Hard News: News from home ...
253 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
In the previous contest, I was hoping for a Shane Jones (leader) and Andrew Little (deputy) as an outcome. I suspect that would have been a very different general election.
-
I am very sympathetic to those who supported Grant Robertson. He's a tremendously likable guy and of the four contenders is the most naturally talented in the house. Of all the candidates his values most closely matched mine.
I fretted long and hard about my leadership vote. Eventually settling on Little 1, Robertson 2.
I'd have voted for Robertson as leader instead of Goff in 2008 and Shearer in 2011.
This time though, Robertson's problem was pitching himself as "the choice of the new generation" while refusing to look honestly at the failures of red team, let alone talk about rejuvenation. Labour has lost elections, but has also stagnated: a single new Labour MP entered the house this election via the general electorates.
When I asked Robertson about his feelings on caucus his reply made clear that his loyalties lay with the same stale senior personalities who have overseen the decline of the party as an effective parliamentary force over the last two terms.
Robertson and I disagree about the merits of caucus; fair enough. I disagree with Little about the merits of extending surveillance powers and CGT.
But in 2014, after two historic defeats and a diminished caucus seemingly intent on self-preservation at the expense of the party as a viable political force, the best choice for me seemed to be the candidate who best appreciated the need for change and declared themselves eager to raise parliamentary standards.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
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.
I agree with everything you've written.
I'd also add that I'm deeply unimpressed with what Little has said on policy, and economic policy in particular. I don't think the capital gains tax policy was well sold (Cunliffe screwed it up badly in the debates) but it addresses a real problem that continues to hurt working people, who pay their taxes while property investors (who are now responsible for a large proportion of sales in the Auckland market) enjoy their tax-free gains. It hurts young people, too. As Parker kept pointing out, the CGT consistently polled better than Labour. And the idea that people didn't vote Labour because it proposed to gradually raise the superannuation age to 67 is just preposterous. But Little's already declared he's ditching both policies.
I get that some people in the party (although, on the evidence, a minority) really hate Robertson, but I'm not really interested in Labour's internal factionalism. Nobody is. I just think this is a really terrible result, and Little doubtless being a decent chap doesn't really alter that.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
I agree with everything you’ve written.
This makes me deeply uncomfortable and causes me to wonder where I've gone wrong :->
We appear to be in some sort of weird dimension where you, I and David Farrar are all saying the same thing. Mark this moment as one for the ages … .
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
As Parker kept pointing out, the CGT consistently polled better than Labour. And the idea that people didn’t vote Labour because it proposed to gradually raise the superannuation age to 67 is just preposterous. But Little’s already declared he’s ditching both policies.
Not saying these are bad ideas, but I wonder if it isn't more likely an opposition wins elections based on broad-based ideology/principles (as opposed to detailed policy prescriptions) - then you bed yourself in on the TSY benches for at least a term before consulting with the wider public on such significant fiscal policy changes. Same as National did as a means to win those TSY benches - it promised no assets sales in its first term, it promised to retain WFF and so on and so forth... but behind these things that may have seemed alien to their conservative base - that conservative base still knew what they stood for.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Mark this moment as one for the ages … .
a disturbance in the Force?
immanentize the eschaton !... a glitch in the Matrix!
... a glitch in the Matrix?
</deja view> -
BenWilson, in reply to
This makes me deeply uncomfortable and causes me to wonder where I’ve gone wrong :->
I find you all being in agreement with Bomber the scariest part.
-
Luke Williamson, in reply to
I agree with you Russell that those policies are important and should be enacted. However, my impression (i.e. I can't back it up with any evidence) is that Andrew Little agreed with both those policies but did not want Labour to be losing votes for being the only partly to support them. Pragmatism or disingenuous? Everybody gets to decide.
Presumably, your dream result was team Gracinda who, to me, represent the same Labour caucus just taking turns at being the leader but representing the same losing team from the last two elections.
In Andrew Little I see somone with much less baggage who is not afraid to go biffo with Johnkey, and that's what I want to see.
And I want him to support CGT and super at 67+. -
Andrew Little talking about what he proposes, to Kathryn Ryan this morning (30 mins, audio options)
-
Grant McDougall, in reply to
If you are not happy with the result, there’s the door bozo.
Really ? That sort of shoddy personal insult, as opposed to commenting on the actual facts, says a lot more about you than it does me.
-
Northshoreguynz, in reply to
And when has Farrar ever been correct?
