Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever you want to call it
134 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Cunliffe seems to have drawn a mark in the sand at least. Shame it’s taken thirty years to reach this point where Labour may represent the working classes again rather than the upper-middle-classes who seem to have been their primary focus over that time.
Labour finally apologised last year for the destruction that resulted from their policies in the 1980s. I saw that as a real turning point. The contenders for leadership need to be quizzed on their commitment to honouring that apology.
-
bewilder-led...
...the Labour leadership contest would be “three weeks of reality TV” and “Political Idol, or whatever you want to call it”...
Yeah, whatever happened to heading out into the wilderness for 30 or 40 days?
-
Andre, in reply to
I think they did a great job of not reversing the Richardson benefit cuts and continuing rogernomics under Helen Clark, so an apology for the 80's doesn't really cut it. They have been National in drag for a long time from where I'm sitting.
-
If I could get the on-demand video to play
Russell, if you're like me and have Ghostery (or equivalent) installed, it seems that MTV have their content delivered by Brightcove.com, which is one of the domains on which Ghostery blocks cookies; a surprisingly (and irritatingly) frequent problem for me. Disabling Ghostery for MTV enables the video to work fine.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Got to start somewhere. A revision of the 00s' continuation of the 80s is more likely under a leader who supports the apology for the 80s. Robertson is, from what I can gather, an unabashed member of Labour's neolib faction, whereas Cunliffe is much clearer on the significant hurt that the neoliberal idiotology has inflicted on NZ.
-
Matthew, I sat on the Labour Policy Council when we were drafting the current Platform. Grant Robertson was the chair. He's not a neo-liberal.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Grant Robertson was the chair. He’s not a neo-liberal.
A’ight. Obviously got the wrong impression from things I’d read.
-
llew40, in reply to
Hmmm, I get that JK isn't your cup of tea (nor is he mine), but it seems to me to be a little bit too tribal to imply (and apologies if that was not your intention) that those who voted for him have been 'baffled by bullshit'. I would have thought it was very clear by now (two election victories in) that this is a Government that should not be underestimated.
Shouting your strident opposition to a policy in ever-increasing volumes is not, in my view, a political tactic that is likely to appeal to an electorate in sufficient numbers to win an election. But I'm no political strategist so I could be wrong.
But for that very reason I tend to agree with Craig. I'd be much more interested in an approach to an unpopular policy or piece of legislation that clearly communicated to lay-people the 'why it sucks', and 'how it can be improved', rather than the blunt instrument of (short-hand) of 'fuck-em' to big-business.
That sort of tactic might play well with the tribal base, but clearly (on the evidence of the last two elections) is not convincing enough people that this is a viable alternative Government.
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
They have been National in drag for a long time from where I’m sitting.
This is true while they were in power. Since then, however, they've been all over the Green Party website mashing Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, so I'm going to give them benefit of:
a) the doubt
b) the Green ministers holding them to account around the cabinet table.I've met Cunliffe, liked him and I think he's a clear thinker, so I'd like to see him have a go at leading Labour. Of the three I think he has the best credentials for the job, and I like that he is prepared to raise taxes.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
And I thought Brian Edwards' endorsement of Cunliffe as the candidate most likely to strike fear into the hearts of the current government was a reasonable point too.
-
Did John Key use the term 'political idol' because he could not admit that NZ Labour's got talent or some MPs and not him have the X factor
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
But for that very reason I tend to agree with Craig. I’d be much more interested in an approach to an unpopular policy or piece of legislation that clearly communicated to lay-people the ‘why it sucks’, and ‘how it can be improved’, rather than the blunt instrument of (short-hand) of ‘fuck-em’ to big-business.
Step 1: Goto Scoop.co.nz
Step 2: Read the near-incessant feed of Green Party media releases that do exactly that.
Seems to be working for the 10-15% of potential voters. -
Labour has a good chance of a decent comeback this time if they get a clean result.
National has had their obligatory 2 turns and I'm afraid the Sky City thing, GSCB, Meridian and a few other general blunders has weakened their appeal to the public ( in my view.) The kim dot com thing as well but maybe not so much by election time depending on the result of the US processes.
Voters are also getting tired of Judith Collins & Paula Bennett not to mention the Fonterra stuff ups under Nathan Guys watch. Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee are running out of goodwill.
Political memory is short but lets hope this is an opportunity for the Greens and Labour to capture some mindshare with a re-invigorated front bench.
I hope Cunliffe gets the top job because he polarises people and it is his 3rd try at the role. He has shown he can deliver change in previous ministerial roles ( Telecom deregulation) and has some cut through.
Shane Jones is just using the process to build his profile and Grant is unknown outside of Wellington. It would be better if there was a female labour politician in the contest but I can't think of any. I wonder about Lianne Dalziel but she is out of the picture now.
-
llew40, in reply to
Thanks Mikaere. In this particular case I was referring to the candidates responses cited by RB to the Sky City question. I do understand that there are some considered responses out there (I generally vote Green and have a passing acquantance with Scoop).
And really my bigger question was more about the effectiveness of tribalism in politics in terms of making a difference to the non-tribal. You see a lot of it on blogs of all political persuasions where reaction to political events quickly falls along tribal or partisan lines, regardless of the issue at hand. I get that for most of us we are political junkies, but I think we run the risk of being disappointed if we think that everyone will respond to the same signals.
-
Howard Edwards, in reply to
Just what, precisely, is the difference between these three? They all seemed to be saying the exact same thing. They, Robertson especially, also seemed to endorse each other.
One of them will attract more floating votes and get a higher preferred Prime Minister rating than the other two.
The tricky part is of course identifying which one.
-
This just tweeted by David Cunliffe:
Afternoon all. @CunliffeLeader is a troll and has nothing to do with our campaign. We’re keeping it positive. Thanks.
The account itself has been deleted, raising the possibility that it was in fact the work of an extremely deluded supporter who has finally got the message.
-
James Butler, in reply to
@CunliffeLeader is a troll
And the account is dead now, which suggests to me at least that if it was a troll, it was a genuine one. A satirical troll wouldn't pack up shop like that.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
but I think we run the risk of being disappointed if we think that everyone will respond to the same signals.
Which is why I suggested that there are 3 distinct styles. Plus, pointing out that (I think) Nactional are full of it and that it seemed to work for them is not suggesting anything other than that and that if one of the contenders is a bit like that, it should not frighten the horses. Everyone is different. Them and me and you. Your preferences is different to mine. So be it.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And the account is dead now, which suggests to me at least that if it was a troll, it was a genuine one. A satirical troll wouldn’t pack up shop like that.
It's back!
-
My pick is that the genuine Cunliffe has reported it as a hoax account; Twitter would have taken it down; and if the troll/deluded person has made a case that it's clear from the handle that they are not David Cunliffe, it's been reinstated.
-
There should just be a fakehood/reality switch in twitter. Personally I'd keep it set on 'fake' at all times.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
National has had their obligatory 2 turns
Unfortunately, in NZ it's historically been an obligatory 3 terms. That's the median stay. If Labour get in, they're actually bucking the trend. Or, possibly more accurately, National have fucked up.
-
I favour the idea that they fucked up, TBH. The last election was actually quite close. Usually there's a consolidation of lead in the first election. Instead National picked up votes but the rest of the right completely died, and NZF was born again.
-
Account suspended. Heh.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I would imagine that the implosion of ACT and UF may have led to some people not voting or even voting for a leftist party.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.