Scott over at Imperator Fish has managed to sum up the criticism of the Labour list.
The release of the Labour Party list has been met with scorn and derision by political commentators, bloggers and newspaper editors. The full list of 70 was released over the weekend, but it has drawn an immediately negative response.
The first 30 on the list are:
Jesus Christ
Elizabeth I
Alexander the Great
Jane Austen
Albert Einstein
Mohandas Gandhi
Mohamed
Florence Nightingale
Marie Curie
Sir Edmund Hillary
Mother TeresaAbraham Lincoln
Aung San Suu Kyi
Sir Ernest Shackleton
Queen Victoria
Elizabeth Blackwell
Joan of Arc
Nelson Mandela
Jodie Foster
Pericles
Sir Winston Churchill
Rosa Parks
Amelia Earhart
Captain Chesley Sullenberger
Queen Elizabeth II
William Shakespeare
Alfred Hitchcock
Helen Mirren
Audrey Hepburn
Martin Luther King
Love it. Even better are the quotes ascribed to some almost familiar figures. Blogger “Campbell Slug” says
“seventy tired and useless losers”, while the New Zealand Herald editorial said the list was “unimaginative, uninspiring and elderly. There is no freshness in what Labour has to offer.”
Political commentator “Martin Hooterson ” compares the Labour list with National’s that includes Justin Beiber an Richard Nixon and says
Jesus Christ may be well-meaning, but his earnest do-good brand of socialism has no show when compared with the hard-nosed realism and business nous of Judas Iscariot
Honestly its just pure gold. I had an actual LOL moment at the mention of TVNZ Political Editor “Gary Escargot”. Thanks Scott, made my day.
Labour’s latest attempt at grooming for the future.
http://gonzofreakpower.blogspot.com/2011/04/newborn-labour-party-messiah-given-high.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GonzoFreakpowerBrainsTrust+%28goNZo+Freakpower+Brains+Trust%29
Nice one Grant – you’re so right. How silly of those members like me who were annoyed at the list selection.
So silly to be passionate about these things when the great leaders are so clearly capable of taking us to the promised land of the treasury benches. No idea how I ever thought you were standing by as Phil led us over the proverbial cliff.
I was browsing online this evening and went to the political news section on TV3. It lead (of course) with the great Labour List debacle(?), and was followed by ‘related’ stories. One was a Reid opinion poll showing National up in the dizzy heights of the stratosphere, while Labour and Goff were wallowing in a deep, deep crater. I felt sure I’d seen that poll before. I had… early December, 2010!
Joking aside, for a media outlet that likes to claim it’s responsible and ‘up with the play’ that’s about as low as
you can go.
No sense of humour Despair? That’s a shame. I’m sure there’s a night class somewhere that could help you. Oops sorry, they’ve been cut…
Number 14 on which list Grant?
@Despair. How am I calling you silly? I said yesterday everyone is entitled to their opinion about the list. I put this up because I thought it was funny, that’s it.
@SPC. Um, not sure what you are getting at/ as far as I know I am not Ernest Shackleton reincarnated, so it must be the other one for me.
So you don’t equate Phil with Jesus Christ or Annette with Queen Elizabeth?
@SPC, ah, no. This a piece of satire from another blog. Kind of becomes less funny when I have to explain it, but still think it holds up.
What really miffed me was that Buffy (the vampire slayer) didn’t make the list. Nor did Katharine Hepburn. Both too bolshie I hear. And sigh, neither did Bruce or Clint.
Yep. Yet again a media beat up. No substance. Nothing to worry about. etc etc
I thought I was at kiwiblog. Good on you for having the guts to lay out what people the country are thinking. Labour’s challenge is the low polling, and the resulting cut off for the list MPs . I am just going to sit back and watch the fireworks.
You do that Monty!
I’m looking forward to Labour gaining back some ground – they are afterall awesome! 
! Oh yeah! 
It’s ironic that Grant’s post yesterday proved the inspiration for my post that someone linked to in these comments here which has since been censored out of existence (by a Lower Hutt Mac user just before 9pm. Would you like an IP address?).
It’s this whitewashing of constructive debate that got you into this mess in the first place. Please Labour, stop digging.
That’s very difficult for a party that has more than its fair share of tools!
Is it only Damian and National who think of Labour as the party of unionists and gays – because the National party does not have any unionists and is only allowed one out gay in the caucus at any one time?
United we stand
Divided a few get very rich and the rest fall by the wayside.
Will de Cleene, could you explain how you have tracked an editing IP address from a blog? Sounds like rubbish to me. Now you don’t want me to tell Jesus you’ve been telling porkies do you?
1 – Perez Hilton
2 – Graeme Norton
3 – Jools Topp
4 – Marc Almond
5 – Sonja Davies
6 – Jim Knox
7 – Elton John
8 – Richard Trumka
9 – Jimmy Hoffa
10 – John Gacy
i’m disappointed they only had the mahatma at fifth. such a great man….
nothing brings out the cellar dwellers like a bit of humour it seems.. to be fair though, they havn’t been able to have a good spleen venting for DAYS! that sort of suppression can get embarrassing… and smelly by the looks of what’s coming out…
Apart from the Labour list doing something abou the lack of representation of unionists, Polynesians and gays in the National, ACT and MP caucuses – thus helping to bring balance to parliamentary representation of the whole of New Zealand, what is to note about a few complaints from white heterosexual men who want the same dominance of their party that others do in National and ACT?
Do they think the caucus should look like the caucus of the day when only men led the party or the country? The same old conservatives wary of either the left or the socially liberal?
Well the only thing they might like is the lack of proportional representation of women on the Labour list (so there is no impact on the even greater lack of representation of women in National), for they certainly did not complain about that. That may speak to the hours of parliament and what is otherwise expected of an MP (resulting in few couples with children wanting the burden and why a someone like Helen Clark went into her career with her eyes open).
One supects that collective focus required of a unionist prepares them for politics and others with a lack of family and a background in public activism might be over-represented.
But if we want gender balance we either need to make parliamentary life more family friendly or accept the presence of more older women as newcomers into party list positions – given the aging of the baby boomers this might be an option that the public will grow into. Replacing Helen Clark with a coterie of grandmother crones – so long as they can still hike and climb over a few hurdles.