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
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.
Ditto Andrew, sort of. Grant is a genuinely remarkable individual who I'd also have liked to be leader. However, Andrew certainly has many similar qualities that could well make him very successful.
However, it troubles me that so many people in Labour are still talking about Labour, and in ways that play directly against unification, and still not talking about matters that impact on the electorate.
I'm sorry if this is something that's been said upthread that I've not acknowledged.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Andrew Little talking about what he proposes, to Kathryn Ryan this morning (30 mins, audio options)
The more I hear him the more I like him, already.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
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.
Wow, Northshoreguynz, perhaps you can see a problem with demanding unquestioning fealty from people you're quite happy to call "self-serving rats". If you think that kind of mindset is good for anyone, I'd like to introduce you to the incoming Republican majority of the next Congress. This is what political parties look like when they treat even the mildest criticism as heresy.
-
And Robertson is as pure as the driven snow in his support of whomever might be leader of the party.
-
Deborah, in reply to
However, it troubles me that so many people in Labour are still talking about Labour, and in ways that play directly against unification, and still not talking about matters that impact on the electorate.
Less than 24 hours after the result of our leadership election has been announced? I think it's okay to keep on talking it over for a few days. If people are still talking about it say, when the New Year rolls around, then I'd be deeply worried. I'm hoping that the internal focus will shift by 2015, and preferably sooner. It would be much better if our focus goes outwards by the time this parliamentary recess is over. (The House sits again next Tuesday.)
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
to go biffo with Johnkey
Framing politics as macho dick-measuring "biffo" goes a long way to explaining why more and more people are disengaged and cynical from a process they see as entirely divorced from their needs and values. That doesn't mean I expect, or even want, politics to be group hugs and sing-alongs. But oddly enough, I respond much better to people who don't treat me like a dribbling idiot.
-
Wow, he's talking UBI. Now I officially actually like him.
-
Bam! Straight shooter Andrew Little aims from the lip
"How are you going to beat John Key in 2017?"
"What we won't be doing is what he has done now for so long, which is give the appearance of a happy-go-lucky chappy but run the vilest, nastiest smear machine we have ever seen in New Zealand politics. We will be calling him out on that."
Is it just the joy of Spring or do I feel hope?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
That is by far the best interview I've heard a Labour politician do in 7 years. He's clearly got a brain on him, and a lot of experience, and seems like a very good fast talker. I feel pretty stoked really. If he goes through with 70% of what he's talking about there, I might even switch back to voting Labour, and if you'd asked me that yesterday I'd have said that was impossible.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it troubles me that so many people in Labour are still talking about Labour
Heard a bit of Robertson I think it was on RNZ this morning, promising to help stop that habit if it continues.
-
It was never going to be anything but close - had there been a universally popular candidate, Cunliffe would have been rolled six months ago.
Little was branded as an outsider in New Plymouth six years ago, and has been fighting that ever since. Over the past three years I've encountered (and tried to avoid eye contact with) Jonathan Young a couple of dozen times around town, and seen Andrew Little once - it is said that Young will turn up to the opening of a jam jar. And yes, we are oil town and milk town - both pretty blue-thinking workforces.
It's a sad indictment of the self-interest of New Zealanders that a party has to consider dropping policies that would clearly be in the best interests of the country and the majority of people because they are "vote losers". But being in opposition, Labour doesn't have the luxury National had of not actually having to announce any policy.
Let's give it time. And lets hope that the Labour caucus shows a bit of loyalty and discipline - we don't need another "Cunliffe Holiday" farce.
-
It is bizarrely ironic that at the same time Little was being announced as leader, 40 EPMU members in his home town were being laid off
-
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.
Labour will often face the problem under its current system of having leaders appointed who don't have the majority support of caucus. It's more democractic (except I hate the fact that unions are involved, it should be just caucus and members - unions shouldn't sign up to political parties in this day and age).
So the wider party/unions have elected Little over the will of the majority of the caucus. That's a difficult situation to be in. The reverse doesn't apply so much - if Robertson had sneaked in, he'd be working with MPs who largely supported him, it's not such a massive problem if the unions voted for someone else.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Wow, he’s talking UBI. Now I officially actually like him.
And Tolley is looking at superannuation. Will be interesting if she wants to raise the age. Let her get kudos for that I say . MSD needs to save a bundle
Just hope she doesn't do a buster Bennet on beneficiaries.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.