Seriously. Has someone in Melissa Lee’s campaign got it in for her?
Seriously. Has someone in Melissa Lee’s campaign got it in for her?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 19th, 2009 at 4:36 pm and is filed under by-election. 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.
Two senior Labour Wellington-based MPs, and the local candidate, Mr Shearer, again avoids the photo.
This photo appeared at the Standard a couple of days ago, but they had the smarts to take a version that didn’t have Mr Chauvel or Mrs King in it.
I still don’t understand why, if it is a safe Labour seat, Labour are throwing so many MPs in to fight the battle. Does Labour not have confidence in Mr Shearer to win the seat properly?
It would take … 15 mins? … for two Nats to take this down and stop giving this photo op to every Labour campaigner and media outlet passing by. Why haven’t they done it? Have the national National campaign team replaced the Nats-of-Mt-Albert in the same way they supplanted their candidate?
“Have the national National campaign team replaced the Nats-of-Mt-Albert in the same way they supplanted their candidate?”
You mean the same way that Mr Goff’s candidate replaced local favourite Meg Bates, Anita, who in turn replaced even more local favourite Mr Twyford, because Labour was fearful of the consequence of having Ms Tizard return on the list?
The Nats of Mt Albert selected Ms Lee as their candidate. I hear they got more people at their campaign launch than Labour got to Mr Shearer’s, and from what I’ve heard many of Labour’s attendees at Mr Shearer’s campaign launch were Labour MPs.
Are Labour so short of local activists in Mount Albert that they’re relying on MPs to hand deliver pamphlets?
No wonder the left are turning this once safest of seats into a marginal seat – the maturity is very much lacking and this proves that Labour are in full panic mode. You guys need to grow up a little.
Given Labour’s record on fraud, I can understand why you would think negatively of Fraud Investigators.
However, out here in the real world, we think investigating fraud is a good thing.
I find all this talk about MPs funny from Nats. When she imploded, Lee was being “managed” by Jonathan Coleman. Just pop over to the Standard and watch the video of Lee’s interview with Garner. Who’s the person hovering behind. Looks to me like a senior MP. Hmmmm…. By the interview is pure gold. Lee shows herself to have completely lost on the detail about the supercity. But her thing is “focusing on what locals want”. Yeah, that’s right. Who needs to know about the supercity – people in an Auckland electorate aren’t focused on that at all!
Anita you should know better! Tories don’t “do” that kind of thing. They hire a manual worker to do that for them. Maybe, like the Bay City Roller group that Hide and Key are trying to put together as a transitional team, the Rankin effect is even making them toey about hiring Dial a Dad or Mr Green to move the placard for them.
Mr Ellis, your argument about the Mt Albert selections is bizarre. Different parties won’t agree. Fair enough.
Labour’s official version – 8 strong candidates but one gets the majority of the floor vote and unanimous vote of the selection panel.
National says – this is all a farce. Wrong, but fair enough – that’s what opposing parties
But then National selects someone who was publicly annointed by their leader and then Mr Ellis gets indignant when people make the same claims about National’s process.
I’m not impartial, but trying to be objective as I can, it looks to me like labour’s process gave the locals far more say than National, and Labour got a great candidate.
I suspect a lot of National Mt Albert party members now wish Ravi had been given another go. He simply could not have done worse.
Unpleasantly Odouriferous,
You’re quite right!
Now I’m disturbed they can’t wrangle the private sector
How hard is it to cut-through-the-red-tape and hire a couple of labourers and a truck?
Hmmm. A sign with the word fraud in it and Annette HBDHB King standing next to it. You guys are right, that is hilarious.
This is bordering on being as pathetic and childish as that stupid song about John Key certain senior labour MP’s made complete twits out of themselves singing at the party conference
Unpleasantly Odiferous said:
“Anita you should know better! Tories don’t “do” that kind of thing. They hire a manual worker to do that for them.”
As opposed to the union officials who have been putting up Labour Party signs, UO?
