Poll surprise

A TV3 poll on Labour’s leadership race points to one of the party’s major problems – lack of unity.

It’s also turned up a surprising result.

Most commentators had Shane Jones in third place, but this poll has him in second.

. . . David Cunliffe is in charge – as preferred labour leader, he is up on 39.6 percent.

But Shane Jones is in line for a bit of an upset. Considered an outsider, he currently sits in second place on 31.6 percent.

That’s pushed Grant Robertson back into third – he was supposed to be joint favourite, but he’s only polling 28.8 percent. . .

It is the Labour membership who will all vote on the leader – but looking at just Labour voters – Cunliffe is even stronger, sitting at 45.6 percent.

While Jones drops a bit but is still up there at 28.1 percent. Robertson remains in third even among his own on 26.4 percent. . .

With the party’s convoluted and undemocratic voting system which gives caucus and members 40% of the votes each and the unions 20%, the final result might be different.
But if the first vote is similar to the poll, the contender with the fewest votes will drop off and there will be a second vote between the other two.
That makes the second preferences of those who support the third ranked candidate very important.
 Where they go will determine the winner.
The leadership circus is putting the Labour Party in the spotlight but any publicity isn’t necessarily good publicity.
What’s been highlighted is the contenders’ lurch to the left and the party’s lack of unity and that’s shown in this poll with no strong favourite.
Whoever wins will be faced with the challenge of uniting the party, which given it won’t have been united in supporting him, won’t be easy.

31 Responses to Poll surprise

  1. Viv K says:

    ‘The challenge of uniting the party, which given it won’t have been united in supporting him, won’t be easy’. Same problem faced by Obama after competing in his primary. As for ‘undemocratic’, that’s really rich coming from a National party member. Your party members get how many votes for your leader Ele?

    Like

  2. Viv K says:

    Obama in 2008

    Like

  3. Armchair Critic says:

    Undemocratic Labour where every member of the party can vote, compared to democratic National where less than 1% of the members can vote, Ele? What a warped definition of democracy that is.

    Like

  4. homepaddock says:

    If the option came up for members to vote to select the leader I’d vote against it.

    Caucus disunity is one of the most damaging things for a party, the woeful performance of Labour since 2008 demonstrates that.

    Whether or not you agree with that doesn’t justify Labour’s lack of democracy.

    Only individual people should be able to be members of a party, allowing unions to vote is not democratic.

    Like

  5. Viv K says:

    National prefers the Stepford wives type MPs that currently make up their caucus. Bland , boring and all singing from the same song sheet. Do you select them like that or do you mold them once you get them into caucus?

    Like

  6. Gravedodger says:

    How successfull would the All Blacks or the Silver Ferns be in the world they compete in, if the Captain was chosen by a vote of all the rugby/ netball financial members in the nation but was totally rejected by most of the team.

    Toss in the further complication of Union involvement that will be exercised in a most undemocratic way and it just gets worserer.

    If however those who wish to see off John Key think they are onto a winner, the famous quote attributed to Todd Blackadder comes to mind.
    After a referee admonished the Crusaders for repeated infringements and asked Todd to deliver the warning to his team, legend has it he gathered his team together and said ” you are going great chaps, keep it up.”

    To the shadow of what once was the great NZ workers party, you are going great, keep up the good work.

    Oh and as an aside where does three males competing to be next up against John Key stand when viewed against the ill-fated but, I undestand still very much alive, ” man ban”.

    Like

  7. robertguyton says:

    “Stepford Wives” – Viv! Goodness!

    Like

  8. Andrei says:

    Stepford wife?

    Really? No she is a very good reason not to give your party vote to National – who really wants to put a communist, lesbian into parliament

    Like

  9. TraceyS says:

    I am a member of the public health system and don’t get to vote on the leaders of our local Health Board organisation (neither Chair nor CEO). What I get to do is vote for specific board members who I feel are best qualified to make those decisions. Is that undemocratic AC? Or would you prefer that members of the public got to appoint their local Health Board Chairperson and CEO by vote?

    Like

  10. Viv K says:

    Submissive, obedient, no independent thoughts expressed. Looks like the National caucus to me.

    Like

  11. TraceyS says:

    Appearances can be deceiving Viv. Russel Norman looks like he hasn’t eaten an organic fruit or vege in his life his skin tone is so lackluster. In fact, he looks rather unhealthy to me. Of course this may be quite wrong.

    Metiria Turei is a lot less visible than Russel Norman even though she is “co-leader”. Does this mean she is 2IC in reality, perhaps even a little submissive, or maybe less competent?

    Like

  12. robertguyton says:

    Tracey! Your anti-red-head comments are a disgrace and only beaten by your disgraceful racist ones!
    Could you ask Ele to remove them?

    Like

  13. Viv K says:

    I was commenting on behaviour, not physical appearance. The National MPs homogenous unified stance is almost creepy (hence the Stepford wives reference) sorry if it was a bit obscure for some of you.

