Hard News: News from home ...
253 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Funny that Russell, Andrew and others are so quick to voice the Key lines?
Union elected.
Failed to vote the one we wanted.
Little couldn't win a Conservative Backbencher's electorate.
Mr Key must be grinning in his porridge to be so aligned with these commentators.Me? Optimistic. Go for it Mr Little! Prove those who are quick to rubbish demoracy so wrong.
-
Seriatim, in reply to
"It makes a good change, I think, from the same 20-odd closeted Parliamentarians bickering over ABC or ABR or whatever their silly minds come up with next."
Bingo. It's also nice to have a leader who doesn't care about "charisma" (and hasn't Key rather given "charisma" a bad name?)
I too am baffled by the number of melodramatic comments here - "tragedy! crisis! disaster!" - particularly as I've never heard Little suggesting any course of action that would make sense of these reactions. -
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
And I’m concerned that the more you or Chris Trotter or Andrew Geddis throw around words like “disaster” and “tragedy” the more it plays into the hands of the Nats and their MSM acolytes.
You can be concerned if you like. But I hope you are not suggesting I (and others) don't say what I think just because it might be bad for Labour?
Or, at the least, if is what you are suggesting, can I at least be paid some money for my silence? I'll happily go down the you-know-who path of having/not having opinions for cash!!!
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
The people who actually vote a party in (unions, communities) have said no to Grant Robertson and yes to Andrew Little.
Huh?
You do realise that the affiliate vote is effectively determined by the executives of most unions, not the actual members who cast ballots at election time. So, yes … Little got the institutional support of the leaders of the organisations that provide Labour with cash and some foot soldiers. But it's a stretch to say that affiliated union members wanted Little over Robertson, much less that the members of unions not affiliated with Labour wanted this (they vote at elections too, you know!)
As for the claim that "communities" said "no" to Robertson - this is meaningless waffle.
-
Seriatim, in reply to
"But I hope you are not suggesting I (and others) don’t say what I think just because it might be bad for Labour?"
I think the suggestion might rather be that you identify the source of your criticism a little more acutely. What really motivates it? Does it really have solid legs to stand on? I've seen a lot of language but very few facts. -
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
Funny that Russell, Andrew and others are so quick to voice the Key lines?
You're right. Sorry. I now see that 2 + 2 = 5, for the good of the Party.
-
Mr Mark, in reply to
That is precisely what I'm suggesting, big fella.
How does 225 South African Krugerrands (in unmarked notes) sound ? Thought as much. So can I take it there'll be no more anti-Little diatribes for the foreseeable future ?
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
I think the suggestion might rather be that you identify the source of your criticism a little more acutely.
http://pundit.co.nz/content/worst-result-ever
As I happily acknowledge upfront, much of it is personal disappointment that a close friend didn't get the job I think he's made for. But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.
Now, maybe he'll go on to do great things. Maybe he really is the better guy for the job. None of us really knows. Alls I's sayin' is that in terms of all the possible process outcomes that the election could throw up, I think this one is the worst.
And that is what I think. Sorry if it is inconvenient, but sometimes these damn thoughts just have a mind of their own.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
Krugerrands?
It's bitcoin or nothing!!
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
but who knows
repeating
the same experiment
again
may give a different result.Blows against the Empirical...
anything could happen,
and it could be...
...thatthere are unknown factors at play
new actors in collusionnew solids in solution
no more news idols...and sometimes just
leaving it on the bench,
as it is, and
going off on holiday,
works as well...
just as sometimes
the penicillin is mightier
than the swardTime will out...
: - )
</this pun is meant
to fit the grime,
justice time
makes a whine>
;- ) -
Luke Williamson, in reply to
Fair call Andrew. It does fascinate me that even amongst the lefty liberals on PA that there is such a split about where Labour should be heading and who should be leading them.
-
Ianmac, in reply to
But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.
Oh. Now I see. If Little squeaks in it is bad. If one more caucus vote had had gone to Robertson then would have been Ok for Grant to squeak in but not Andrew.
You are one with Brian Rudman who ends up writing,
"But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point."
Yeah right!
