Hard News: Limping Onwards
968 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Rich, it's all in who makes up the numbers. Hooton made this argument t'other week: the only people with the ability to roll Goff are the caucus. As long as Labour polls about the same as at the 2008 election (~30-35%), almost all the list members are assured of keeping their seats. A new leadership would potentially cause volatility in the electorate, and that brings risk to those members (especially at the tail end), but no direct benefit to them (the benefit will be to those list candidates presently outside parliament, who have no say in the leadership). So it's really just been arse-covering by sitting MPs until now.
But that calculus has now changed. Goff is now a riskier proposition, and if he and King handle the election campaign as badly as they've handled the Carter and Hughes incidents, they're likely to lose considerable ground, and that's a direct threat to sitting MPs' careers. Whether it's still a better bet than a new leadership half a year out from the election remains an open question.
According to this line of reasoning, which I find pretty credible despite its source, actually winning the election doesn't even enter into discussion. That's the biggest tragedy and a pretty good reason to hang the useless fuckers out to dry. So my preference, since the election is a foregone conclusion, is for the party to roll Goff and King and risk a crushing electoral defeat, demonstrating that at least they've got a pair; rather than cling on to the dull certainty of a soft defeat.
L
-
The one thing that I think worries the Labour front bench is what happened to Mike Moore
Poor old Mike got thrown to the wolves after a lost election, they seem to have forgotten who threw him and why.
Internal squabbling is how I remember it going down -
Poor old Mike got thrown to the wolves after a lost election
Nah, Mike got to lose two. As Ms Bracknell might say, to lose one may be a misfortune, but to lose two...
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
So my preference, since the election is a foregone conclusion, is for the party to roll Goff and King and risk a crushing electoral defeat, demonstrating that at least they've got a pair; rather than cling on to the dull certainty of a soft defeat.
But that too would require virtu. And I don't think Goff is the only senior Labour person lacking in it.
-
SHG,
(in reply to Rob S) The first was a hospital pass from Palmer though. Moore was the only senior Labour MP with the balls to take one for the team. By the second he was a contender.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I believe Labour has been working hard to provide alternative policies
Please do provide examples, John. Really.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Please do provide examples, John. Really.
Actually, and my serious misgivings about it notwithstanding, the "two New Zealands" speech by Goff at the party conference created quite a bit of separation between the two parties on policy. More than we have seen for some time.
-
Sacha, in reply to
But that too would require virtu
Can't see a link to I/S's post about that.
For those who don't know: virtù is a key concept in Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. Roughly translated it means "political virtue", competence in political management and the application of power. The other key concept is fortuna, or as Harold Macmillan would put it, "events, dear boy, events".
A politician with virtù is able to manage events to their advantage, or at least to avoid serious disadvantage.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the "two New Zealands" speech by Goff at the party conference
Fair enough. Funny how I had forgotten it..
-
Rik,
And Rik, I’m really sorry but I’m not going to tell you why I believe what I believe, simply because 1) I can’t be faffed
My interpretation: I'm not important enough to be bothered with.
Probably true! :)
The sun is shining strong out the window in my world now - supposed to be like that all week.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Please do provide examples, John. Really.
Sacha, there was a draft economic policy put out a while ago and Claire Curran's run a very well attended open online workshop to develop other policies. Like all parties, Labour's now working on it's List and on a manifesto. As is always the case with Labour, there'll be lots of policy released in the lead up to the election - more than National ever produce (and more than is absolutely necessary IMHO).
-
BenWilson, in reply to
my 2c (again), is a National/Maori coalition, with Labour no-where near in the running.
I think Che's got the smart money. The Maori Party has good reason to be stoked about their deal with National right now.
I'd like a leadership change, but my main reason is because I've disliked Goff intensely since the 80s. But considering that I doubted 2 years ago that National would lose the next election, I didn't mind the leader being Goff because it meant we'd be rid of him by 2012, and thus finally rid of the legacy of 1980s Labour.
Labour won't win, but it is beholden on them to actually produce policy. That way they can say something about what things might have been like if they'd been elected - there's a good chance that the economy won't have recovered even by 2014, in which case we're definitely in a depression rather than a recession, and a New Deal is precisely what will be needed.
As for Tizard, can anyone forgive her for losing Auckland Central?