    Like

  14. Armchair Critic says:

    That’s a poor analogy, and has little to do with National being less democratic than Labour.

    Like

  15. TraceyS says:

    Why is it a poor analogy AC?

    Like

  16. TraceyS says:

    You can if you like Robert. I’m not going to ask Ele to remove them because they were not “racist” or “anti-red-head” but served to point out that appearances can be deceiving. Must I also point out that the “Stepford Wives” label is rather sexist?

    What is it about you and Viv that you cannot take anything even close to what you dish out to others? Is this a further example of what John Armstrong described as “…hypocrisy, pure and simple.”? (ODT, 7/9/13, “Referendum merely an expensive exercise in futility”).

    Like

  17. TraceyS says:

    It is strange for a self-identified lefty to be creeped out by unity.

    Like

  18. robertguyton says:

    ‘Stepford Wives’ can’t be ‘sexist’.
    They’re robots!
    Jeeze, Tracey!

    Like

  19. TraceyS says:

    Right Robert, like a poster can’t be sexist because it is paper!

    It is how the term is used, who it is applied to, that is sexist.

    Strange for a self-confessed feminist to use such a term in such a way. But then she was following your earlier example right? You recently used that term in the same way in regard to women in the National Party.

    Like

  20. robertguyton says:

    I’d never call Judith Collins a Stepford Wife!

    Like

  21. Viv K says:

    I wasn’t being sexist Tracey, my Stepford wives description applies to the male National backbench MPs as well. The topic of sexism brings me back to Shane Jones and Ele’s post about him being 2nd in a poll. Labour has a lot of women members, it is highly unlikely many will vote for Jones. He claims to be popular with women who read the Womens Weekly, not Germaine Greer. He is SO out of touch with 21st century women. He is also wrong, my late Women’s weekly reading mother in law would not have been happy about the porn or him leaving his wife and 7 kids.

    Like

  22. Viv K says:

    Perhaps I need to explain what homogenised means as well as Stepford wives? I’m a bit worried about Andrei thinking I’m making homosexual references after he got communist, lesbian from Stepford wives. How Andrei? I’ve only seen the original and obviously missed those bits. The point was (and only Robert got it) that they were robots, they seemed so perfect for their roles, there was no discord, no one spoke out of turn because they were fake! Watching National MPs on Backbenchers left me with that impression. That’s what can happen when you spend your teen years immersed in sci-fi. I read Brave New World and 1984 back then, am thinking I should re-read those.

    Like

  23. TraceyS says:

    “Indeed, the power of the iconic supermarket scene is grounded in the contrast of the two Joannas…[w]e become aware that the fembot Joanna’s ostensible wholeness is inseparable from the human Joanna’s literal fragmentation.” (Johnston & Sears, 2011)

    The point being that the Stepford wives were both fake AND real (at some point). To only see the robot version is convenient for your purposes of denigration.

    Like

  24. Viv K says:

    MY pointTracey was that National’s MP’s are all so similar and, perfectly in unison, that they gave ME the impression of Stepford wives. You probably didn’t know what I meant because first you said I was being sexist and now you’ve googled a movie review in the middle of the night to tell me I’ve misinterpreted the movie. Back to the voting and your health board analogy, what does ‘I am a member of the public health system’ mean? And how is that analagous to being a member of the Labour party voting for their leader?

    Like

  25. homepaddock says:

    A better analogy is with companies. Shareholders elect the board and the board elects the chair.

    Like

  26. TraceyS says:

    Actually, it was an academic article I referenced from the feminist literature.

    You did say a little more than “they gave ME the impression [of Stepford wives]…” You also wrote:

    “National prefers the Stepford wives type MPs that currently make up their caucus…[d]o you select them like that or do you mold them once you get them into caucus?”

    Like

  27. Dave Kennedy says:

    The Green Party has an annual vote for our leadership via delegates at each AGM. It is more devisive leaving the leadership decision to caucus as there is always the possibility of an internal coup depending on polling and individual ambition. Both Labour and National have experienced messy, divisive leadership changes because of this. While we’re not perfect, our system results in a more united caucus that isn’t being distracted by internal competition.

    Like

  28. Viv K says:

    Perhaps you could just consider it me being ‘provocative’.

    Like

  29. robertguyton says:

    Did Tracey really quote from a commentary written about Stepford Wives?
    Good grief!

    Like

  30. Armchair Critic says:

    Because the two scenarios you contrast are not really analogious. About all they have in common is that they involve voting. They also don’t really related to the point that National is less democratic than Labour, because fewer National Party members get to vote for the leader of the National Party than Labour Party memebrs do for the leader of the Labour Party.
    At least Gravedodger made a decent effort.

    Like

  31. Armchair Critic says:

    If political parties selected leaders and MPs/players like the NZRFU does it would mean a serious clean out of dead wood across the whole parliament – so your suggestion has some merit.
    I suspect that if there were voting for players in the All Blacks the (provincial) unions would want to have some percentage of the vote (say 20%) reserved for them, and that no one would object to this.
    🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: