Jim Anderton is insulting our intelligience when he says that Progressive Party members - how many are there, anyway? - can now also join the Labour Party if they so wish.

The Progressive Party was always a Clayton's Labour Party - the Labour Party you're a member of when you're not a member of the Labour Party - and Anderton is taking the final step of merging the Jim Party with Labour.

Did Anderton have a meeting with himself when the decision was made to wind up the party? Was there a formal vote? Was the membership consulted?

His comment that Progressive Party members don't have to join Labour if they don't want to is just Anderton up to his old tricks again.

Since the Progressive Party won't be standing in any further general elections the party effectively no longer exists. Progressive members who don't want to join the neoliberal Labour Party have been left high and dry by Anderton.

Of course this is familiar tale with Anderton who has let down a good many people on his journey to the right of the political spectrum - eventually making his peace with Labour's monetary economic policies.

The Progressive Party was just a convenient staging post along the way - but that didn't stop Anderton calling for donations to fund his personal 'comfort stop'.

That's the thing with Anderton. He expects people to do the 'donkey work' then abandons them when he no longer has any more use for them, when they have nothing more to contribute to 'Project Jim'.

Anderton's comment that the Progressive Party's policies are compatible with Labour's just about sums up the his bankrupt politics.

It's sensible for the Alliance Party to encourage disillusioned Progressive members to join the party.

Says co-leader Kay Murray : ''It would make much more sense to join a party that believes in the same things as you do, rather than, as Mr Anderton suggests, join the Labour Party and try to persuade them to adopt your ideas. Labour hasn’t listened in the past so why would you expect them to listen in the future?'


  1. The Progressive Party is a rort of MMP. The sooner it and United Future go the better

  2. I don't know that that's fair, Sam. I have no time for Jim or Peter, either, but that's simply how the system works. If one politician can get the profile and therefore the votes to lead a couple of others from his party into parliament good on them. Same with Peters. In the end is that any different to a dozen or two list MP's (who nobody has ever heard of) getting into parliament - and power - on the back of their party name?


Comments are moderated.