Interesting points, Mr Stone. I obviously wasn’t at the Labour selection meeting, but it is clear that Mr Shearer didn’t get the majority of the floor vote. A number of Labour Party members were reported leaving the meeting saying they were disgusted by the outcome. There have been rumours, which haven’t been denied, that Mr Shearer didn’t win the floor vote at his selection. This would indicate that the selection panel wasn’t unanimous.
The Labour Party was entitled to select Mr Shearer, of course. The National Party selection process is very different to Labour’s, and as opposed to Labour’s selection, the large majority of the 60 delegates were local Mount Albert members, who believed Lee was the best candidate.
If Mr Shearer didn’t win the floor vote, then it can’t be said that Mr Shearer was the preferred candidate at Labour’s selection.
Tim Ellis, you do spend an incredible amount of time on left leaning blogs. Do you find the debate a bit more stimulating than on your average right leaning blog? Or is there something you are not telling us?
GFraser, the answer is yes, I do find the debate more stimulating with left wingers. I don’t think it’s very stimulating having a debate with people I agree with. In the main people here and at the Standard debate civilly and constructively, and by debating with people with different views I find different perspectives interesting.
I really enjoy debating with people like Mr Mallard. Since I started commenting here I’ve had a very different impression of him to the person I’ve seen in the media over the years. I seldom agree with him, but he does put his view forcefully and fairly, and I haven’t found him to be at all rude to me.
I dunno GF, I think Tim’s marvellous – a fascinating study in the “whatever it takes” philosophy of his leader, exemplar extraordinaire of the straw-grasping pit-bull tory tenacity, and prolific provider of priceless insights into the NACT machine.
Not to mention the judgement of their membership! To whit:
the large majority of the 60 delegates were local Mount Albert members, who believed Lee was the best candidate.
Mr Ellis. I find your 2nd last post quite confusing.
You say “but it is clear that Mr Shearer didn’t get the majority of the floor vote.”
How can it be “clear” that your version is true when the Party President said publicly that Mr Shearer did win the floor vote.
I guess it is open to you to say that Andrew Little was lying when he said that, and that all other members of the panel have been complicit in this lie by not contradicting him. Now I would not accept your assertion of a lie, but that is the allegation you’d have to make. It is illogical to say it is clear that he didn’t win the floor vote when the only people who could know claim the opposite.
Secondly you say “There have been rumours, which haven’t been denied, that Mr Shearer didn’t win the floor vote at his selection.”
Again, I don’t quite understand why you state as a fact that the rumours haven’t been denied. After the selection the Party President told assembled media that Mr Shearer won the floor vote. What more is necessary.
He also said the panel was unanimous. Now, again, you can challenge the veracity of this statements (I would take his word over yours, but it’s certainly logical for you to contest the veracity of his statements) but I quite see how it can be that rumours weren’t denied when they were.
Jake – you are incorrect. All MPs are entitled to have the cost of their domestic air travel covered unless they are on private commercial business, but Parliamentary Service is billed at commercial rates for domestic air travel by whichever airline provides the service.
So National’s caucus meeting in Mt Albert on Wednesday will be fully funded by the tax payer.
Thanks for your response Mr Stone.
I didn’t see Andrew Little’s statement. Have you got a link to this?
It was alleged at the Standard by a commenter that he was at the selection meeting, and that Mr Shearer did not win the floor vote. This comment is at http://www.thestandard.org.nz/progressive/#comment-131419 . To my knowledge it has not been since contested by any of the authors at the Standard that Mr Shearer did in fact win the floor vote. It does appear, at the foot of the comment, that Lynn Prentice, the administrator of the Standard, concedes that the commenter in question was probably at the meeting.
Given the sensitivity of the issue, I interpreted the lack of further discussion as an indicator that the comment was correct, and that Mr Shearer didn’t win the floor vote.
I understand that Mr Goff has said that the selection panel was unanimous. This clearly can’t be the case if Mr Shearer didn’t win the floor vote.
