If National wins ...

[BlackPeter]

Seaking of ipredict, I predict (close your eyes eZ) that shortly after the election Labour's leadership team will be Stuart Nash and Adern That is unless there is a change before the election. (You're okay eZ - you can look now)

Don't forget that it is the unions who determine the Labour leader. The unions however represent the working population, not Labour and deep in their heart they know that a strong National-lead government is best for workers. So - why do you think they want to pick a team which might improve Labour's chances of winning?

[Major von Tempsky]

That Hagar book will not register one bit with the voters and nothing will come of it. (politically that is) Sorry to dash your hopes there El Zorro.

Pity, Hagar won the last election for National.

It's noteworthy that Hagar's efforts become less and less significant and more counterproductive with each election. If his last effort sold buggerall this effort will sell sell less than half of buggerall.

He doesn't, really, seriously, expect this pathetic little effort to swing the election?

The only reason Hagar can have put this out is a petty, small minded, jealous, vindictive effort to try and spoil Key's retirement occasion. It won't even do that. Like Sauron at the end of The Lord of the Rings Hagar will be left as as a powerless, spiteful, vindictictive spirit floating around in the darkness of outer space gnawing away at himself for eternity.....

[macduffy]

Some lovely lines there, Major!

[westerly]

Don't forget that it is the unions who determine the Labour leader. The unions however represent the working population, not Labour and deep in their heart they know that a strong National-lead government is best for workers. So - why do you think they want to pick a team which might improve Labour's chances of winning?

Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

[iceman]

Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

The MPs are our democratically selected representatives of voters, Union bosses are not.

[fungus pudding]

Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

You know the answer. Union bosses should have no more say in the election of a party leader than the boy scout movement has.

[BlackPeter]

Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

Democracy means "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". Clearly the National system is more democratic ... they use elected representatives (who have the full vote), while the Labour system is undemocratic, given that members have just 80% of the votes and the balance goes to people without any stakes in the party.

Anyway - no matter the "democraticness", the National way to do it is clearly more clever. The people who need the best leader to succeed are supposed to pick him / her. Nothing wrong with this philosophy. If they are not successful, than they all will lose their job next election round. Quite strong incentive to pick the best candidate.

Labour's system however allows the unions (who have no stake in a Labour government) to be king maker. Not clever, particularly if the majority of the union members feel that National would anyway better represent the workers (as they do).

Anyway - don't worry about it and just continue to do what you are doing. Looking forward to enjoy many more years of National lead government. As a union member and National supporter I would pick Little as leader of Labour as well . Honestly - could you imagine a less effective leader than Little (given the options)?

[Bjauck]

The MPs are our democratically selected representatives of voters, Union bosses are not.

Didn't Union block votes controlled by Trotskyite union leaders make the UK Labour Party unelectable from 1979 until the reforms of New Labour leading to Tony Blair becoming PM in 1997? And now despite reforms it's back to being unelectable just as the UK needs a strong opposition....as Corbyn supporters paid a few bucks to buy membership to vote for the leader, as far as I understand!

It must make for a fractionally more cohesive presence in parliament if only MPs are allowed to vote for the Parliamentary leader of a party.

[Bjauck]

Unions appear to have a 20% say in the election of the Labour Party leader. The caucus and party membership having an 80% say.
The National party leader is decided by 30 MP s over a whisky in Bellamys.
Which way is more democratic?

westerly

Voters have the opportunity not to vote in the old soaks unless that is what they so wish. .

[westerly]

Democracy means "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". Clearly the National system is more democratic ... they use elected representatives (who have the full vote), while the Labour system is undemocratic, given that members have just 80% of the votes and the balance goes to people without any stakes in the party.

Anyway - no matter the "democraticness", the National way to do it is clearly more clever. The people who need the best leader to succeed are supposed to pick him / her. Nothing wrong with this philosophy. If they are not successful, than they all will lose their job next election round. Quite strong incentive to pick the best candidate.

Labour's system however allows the unions (who have no stake in a Labour government) to be king maker. Not clever, particularly if the majority of the union members feel that National would anyway better represent the workers (as they do).

Anyway - don't worry about it and just continue to do what you are doing. Looking forward to enjoy many more years of National lead government. As a union member and National supporter I would pick Little as leader of Labour as well . Honestly - could you imagine a less effective leader than Little (given the options)?

English was Key’s nominee for National leader. National party convention is the outgoing leader names his successor.
All the other frustrated candidates are now waiting for a loss at the next election to bring out the knives.

At least Labour is democratic enough not to hide behind closed doors with the election process unlike National.
Nice to know you are a union member even if you do vote National.

westerly