-
feel a bit meh about Little... but also felt that about the choices, the campaign for leader and labour full stop since the election
Saying that if his party peers allow, Little could be the one to at the least construct a solid united and loyal team. If so that alone makes the result a good one - doubt the others would have the support or unity to do as much
Good luck to him!
-
Well... I think Andrew will be okay, and maybe even exactly what my party needs. He's relatively unencumbered by strong links to particular groups within caucus, so that might help with a bit of renewal, perhaps more so than might have been the case with any of the other potential leaders. I see that as a positive.
Having won the unions, he now has to do some work to get the party genuinely onside. I see that as a positive.
He can be a bit serious at times, but he also has quite a dry and self-deprecating wit. He's very straight, and I've never seen him try to wave off a question or fudge a difficult issue. I see that as a positive.
He has a good record with respect to helping a large organisation get its house in order and grow. I see that as a positive.
I don't know Andrew well, but I did grow up in New Plymouth at the same time as him, and we went to the same Friday evening drama classes. My recollection is of a decent and kind young man, who was prepared to work hard and didn't hog the limelight for the sake of it. In the last few years I've seen him at party events and at one or two non-party social events. He's been good company - witty, interesting - and he took the time to give me some very helpful advice when I was seeking a place on the party list.
FTR, I'm on the record as wanting someone else to win, but also of the view that each of the people running had real strengths to bring to the role, and being happy to work with and for any of them. I stand by that.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
many hands
make light work......lefty liberals on PA...
I say,
that's a naff
super imposition!
Sinister socialist,
if you must,
thank you very much!
</mock outrage>
;- ) -
At the heart of the contention over the 'democratic primary' model is that one camp thinks the party is being dog-wagged by a union movement stuck in the 1970s, and the other camp sees a caucus full of dead wood that's crowding out fresh talent.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
Oh. Now I see. If Little squeaks in it is bad. If one more caucus vote had had gone to Robertson then would have been Ok for Grant to squeak in but not Andrew.
Yes. Because I think Grant is a better person to lead Labour than Andrew Little. So of course any result that delivers him the leadership is "OK"!
But if Grant isn't going to win, then the next-best outcome would have been for whomsoever did win to do so by a strong majority in at least 2 of the 3 voting blocs. To lose quite heavily in 2, but be elected by the 3rd is (IMHO) a bad place to begin with. Especially as I think the way the affiliate vote works in practice is deeply problematic (being in a union myself and having some cynicism about the heirarchical influence involved).
These are just my reckons. Others will have others. But
-
OMG, The Labour Party puts a selection process into place, that is as democratic as the party wants. Following that process the party selects a leader. I can't for the life of me see the problem.
Of all the candidates the party voted for, the one elected is the one most likely to bang heads together to unite both the caucus and the wider party. If anyone currently in the party has an issue with that, then they can fuck off. Mahuta, while being worthy is unknown, Parker too dry, and Robertson a political self serving rat. -
Johnny Canuck, in reply to
But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.
Not sure it matters. Brash beat English by one vote in caucus (after John Key switched sides), and went on to double National's party vote in 2 years. This was the same Don Brash who twice lost an electorate race to ... Social Credit.
-
FTR, I’m on the record as wanting someone else to win, but also of the view that each of the people running had real strengths to bring to the role, and being happy to work with and for any of them. I stand by that.
Same.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Little could do worse than to appoint Robertson as deputy, or otherwise in a senior frontbench role. What better consolation prize than that?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
This was the same Don Brash who twice lost an electorate race to … Social Credit.
And the same Don Brash who wilfully had the rug pulled from under him by Rob Muldoon in said electorate, because Muldoon wasn't a big fan of Brash's Hayekian/von Misesian world-view.
-
Ianmac, in reply to
Me too.
-
I'd hoped for a post here to throw some light on Russell Brown's comment that the result seems "disastrous ... for the prospects of the centre-left". How is having a strong base with unions and Maori damaging for the projects of the 'centre-left'? Who then is the 'centre-left' , and what are these 'prospects' which have been so tragically annihilated?
-
Northshoreguynz, in reply to
The point is about the democracy, not necessarily the result.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.