Will unions let Cunliffe lead Labour back from left?

Both Matthew Hooton and Fran O’Sullivan think Cunliffe is trying to lead Labour back from its lurch to the left.

That would be a sensible move because the swinging votes are in the centre and many of those voters are strongly averse to the thought of Labour’s leftwards lurch and it being dragged even further left by its potential coalition partners.

But Labour is beholden to unions for money and people power, and Cunliffe is beholden to them for his leadership.

They won’t be keen on more centrist policies.

In the print edition of the NBR Michael Coote writes:

. . . The phony war raging around David Cunliffe’s leadership of Labour overlooks that the trades union movement has reassumed a decisive role in selecting the head of the party’s parliamentary wing.

Mr Cunliffe is the choice of the unions, Labour’s primary funding source.

If Labour’s predominantly bourgeois parliamentary wing defenestrated its born-again proletarian Mr Cunliffe, its unionist bankrollers could simply cut off the cashflow and let the class traitors turn on the gallows. . .

Even if Cunliffe did manage to lead a lurch back to the centre how long could he hold that position if he was leading a government beholden to the Green, Internet and Mana parties?

They are full of radical left-wingers who will exert every bit of bargaining power they have to implement their hard left economic, environmental and social agendas.

16 Responses to Will unions let Cunliffe lead Labour back from left?

  1. Key’s potential coalition partners are full of radical right-wingers who will exert every bit of bargaining power they have to implement their hard right economic and social agendas.

  2. pmofnz says:

    Cunliffe’s potential coalition partners are full of radical left-wingers who will exert every bit of bargaining power they have to implement their hard left economic and social agendas.

    RG, I’ve fixed that for you.

  3. I’m smiling, pmofnz, but you won’t know why.

  4. Allan says:

    Robert just go back to tending your garden and contributing very little to the running of the country in the form of taxes. The rest of us who actually work very hard and have large amounts of our money taken from us by the Government to run the country will continue to hope that the Coalition of Hopeless , Envious and Losers ie Labour/Greens/Internet and Mana Parties do not get anywhere near the halls of power.

  5. J Bloggs says:

    Gee Robert, it’s the first time I’ve heard the Maori Party referred to as a bunch of radical right wingers….:)

  6. Dave Kennedy says:

    Robert is correct, the radical element is actually on the right.

    Increasingly we Greens are using the Government’s own advisors and commissioners to support our arguments. This Government makes decisions based on their own short term interests and extreme philosophies.

    When Treasury advised that the assets shouldn’t be sold within a short time span because it would saturate the market and lower the price, did the Government listen? Did it listen to Treasury when it advised that there is little advantage in PPPs when they pit out the contract for the Transmission Gully project (a $2 billion dollar overspend) https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-hiding-true-cost-transmission-gully-public-private-partnership

    When the Law Commission provided some excellent recommendations regarding the management of alcohol to limit the huge social and medical costs why were so few implemented?

    When the children’s commissioner requested research into the extent of child poverty it was refused and he had to implement his own and the Government has refused to engage with most of his recommendations to support children.

    The Government ignores the recommendations from the Environment Commissioner regarding water quality, fracking and the changes to the RMA.

    When the Electoral Commission made some excellent recommendations to improve MMP, this Government rejected them all.

    Whether it be education, the environment or major infrastructure the Government is being asked for the evidence, research or science behind decisions and they continually fall short.

    We currently have a Government heavily influenced by the radical right and driven by self interest. We need a new progressive, forward thinking government that actually listens to good advice and invests in a green, clean, innovative future!

  7. J Bloggs says:

    But think Dave, if the current Green leadership were willing to consider a coalition arrangement with National, they would then be in a position (as the maori party have been for the last 6 years) to be able to influence policy and block the hard right radicals from driving government policy. The main effect of the maori party in the past 2 governments has to been to ensure that JK (who is a pragmatic man) is NOT beholden to the hard right ACT to be able to pass legislation. The Green party could have been in that position, if they wanted to…

  8. Dave Kennedy says:

    J Bloggs, knowing how National really treated the Maori Party and their lack of consultation with their coalition partners, no thank you!