The only time I ever read The Standard was once during the last election where they launched a nasty, and ill-informed, attack on Michael Cullen. Never been back since. Horrible place filled with angry people. I’ll see if I can find the TV3, TV1 or radio NZ coverage tomorrow and link to it.
That would be the exception then, Brendon, because almost all the posts at the Standard that mention Dr Cullen have been complimentary.
Really? I might have to have another look at it. I’m a big fan of Michael Cullen and they way the Greens had attacked him on standard really disappointed me. I’ve always thought it was another nasty attack blog. That’s why it’s nice to have a space like this one where people can disagree without the unpleasantness.
Brendon, the writers at the Standard are far more often pro-Labour than they are pro-Green.
Lynn Prentice is the administrator of the Standard. He’s a long time Labour Party activist who has been heavily involved in the Mount Albert electorate and campaigns over the years. To his credit he’s kept quite low key about the Mount Albert campaign, because I assume he’s so heavily involved in it, and he seemed pretty balanced during the selection about the candidates Labour had up.
Mr Prentice appears to have agreed that the person who made the claim that Mr Shearer did not win the floor vote was actually at the selection meeting. Mr Prentice doesn’t comment on whether the allegation is correct. I would say though that if Mr Goff did say that Mr Shearer’s selection was unanimous at the selection meeting, if Mr Shearer didn’t receive the majority of the floor vote as was alleged, then Mr Goff may have been caught out in a direct lie.
Childish and petty…. Labour still proving they’re not fit to govern…
Tim,
If it was Shearer’s billboard I would be asking the same question (why on earth hasn’t the campaign team taken it down yet) and would be quite open to a joke about being unable to find enough hi vis vests for EPMU officials (why does Little keep wearing them anyway?).
But my question still stands. What is going on in the National campaign that they would leave this photo op available?
This is incredible reading! I’ve never seen so many flawed arguments since I last read a Kiwiblog comment section.
I would think that Charles and Annette are up in Auckland for their caucus the same way the Nats will be later. What they happen to do while up in Auckland, after their work is done, is entirely their business.
Secondly, you can both whine about process, and accuse each other of circumventing democracy with the selection process. But when you pick your candidate, you are stuck with your candidate…looks like the National party made a bad call.
I think Melissa is falling into those same old rookie mistakes that all candidates have to face. Some are better at hiding it from the public.
But I have to say that you you believe that Melissa was the better candidate on merit…well, know you can see that her capacity to handle the stress while out on the hustings was over-rated. But she should fight on, because it will demonstrate character.
My advice to the campaign – take the sign down…it’s just a bad look, and current events beat history lessons every time, so to those who bash on Labour’s past, well you do sound like the nerds on the far table…nobody likes to hang out with you.
Moana
Congratulations on actually doing something. As someone who has run such successful electorate campaigns in previous elections, what advice would you offer Melissa?
The point of this photo is that Melissa Lee is either not a competent campaigner, or her “managers” are not competent. You would think competence would be important for someone putting themselves up for election…
The more interesting debate is about who gets into parliament if Lee or Norman or Boscaswen get elected. With Shearer we get Shearer. With Lee we get Cam Calder??!! Mt Albert should think about the whole picture.
UO, I’m not sure that voting Mr Shearer getting Mr Shearer is a virtue, although Labour are trying to make it a virtue. This only became a necessity because Labour were not prepared to put up Mr Twyford, who has a very strong association with the electorate, because Labour is embarrassed about the dead wood on Labour’s list.
Twyford’s going to fight for Auckland Central in 2011 Tim, and he may well win it. Mt Albert should be a fairly straightforward seat for Labour to hold (Melissa Lee is making that particularly so) so it makes perfect sense for Labour to hold back their best candidate to fight for the more difficult Auckland Central seat.
rjs131 – ouch!
She’s pretty much thrown in the towell: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573871
Apparently my comments on this thread were all either offensive or off topic
Trevor Mallard says:
July 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Brendon possibly for the first time on Red Alert is correct in the substance of his comment and because it is on topic and not offensive it won’t be deleted.