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.
This entry was posted on Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 8:00 am and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
‘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?
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.
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?
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”.
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?
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?
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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?”
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.
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.
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.
🙂
Homepaddock 
‘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?
LikeLike
Obama in 2008
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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”.
LikeLike
“Stepford Wives” – Viv! Goodness!
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Submissive, obedient, no independent thoughts expressed. Looks like the National caucus to me.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Tracey! Your anti-red-head comments are a disgrace and only beaten by your disgraceful racist ones!
Could you ask Ele to remove them?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
That’s a poor analogy, and has little to do with National being less democratic than Labour.
LikeLike
Why is it a poor analogy AC?
LikeLike
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”).
LikeLike
It is strange for a self-identified lefty to be creeped out by unity.
LikeLike
‘Stepford Wives’ can’t be ‘sexist’.
They’re robots!
Jeeze, Tracey!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I’d never call Judith Collins a Stepford Wife!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
A better analogy is with companies. Shareholders elect the board and the board elects the chair.
LikeLike
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?”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Perhaps you could just consider it me being ‘provocative’.
LikeLike
Did Tracey really quote from a commentary written about Stepford Wives?
Good grief!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
🙂
LikeLike