Hard News: Calling the race before it's over
204 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
What, and only get half the salary each? And have to flat with each other in Premier House?
I've often wondered how the Greens intend their structure to work if they actually managed to win leadership of Government... 2.5 days a week each and on-off international junkets?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Did you really notice any of that in the stories over the weekend?
That's my point. I don't give much credence to the rumours. The story I was interested in, for which there is multiple corroborations, were the discussions and vote on a matter of important policy. That could have been reported on far better, and hypothetical leadership challenge, denied by everyone except the rumour mill, is something that we're mostly speculating idly about.
Shaping comms is broader than that.
It is, but this was a conference. It's not a marketing pitch. It can't be controlled in the tight way it seems you're suggesting, nor should it be. In fact, the way that it has been in the past is exactly what many were fighting.
Discussions were had, if there was any point in the conference at all. Opinions differed, if the Labour party isn't a fascism. Factions exist, both at leadership and right down to people who stuff envelopes for free for the party. A whole lot happened there, other than David Cunliffe refusing to commit to how he will vote in a secret ballot next February, and the whip not liking him.
again, who do you think has been talking to media?
Chris Hipkins, the only person who we actually know is saying Cunliffe is dicking the party around, is 34 years old. Who do you think has been talking to the media, and if you think that, how do you know?
-
George Darroch, in reply to
I've often wondered how the Greens intend their structure to work if they actually managed to win leadership of Government... 2.5 days a week each and on-off international junkets?
Usually a special general meeting would be called and a position to take into coalition negotiations worked out by the membership. However, while this works where ministerial positions are possible, it doesn't consider the need to take into account the workings of an election campaign where a deputy PM position is at stake and a position needs to be presented to the public and a incredulous and conflicthappy media. This will need to be addressed before the next election.
-
Regarding Hipkins, I take a different view to HenryB who said:
That's his privilege. But trying to discpline and not just demote a caucus member, something that Chris Hipkins seems to be implying, for exercising his rights would be really worrying.
and Tristan who also said:
I hate what he said. less than 24 hours after the party has made clear its desire for a proper democratic process involving them on leadership issues Hipkins comes out and demands to know which way everyone will vote (because whats good enough for cunliffe is good enough for every MP right chris?)
Instead, I agree with Sacha's comment about ill-discipline. Hipkins was doing what the Whip should and must do. if the Leadership's focused on the Government, which it should be, I think it does fall to the Whip to insist on internal discipline.
I didn't see all the coverage and perhaps his words seem immoderate but FFS, surely enough is enough?
Chris Hipkins, the only person who we actually know is saying Cunliffe is dicking the party around, is 34 years old.
Not quite, upthread I thought I read from Stephen at least (possibly Felix too) that Carmel Sepuloni and Andrew Little acknowledged the obvious.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Chris Hipkins,..., is 34 years old.
Relevance?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Relevance?
Sorry, should have quoted more of what Sacha said. He was suggesting that it was the old guard that were pumping the rumour mill. Calling a 34 year old part of the old guard is stretching it.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Not quite, upthread I thought I read from Stephen at least (possibly Felix too) that Carmel Sepuloni and Andrew Little acknowledged the obvious.
Yes, but openly, during the conference, as part of the debate. They're not pumping secret messages to Claire Trevett, so far as I know.
-
It does strike me that before the last election many in Labour were strong on the importance of loyalty to Phil Goff, blah, blah. Right up until the day after the election, when he resigned.
Is this a groundhog day pattern?
-
Sacha, in reply to
The ongoing leaks to Garner and others seem highly likely to involve usual suspects like Mallard who do not have freshness as an excuse. Old guard doesn't mean senior citizens, either. :)
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Is this a groundhog day pattern?
To the extent that there's any rules, it does seem accepted practice that you don't openly question the leadership until you're ready to challenge. That does make it difficult to know who genuinely does or doesn't support the Leader.