    National also has two agendas, a public one and their actual one and too many of their actual policies (anti environment and corporate welfare) are too extreme for the Green Party ever to consider a coalition.

    Maori are far worse off now than they were in 2008. I would be interested in what gains the Maori Party have actually achieved, possibly an under funded Whanau Ora and signing a declaration for indigenous people that Key immediately claimed wouldn’t change a thing. http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/49HansQ_20100420_00000001/1-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples—government

    The Greens would be foolish to go into a coalition with such an arrogant party and I can’t imagine Judith Collins and Anne Tolley wanting to sit beside Metiria Turei, a young Maori woman they think doesn’t wear nice clothes and has ideas above her station.

  9. Dave Kennedy says:

    Also JB, I wonder if the National Party would support a party that promotes swimmable rivers rather than wadeable? The National Party views rivers as open sewers for a rapidly expanding dairy industry and this goes against one of our major priorities announced today.

  10. Greens with National?
    That’d be like spraying your organic vegetable garden with Tordon.
    Not going to happen.
    Ever.

  11. Gravedodger says:

    Keep up with the closed minds melons, working well so far, sheesh even H1 declined anything more in the halls of power than c&s.
    Why do the dopey decision makers continue to ignore the central facet of MMP by completely closing off the opportunity for representation for their voters by excluding a clear majority of the total electorate.
    Oh that’s right it is not about the environment that’s just what the hard left ascendants want a gullible public to believe.

    It’s the economy stupids and should the pendulum swing the melons will be no more in the ascendancy but locked in votes for the center left because they have nowhere else to park their old bus.

    Winston First, Dunny and even Craig could potentially be bought by Labour as the first two have already done but the melons have already established what they are just as the lady who Mr C. no the great one not Thumbhead observed;
    “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
    Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
    Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

    All the melons are actually achieving is to permanently lock their lobby group from the treasury benches and I for one would like that happy state of affairs to continue.

  12. The mistake you’re making, Gravedodger, is thinking that the Greens are that kind of woman. We model ourselves on Jeanette, a special kind of woman indeed and not one who’s for sale, and we’ll be sitting right where you dread us sitting, come September.

  13. Dave Kennedy says:

    “It’s the economy stupids”

    Yes it is, but not an unsustainable one based on feeding the greed of a few. A fossil fueled future is not one I support.

    This is what we should be doing:
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/british-columbia-carbon-tax-sanity
    http://lsecities.net/publications/reports/stockholm/

  14. Marc Williams says:

    Oh dear Mr Kennedy, from the reference you supply regarding the Stockholm utopia you worship and aspire to, p61: Sources of total primary energy in Sweden 2010:

    Renewables 35% (hydro, winds, biofuels, wastes)
    Fossil fuels 35% (oil, natural gas, coal)
    Nuclear 30%

    There is also this quote: “Nuclear is likely to remain an important energy source for Sweden in the foreseeable future, particularly given the country’s ambitious carbon emissions targets. Nuclear
    energy plays a dual role in meeting national goals; not only safeguarding the country’s energy independence, but also helping Sweden reach its emissions targets while renewable energy
    sources are still in transition.”

    I can’t see anything about that in your policies, in fact, I believe you think nuclear power is worse than the devil himself. LOL.

  15. Dave Kennedy says:

    Marc, I was referring to what Stockholm and British Columbia did, not their country as a whole. Desperate arguments.

  16. JC says:

    DK,

    Stockholm has aspects of a Potemkin Village.. its green because all the heavy lifting in the economy is done elsewhere in Sweden which allows it to have an incredibly high services industry of 87% of all work there as it serves governance, financial and cultural aspects of Sweden.. it effectively bludges off the rest of Sweden to maintain its greeness.

    As for British Columbia the tax is paid by *everyone*, not just industry as proposed by the Greens here. The Green policy is the politics of division and bribery (eg) demonising dairying, taxing it and bribing townies with the loot.. the Roman Emperors who organised the circuses for the mob would have recognised the strategy immediately.

    JC

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: