Democracy is not mob rule, hence a place for leadership.
In 1980, Reagan was fresher and newer than Carter despite being 13 years older.
Ahahahahahahaha! Oh dear, how one's idealogy plays tricks on the facts. Reagan got the call because he was a familiar brand, as a movie star and a state governor, despite the beginnings of Alzheimers even before elected.
In 2003, Brash was fresher and newer than Bill English despite being 21 years older.
More bollocks. There was a faction in National that wanted a far right front man with no baggage. It wasn't about fresh appeal, it was about backroom conniving.
A "should do better" for you, Mr Hooten.
She didn’t leave an obvious successor behind, or apparently anyone both able and interested in leading.
I think she did, but it was Cunliffe ;-)
They’re still going to have to either find him a new electorate or perform a particularly radical turnaround in New Plymouth.
Won't Little being voted as leader actually be that turn-around. Afaics leaders and ex-leaders get a lot more electorate votes than back-bencher MPs. It is likely that he'll pull more Labour party votes as well.
I think she did, but it was Cunliffe ;-)
[Former Prime Minister Helen Clark recognised it in 2007 and tried to persuade Mr Little to stand in 2008,
And everyone accuses her of not thinking of the future of the Party. I recall she brought Shearer on board too. Fancy that.
I think Helen assumed that Maharey would succeed had he not retired and on the basis that Cullen went as well. Whether the Party would've elected Maharey is another matter.
Thing is, the CGT is more popular than Labour. If anything, Labour drags down the popularity of the CGT, not the other way around. If it goes, it goes, whatever, but it's a mistake and it'll be a terrible shame.
Also, Andrew Little shouldn't take an electorate. As long as he's leader he'll get in on the list, and when he stops being leader that's probably the time for him to move on from Parliament anyway, as it is for a couple of the other ex-leaders in the Labour caucus.
She also brought Grant Robertson into her office to train up and was behind getting Jacinda Ardern back from London. Helen is very wise and I think her influence is more widespread than many realise.
I recall she brought Shearer on board too. Fancy that.
And Shane Jones. She's a complex one.
Helen is very wise and I think her influence is more widespread than many realise.
Yes, I too think she is (wise, Sofie means wise too )and her age wasn't even a problem ;) The sum of the Party and it's Mps have many strengths. Even the odd pitbull or 2. I'm sure they can get behind their Leader. I think that's what I like about Labour, they are all quite different, a real melting pot.
Unions are such a big part of our ability to expand together.Unions are such a big part of our history of social order. The idea a single worker has more power than a collective is crazy economics. Look at the Samoan Rugby Union team , it is now trying to express through unionisation , with help from their socialist All Black businessmen friends.
Unions protect employment law. In your life you will spend more time at your employment than with your family and friends.
Employment Law is very important although occasionally abused, e.g John Hawkseby, Susan Wood for example.
But there are unions and then there are other unions. Look at 1951.
And later Sonja Davies found that many unionists were not conducive to women in senior positions or any hint of feminism. Remember the battle over the Working Women's Charter.
But there are unions and then there are other unions.
And there are unionists and unionists. For example, it’s possible to be militantly anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-feminist while remaining a major powerbroker in the Australian union movement.
At the last count the Shoppies were one of Australia’s largest unions with over 200,000 members.
unions are great,
Sometimes unions get a bit to big for their boots, but their good far outweighs the bad.
but i don;t see why it should be anything more than one vote per union member for labour leadership. So then there is no weighting from anyone who is not an MP.
But hey i've just given up on labour, to scrap CGT is just stupid. I suspect many labour party members like me will vote their candidate and switch their party vote even more. Does New Labour exist anymore?
Does New Labour exist anymore?
... and thus Novus Labour was reborn!
the first past the post-partum post party
delivered a Little renascence man
plucked from a basket case in reeds
raised afresh at the breast of an
engaged & caring community,
a Labour of love...
...we have the numbers!
go forth an multiply
be not fractious
but give no quarter.
May the fourths be with you...
talking 'bout revolution
And Shane Jones.
She’s a complex one.
Pragmatic 'bob-each-way' betting coverage?
balancing the parabolas
of a pair of bolas...
you always need spin
to maintain balance,
and gyros for stability!
My Mum worked for the now long gone MacKenzies shopping chain in the 70s. They dillegently went out in symapthy in support of the big "mens" unions like the freezing workers and warfies when asked, forfeiting pay while they did it. When their (mainly womens) union went on strike for a small rise in the low wages they were earning - their first strike in over a decade - not a single other union joined or supported them.
to scrap CGT is just stupid
Yeah, well obviously it's a logical culmination of all the work of the union movement that I pay 33% tax on money I earn by working, and a big fat 0% on money I make just by owning a house.
I must be missing something.
I must be missing something.
Well, the unions aren't saying CGT should be scrapped, are they? That's Little making a strategic choice for Labour
Not even as much as Little-as-leader making a choice, rather Little-as-candidate arguing about the ability of Labour to effectively campaign on CGT and super@67 from opposition.
I think you can get an idea of what Little is thinking if you look towards the differences between the 2011 and 2014 election manifestos where Labour detailed its intentions to raise wages that are already above the proposed minimum wage.
The 2011 document detailed extensively the changes the party wanted to make such as reintroduction of industry standards to allow negotiated wage increases to be rolled out to non-unionised workforces.
The 2014 version had some fluffy pro-worker statements, but fudged the mechanisms which would be introduced by calling for a post-election commission to hammer out the goals and details.
I don't think that this style would have worked in 1999 for Clark; at that point in time NZ simply didn't trust politicians to do what they campaigned on (hence Labour's recent fetishisation with pledge cards). But I think that a few decades after the Douglas/Shipley deception the electorate is now prepared to give the governing party a little more wiggle room than they used to - the electorate shrugged when Key announced a surprise tax switch.
Yes, I don't see a Labour that doesn't believe CGT is a good idea any more. Just one that sees it's not a vote winner.
2pm on the 18th I determined to hand back my little red card. By 9am on 19th it occurred to me that without giving Little a "go", how could he prove that which meaningful enough numbers amongst us had decided he could do well. Am I or the majority always right? I've been proven wrong before (as with Clark). So, I've decided that Little must pass a few tests before I hang up my cloth cap. I expect him to have the qualities needed to convince Palmer to stay on in finance, to draw Robertson close on the front bench, and to select a deputy from such as Jacinda, Grant, or Nash. The last name at least on the front bench would show a commitment to succession-planning that Clark notably failed in. Friends, if the party at large had been brave enough to opt for Grant, surely it has sufficient bravery to test the new leader fate has decreed we have before turning off him and/or the party.
Wow, he's talking UBI. Now I officially actually like him.