōhāriu:

Bravo to The Greens.

Putting aside misgivings for the sake of the greater good is a mark of political maturity which many politicians and commentators could learn from.

Of course Robins is all for the greater good of Labour. They will learn in due course what lessons can be learned from this ‘political maturity’.

And in the interests of reciprocity, hey Labour – ball’s in your court.

Bounce, bounce, bounce.

There’s a variety of comments on this at The Standard.

Infused:

Dirty deals are ok when the left do it then? That’s pretty funny.

 Anthony:

And once again Infused pretends not to understand the difference between gifting a seat to a loser to create a pretend support party, and standing aside in a seat you can’t win to strengthen a formal coalition. That’s pretty funny.

It would be funny if Labour started standing aside in seats they can’t win to strengthen a formal MoU (it’s not a coalition as it ends on election day, before coalitions are haggled over).

9 Comments

  1. Zedd

     /  February 15, 2017

    everyone has their opinion.. 😀

    methinks Lab/Grn are just doing what they said; MOU to change Govt…….

  2. Zedd

     /  February 15, 2017

    if anyone thinks this is worse than what natz have done, for last 8 years; your fooling only yourself 🙂

    • High Flying Duck

       /  February 15, 2017

      I think the only issue is the rank hypocrisy of those who have consistently howled with outrage at these deals suddenly changing tack and doing the same thing while putting on a “what? Who me?” posturing when questioned on it. There was no deal, it just happened…really?

    • Missy

       /  February 16, 2017

      As far as I know Zedd no-one has said what the Greens and Labour are doing is worse than what the Government are doing, but we have a right to criticise what they are doing and point out their hypocrisy.

      When two parties that have previously called electorate deals ‘dirty’, ‘shabby’, or ‘immoral’, then they themselves turn around and do an electorate deal then they open themselves up for being called hypocrites. They no longer can claim the moral high ground when National yet again does a deal in Epsom, or with Peter Dunne (if indeed they do).

      Though, I will say this, the deal itself may not be worse than the Government, but they way it has been done, and the disingenuous behaviour of pretending there is no deal, is worse. All they needed to do is admit they were wrong on electorate deals, and admit to having done one, when it seems so obvious they have.

      • Blazer

         /  February 16, 2017

        ho hum,as the Natz default position when faced with criticism is…’Labour did it …too’….who cares!

        • High Flying Duck

           /  February 16, 2017

          Not sure you read the reply…Labour didn’t hold back on saying the practice was unethical and immoral, whereas National were always happy it was part of MMP and no issue. It appears that Labour and the Greens have finally agreed, but don’t want to acknowledge that what they are now doing…is what they are doing.
          What they are doing is fine. The way they are going about it is pathetic and ham fisted.

  3. Gezza

     /  February 15, 2017

    “Somehow, Labour’s head office has managed to make Peter Dunne look like a principled underdog. That’s quite some feat.”

    He’s a poodle with a bow tie. On ya bike Dunno. 🔜

  4. Pete Kane

     /  February 15, 2017

    B fair G. The NZKC Poodle Chapter way dwarfs ant aspect of UF.