Saturday, June 14, 2014

No by-election for Epsom

There will be no Epsom by-election to replace the departed John Banks; Stuff reports:

Labour has confirmed it will not force a by-election in the Epsom electorate brought about by John Banks' resignation.
That gives the Government the required 75 per cent of votes in Parliament to leave the seat vacant until the general election on September 20.
Leader David Cunliffe said today it was not in the public interest to hold a by-election in the seat, made vacant by ACT MP John Bank's resignation, which takes effect today.
"A by-election so close to the general election would also be a waste of taxpayers' money," he said.
"I have written to the prime minister to inform him that Labour will support any motion to ensure there is no by-election in the electorate." 

John Banks announced his intention to resign as at 5pm yesterday last Sunday. The Prime Minister immediately announced that National would seek Labour's support for there not to be an expensive and futile by-election.

What took David Cunliffe almost a week to decide to support the PM's request. Did he, like a child who pulls the wings off flies, want to twist the knife a little bit more on Mr Banks? Was he trying to show the Prime Minister that he is no push-over? Did he have to travel up and down the country asking Labour Party members for their opinions? Or is he simply incapable of making decisions.

That there should be no Epsom by-election was a no-brainer. There would barely be time to hold the by-election before Parliament rises for the Big Show. It would be a waste of taxpayer funds, and a waste of party resources; and from what we've been told, the Labour Party is already worried about its resources for fighting a General Election.

David Cunliffe ought to have been able to ring the PM immediately and agree to support his motion not to hold a by-election. If he can't make simple and obvious decisions such as this one on the hoof (although he can make up policy as he goes), how is Mr Cunliffe ever going to cope with the demands of being Prime Minister, and the decisions required there?

 

14 comments:

Rex said...

"What took David Cunliffe almost a week to decide to support the PM's request. Did he, like a child who pulls the wings off flies, want to twist the knife a little bit more on Mr Banks? Was he trying to show the Prime Minister that he is no push-over? Did he have to travel up and down the country asking Labour Party members for their opinions? Or is he simply incapable of making decisions."

Maybe he just wanted to check with his colleagues and properly weigh up the pros and cons. The House wasn't sitting so there was no need to make a hasty call. But nah, National good, Labour baaaaaaad...

Keeping Stock said...

Heard of e-mail Rex? It's great for contacting a large group of people almost instantly...

Rex said...

And? Why the urgent need for a hasty decision? It wasn't a sitting week, so an instant call wasn't needed. You're being a dick, and I suspect you know that, but spinners gotta spin right?

Keeping Stock said...

You can suspect whatever you want Rex. But abusive comments will see you meet the same fate as your predecessors.

Nookin said...

There may or may not have been anything in the delay but the point that KS makes is that it would be nice, for once, to see labour make a positive contribution. The negativity on very issue is wearying -- even to the point that they make political points within days of a murder.
That's why you really get up everyone's funnel, Rex. You have not made a single positive, constructive comment that I have seen. You are replete with sarcastic two-liners and bugger-all else. You may have some valid arguments but your insistent negativity means that you have no credibility . Cunliffe faces the same problem and as a result anything he says or does is met with scepticism.
I think that this is also the reason why Shearer lost traction. He disavowed gotcha politics but immediately engaged. If labour had persevered, they may be still in the running.

Keeping Stock said...

I agree with your last sentence Nookin. David Shearer may have struggled to communicate Labour's vision, but he was fundamentally a decent bloke. But with Cunliffe undermining him whilst grinning like a Cheshire cat, he never had a chance.

I guess in a perverse sort of way, Shearer might be enjoying the white-anting of the current Labour leader from within his own caucus; it would hardly be human not to.

Rex said...

You'll see what you want to see, Nookin, because you're a boring biased tory fanboy who spends his time recycling right wing talking points in lieu of thinking. Spare us all the self-righteous outrage eh?

Keeping Stock said...

Well done Rex. You've done a masterful job in proving Nookin's point.

Nookin said...

QED

At least, rex, I don't engage in ad hominem argument ( at least, rarely). You, on the other hand resort to ad homs at the drop of a hat which also detracts from any credibility that you may have.
NZ has had a gutsful of "nasty". It told Labour that in 2008 and 2011. The polls have been telling labour that since Shearer's statesman cloak dropped away.

If labour came up with credible policies on what it would do, why it would work and what it would achieve then it would be in this race with bells on.
Labour won't learn and nor do you which is a great shame. NZ deserves better. We have serious problems to solve. Engendering division and antagonism doesn't cut the mustard. That, Rex, and for no other reason, is why labour and you piss me off.

Rex said...

Abuse and lies dressed up as self-rightreous lecturing doesn't lend you much credibility, Nookin. Keep doing it though. It's the tory way.

Keeping Stock said...

Abuse and lies dressed up as self-rightreous lecturing doesn't lend you much credibility, Nookin.

Crikey; that's a pot, meet kettle statement if ever I saw one Rex. Self-righteous lecturing is your stock in trade mate!

Rex said...

No, I simply point out the basic errors of fact and logic and obvious hypocrisy of the right on most issues. I know you hate that, but you can't change reality.

Nookin? said...

Where was the abuse?
Where are the lies?

Anonymous said...

"Where was the abuse?
Where are the lies?"

In Rex's mirror.