OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
i hear someone saying 'ouch'.
your ability to tell it like it is continues to make me a fan keith.
-
Indeed, it is going to be an interesting week
And as for labours worries about the double or double, double bluff by the right in endorsing a candidate how pathetic is thatIf David and David or a 54 year old baby boomer as a fresh face are the answer then I feel the wrong question has been asked
-
I find it hard to understand how the support of Goff, King and Mallard doesn't represent "entrenched interests and patronage."
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
I find it hard to understand how the support of Goff, King and Mallard doesn’t represent “entrenched interests and patronage.”
Because they don't expect much in return, and are just going to be serving the rest of the term before retiring, without hoping for front bench placement or great portfolios?
-
To me, it seems like the dead hand of the past reaching out to keep control of the Labour party caucus.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
I think in asking where Cunliffe was when the hard questions about numbers were asked, Keith has put his finger on an important reason why the previous incumbents might not support Cunliffe.
-
Whoever wins the leadership battle, I hope like he'll it is because Labour MPs think that's the person who can win the next election, not because it's a mate or there's a promise of a plum job. Another 2 terms of National would really hurt the country.
-
Goff had the numbers.
Given that he had the numbers, the responsibility for not being able to come up with them in the Christchurch debate rests with him. So what's with the prevailing meme of blaming David Cunliffe for Goff not being able to come up with them during the debate? It looks very much like a bit of niggle designed to undermine Cunliffe's bid for the leadership.
-
Maybe Labour should adopt a more transparent mechanism that puts the leadership and list decisions in the hands of ordinary members?
Can anyone provide a convincing reason why not?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
So what's with the prevailing meme of blaming David Cunliffe for Goff not being able to come up with them during the debate?
He should have burst out of Goff's chest, like in Alien. We expect nothing less of an effective Finance Spokesperson.
-
Like I said, Deborah - it's not about the David, it's about the caucus. If Cunliffe didn't offer them positions, they would never choose Cunliffe. So the question is simply: Are they willing, as a caucus, to elect someone just because they offer them better positions.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
He should have burst out of Goff’s chest, like in Alien.
Well, if anyone could….. ;)
Cuniliffe does seem rather slick, but I'm torn for that reason. Is slick what we need right now?
Or is Shearer the sheep in wolfs clothing?
Hard to say.
FWIW, I actually like them both for their ability to look great together. Good balance by my standards. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
If Cunliffe didn't offer them positions, they would never choose Cunliffe.
Mmmhhh... given that Shearer has indicated there won't be a front bench place for Cunliffe, who says he hasn't made known to his supporters what they're getting? And how do you know Shearer's voters are disinterested? Won't they expect advancement by virtue of having backed the winning horse? Also, the bulk of them used to be supporters of Parker, and if you want to talk about somebody who had spent the last term jostling for the leader's position, you need not look any further than Parker, surely.
-
Goff had the numbers.
That's not what I hear.
Goff was fudging it on The Nation ("fiscal framework" doesn't necessarily mean "forecasts") because he was reluctant to be seen as a mickey mouse operation which failed to finish its homework on time. That's why I think there's been so much back and forth about this.
Blaming Cunliffe for not having the numbers ready means accepting that they went ahead with their policies without having done the numbers first.
-
merc,
It's gone Presidential,
"I move them not because I think they've done a bad job in their portfolio but because I want to freshen up that responsibility, someone may have come to me and said they are interested in trying something new. If everyone does the same thing the whole time, I think it has a stale feel to it and I don't want that.
I want an invigorating cabinet."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772664
Labour hasn't got the organisation to counter this style of politics, and frankly the electorate prefers it, with a side salad of greens ;-) two leaders and all that, only on the side.
What Labour is not seeing is the writing on the wall, Goff proved that you can't suddenly get your suit inlaid with paua and expect to become the nest (heh) President. And when we go republic, guess who that will be? -
I do rather feel that Cunliffe wants the job more. That's worth something in itself.
I don't really buy the idea that Labour's weak performance over 3 years is all down to Cunliffe's long game. I never heard much from Shearer either. Or anyone in Labour, most especially its leader.
My preference will never happen, which is that they delay the choice, until it is clear what game Key is playing, and that Labour display ALL the talents they have, everywhere they can, until the voice of this cycle is found. It might not be the binary we are presented with, two old rich white guys, to stack up against National's old rich white guy, after all.
For a party that has had collective power as it's supposed support for it's entire life, it sure doesn't manage itself internally anything like that. What it looks like is a corporation. If they wonder why I didn't vote for them, this leadership contest is a good exemplar of precisely what I dislike about Labour.
Right now, I'd like to know what Labour stands for. I'd like to know how committed they are to the policy platform they stood on, and what their serious answers are to NZ's problems. "Here's a guy" isn't an answer.
I'm also sorry to say this, but Goff is the reason what is happening is happening now. He doesn't have to quit now. That was a stupid idea, deeply irresponsible, in my opinion. As the leader he could be doing one hell of a lot more to make this period of time a really useful one for Labour, rather than nobly falling on his sword.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Given that he had the numbers, the responsibility for not being able to come up with them in the Christchurch debate rests with him.
I very much doubt that the decision about timing of the release was Goff's despite what Cunliffe might say to the media about it.
Mallard is likely to be the culprit, as with so much of their other strategic muppetry. And unless I've missed him publically stepping down to a backbench position, shuffling the deckchairs won't make enough difference. The new Labour leader should insist on some quick resignations to get better candidates like Nash or Davis back in off the list. Not holding my breath.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I do rather feel that Cunliffe wants the job more. That’s worth something in itself.
It's nice to read a reason that isn't tied up with reinforcement of the author's pre-existing theory, or an argument about who really carries the baggage of the last Labour government.
By the same token, I think that Cunliffe's palpable alienation of so many colleagues doesn't speak well for his ability to lead a united Parliamentary party.
-
I shall confine myself to but one comment only.
Anyone who was at the meeting yesterday and noted the exchange between David Shearer and Judith Tizard would know which of the two candidates represents change.
-
Keith Ng, in reply to
Well, I wasn't there. Can you explain?
-
I think in asking where Cunliffe was when the hard questions about numbers were asked, Keith has put his finger on an important reason why the previous incumbents might not support Cunliffe.
Except Trevor Mallard took the rap for that on twitter after the debate. All Goff needed was a bit of instant wit and quick fire repartee.
As Winston said "the money's in the pockets of your rich banking mates, John".
Dumping on Cunliffe for being organised, good grief, does Labour really want 9 more years to work out its policies for NZ?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the double or double, double bluff by the right in endorsing a candidate
they've done well at stirring wedge politics inside Labour for some time
-
Sacha, in reply to
Shearer has indicated there won't be a front bench place for Cunliffe
link?
-
Tom Semmens, in reply to
I would love to. However, it was an event closed to the media and for party members only.
-
merc, in reply to
True dat.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.