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Paul, John, and others, cherry-picking a couple of convenient examples to defend Labour's record isn't enough. Any fool can do that. If you want to argue that Labour isn't totally useless, I have a standing invitation for anyone who wants to do so, on Kiwipolitico. You might want to read this post first.
L
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
I quite agree with everything that you have said in your post. The problem is that, in my opinion, the voting public are largely unaware of just how ruthless he is. And that's part of the problem. I just wonder what Goff could have done, in all reality, when people are as apparently keen as they are on having Key as "our great leader" (which scares the shit out of me, quite frankly - points to IMHO just how easily duped people are).
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
I think Che’s got the smart money.
appreciated. have been a watermelon voter for almost 20 years, and can’t see that changing.
but can’t help seeing it as a little futile this time round.
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Jackie, the better question to ask is " why are people so keen on having Key as "our great leader"?" It's not because people are easily duped -- it's because it's easy to dupe anyone when there's nobody making a credible explanation as to how they're being duped.
That criticism is on Labour -- under Clark, and now under Goff. Because in all honesty, all Goff-led Labour has done is continue the same incoherent strategy of alternately misunderestimating Key, and scaremongering vaguely about him. It didn't work for Clark, and it's not working for Goff, because it's not convincing; the two strands of the argument undermine each other.
L
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
I understand that. But I really don't think people in general seem to like Goff, and I do wonder how effective he could have been, given how mild he is, in reality. He's not a strong leader against Key, I do get that. Do you really think he could have said anything that would have convinced people?
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Yes and no. Goff is not a natural, inspirational leader, but he he could have remained vaguely competitive. Over the past couple of years I've gone into plenty of detail about specific policy and positioning matters he could have used to his advantage.
L
-
"I think Che's got the smart money."
Dont be too sure on that - a lot of flaxroots support has gone for the Maori Party. I've noted earlier that there will be a couple of surprises coming out of the South...
I am pissed off with the current Labour-as-Opposition Party - but my vote wont change.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Paul, John, and others, cherry-picking a couple of convenient examples to defend Labour's record isn't enough. Any fool can do that. If you want to argue that Labour isn't totally useless, I have a standing invitation for anyone who wants to do so, on Kiwipolitico.
It's not as if your own analysis is much more convincing, to be honest. You're seeing a replay of this stage of the electoral cycle in the first Clark term. Clark positioning herself strongly to govern alone. An ineffective opposition that hadn't released major policy. National lost badly on that occasion, but it's not as it if had to be blown apart - as you suggest it ought to happen to Labour - in order to get back into power. It bid its time, and now it's their turn. You also say yourself that it's difficult at this point of the cycle for the opposition to make headway, which is true (and made truer by two headline-grabbing earthquakes). You also seem to be expecting a policy release which is just unreasonable to ask for - they'll rightly wait until the campaign, but they've prepared the ground for it at the conference.
Which is not to say that Goff has done well, or that he gives me any confidence he would fight a strong campaign, or that the conventional wisdom of what is possible to achieve in the first term in opposition is correct. But Labour actually has a platform and has defined itself in contrast with National. On this Paul is right.
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Giovanni, your counterargument is: because National sucked in 2002, Labour have to suck in 2011?
Yeah, nah.
You might also read the comments to that post, in which I scotch the misunderstanding that I'm after a policy release. And several other apologist shibboleths.
L
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
You might also read the comments to that post, in which I scotch the misunderstanding that I'm after a policy release.
I don't have all day, to be honest I'll stick with what you wrote in the post, which I didn't think was any more unimpeachable or any less selective than what Paul just pointed out and you dismissed out of hand. And I'm not saying because National sucked so Labour will have to suck, just pointing out that there are quite severe constraints on what the opposition can achieve with such a short election turnaround and with the backdrop of national disasters and a PM who has run a fairly tight ship. Have they fumbled? Yes. Did I hate the Axe the Tax campaign? You bet. But you accuse them of not having defined what they were about, which quite frankly they have - the two New Zealands speech is just about as clear a statement as you'll get.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
a lot of flaxroots support has gone for the Maori Party. I’ve noted earlier that there will be a couple of surprises coming out of the South…
with National heading to a near-60-seat haul, the Maori Party could get down to as few as 5 seats (1 seat + 4 list, i.e. ACT this time round), and the Nats would still be safe.
going to be a long 3 years Lefty-peoples.
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Excuses. Sigh.
L
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Excuses. Sigh.
Great counterargument.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.