FWIW, if I were advising Cunliffe, I'd tell him to do what Latham in Australia did (not that I'm making a comparison between the two individuals) and take himself to the backbench.
-
HenryB, in reply to
trying to discpline and not just demote
My apologies: the distinction I was trying to make was the implication that an expulsion was being sought rather just than a demotion - which I guess is a kind of discipline. I have to say, like Lucy, all this talk of whips and discipline seems a little odd, though I know it perhaps has its place, but in this context where it is an issue of the democratic process within the party that is at issue then it seems really inappropriate: Hipkins, in my view, was trying to bully Cunliffe and others to commit to saying how they would vote in February.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
No need to apologise at all HenryB, I understand your point, I'm just offering my perspective on what I think he was doing. The role of the Whip is historically, if not always recently, one reserved for a Leader's most loyal MP and is focused on internal discilpine. Whatever else is going on, internal discipline is a lttle too loose.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Chris Hipkins, the only person who we actually know is saying Cunliffe is dicking the party around, is 34 years old. Who do you think has been talking to the media, and if you think that, how do you know?
Mallard had some fairly blunt words about Cunliffe (without naming him) in one TV report, and I would expect he'd be one of those talking non-attributably to certain journalists.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Mallard had some fairly blunt words about Cunliffe (without naming him)
It's the leader and whips' job to make sure this sort of underhand whisper campaign gets knocked on the head. They've had time, and it's still happening. So it's either a lack of discipline, or worse, semi-sanctioned.
If the former, there's work to do- and fast. If the latter (hope says this is unlikely) you can't credibly call for loyalty when you don't give it; or talk about unity while promoting division. -
Hebe, in reply to
I’ve often wondered how the Greens intend their structure to work if they actually managed to win leadership of Government… 2.5 days a week each and on-off international junkets?
And I wonder if Labour are really a credible coalition partner for when the Greens become the second-largest party.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
I've often wondered how the Greens intend their structure to work if they actually managed to win leadership of Government... 2.5 days a week each and on-off international junkets?
I expect they'd simply nominate a PM like everyone else. Party leadership is seperate from the constitutional position.
-
Barnard, in reply to
, in my view, was trying to bully Cunliffe and others to commit to saying how they would vote in February.
Is it that, or simply driven by a frustration at the whispers, the briefings and speculation that's been going on, and the potential of it overshadowing everything between now & February?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It's the leader and whips' job to make sure this sort of underhand whisper campaign gets knocked on the head.
Confused. Who is Mallard whispering against?
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Confused. Who is Mallard whispering against?
I think Russell said it might be Mallard, not that it necessarily was. I've no direct knowledge, but I've read that Cunliffe is said to be critical of some of the longer-served MPs.
-
Looks like it's business as usual. Now, about that policy...
-
It's all going off on The Standard and a few usual suspects, but hopefully once they've let of steam they'll calm down, and Labour can start talking about ideas rather than personalities.
-
Barnard, I appreciate that you looked at the Standard so I don't have too. The Standard started well, but has ceased to be a useful forum, from my perspective at least.
-
Well, it's not quite Kiwiblog of the left, but lets just say the toys are on the floor and a few claims to never be voting for Labour ever again :)
Lots of claims that Cuncliffe and Cunliffe alone posed a major threat to pro business neo liberal status quo, and thus had to be silenced. -
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
It’s the leader and whips’ job
I must have read too much (or enough?) Emma Hart. The first time I read this as "It's the leather and whips' job".
It'd certainly make Parliament TV more entertaining to watch. Depending on who was wearing the leather. Scratch that: It'd probably mostly just be more horrifying. -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
never be voting for Labour ever again
Well, why would one? Given that the Greens don't do any of this crap. If one's a righty, and wants to dig up Northland / run slave labour fishing trawlers / watch pr0n videos on the taxpayers dollar, there is always the National Party, or the MaoriNats.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.