OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
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.
Yes. + 1. Only serves to make me question my preference again . But I merely care about the state of the Nation. Not just the Party.
Dammit ;( -
Sacha, in reply to
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.
+1
It has been infuriating the last couple of years watching putative leaders put preserving their positions ahead of the interests of those they supposedly serve - and who pay them to do so.
But I merely care about the state of the Nation. Not just the Party.
snap
-
Keith Ng, in reply to
Winston can get away with it because he's Winston, and he exists on a plane where everything and nothing are facts.
Who's dumping on Cunliffe for being organised? I'm dumping on him for not being organised as a Finance Spokesperson because he was too busy campaigning for the leadership.
-
Keith Ng, in reply to
I would love to. However, it was an event closed to the media and for party members only.
Did they ask you not to talk about it?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Did they ask you not to talk about it?
Twas a sanctuary. :)
-
I know a couple of Judith Tizard Jokes, but I guess you had to be there.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
link?
Look at all the speculation, that camp Shearer has done nothing to deny, and you won't see a senior post for Cunliffe. I guess that Shearer has to take care of another former rival in Parker, who would get finance, but still.
-
BlairMacca, in reply to
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.
Depends on who goes. If they are electorate MP's (which many of the old guard are) that would require a by-election. Not such an easy task.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
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 guess is they were rightly keeping their powder dry until Goff stepped down, so that they'd have less of the baggage of the Clark years.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Look at all the speculation
Oh, I thought you meant an actual statement. I've only seen stuff like this:
They said speculation on the front bench was premature, but Mr Cunliffe said he would want Mr Shearer there, and Mr Robertson would also likely be there.
Mr Shearer said he had not given any undertakings to his colleagues.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
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.
Mind you, Cunliffe has thought out loud of setting the dead wood adrift.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Mr Shearer said he had not given any undertakings to his colleagues.
The basis of this post is that Cunliffe has given firm undertakings, Shearer none (not even to Parker. Yeah, right.), and that Cunliffe supporters have been bought, whilst Shearer are disinterested agents of change. One would want to see some sort of, you know, evidence, other than a bunch of people surrounding Cunliffe's car on election night.
As for the credibility of the speculation, Robertson has in fact lined up as Shearer's deputy, hasn't he? So we know at least that bit was correct. As for the rest, we won't know until after the election, but that goes for both candidates.
-
I’m dumping on him for not being organised as a Finance Spokesperson because he was too busy campaigning for the leadership.
Fair enough.
Oh, except that Goff already had the numbers and was hoping to delay their release for a couple of days. From above a comment above - http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/19/phil-goff-on-the-nation-2/
I'm a little surprised at the this article, to be honest. Are you sure it wasn't written by Keith Not Ng, it is bereft of factual information.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
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?
Because it would mean an end to this sort of machine politics. Which in turn would be bad for Labour's machine politicians. So a "democratic" party ends up being an oligarchy to benefit its leadership, not its members.
(How do you change Labour's constitution anyway? Do some grassroots members want to try?)
-
Sacha, in reply to
fair point. I note some speculation of stepping back which is a start.
Departing leadership team Phil Goff and Annette King are expected to vacate the front bench, as are Parliamentary veterans Trevor Mallard, Ruth Dyson and Mr Horomia.
-
During the Christchurch town-hall debate I was google-chatting with a National Party press sec, and I said something along the lines of ‘I’m going to start a fake rumour that Cunliffe refused to release his costings to Goff and then tipped off the PM’s office.’ I didn't, but I occasionally fret that this got taken up and spread around.
Anyway, Labour released ‘the numbers’ about five days after the ‘show me the money’ moment so no, Goff didn’t have the numbers.
-
merc, in reply to
Nail meets head.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
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.
It's hard to be sure which comes first. Maybe they're not a particularly united bunch anyway. I think that's highly likely, considering how there is not one dissenter in there from the idea of "let's have a royal rumble". There may be a strong but silent faction jockeying for a major bloodletting. Which might be a healthy thing, considering the ridiculous choices Labour made for their list prioritization.
May, might, could. My current feeling is of disconnect - it is not a process in which anyone but the caucus are involved, so it's all a bit soap opera. Who knows what fait accompli might have been pulled, what dirty photos are being handed around, what midnight meetings are being held by co-conspirators? Will Chris Warner suddenly appear, and declare his undying love one way or the other?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Goff already had the numbers and was hoping to delay their release for a couple of days
Again, it's unlikely to have been Goff's call - and Mallard put his hand up already as you noted.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Will Chris Warner suddenly appear, and declare his undying love one way or the other?
now that would signal a different approach
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Which might be a healthy thing, considering the ridiculous choices Labour made for their list prioritization.
That's another thing I don't get about this post: if Cunliffe has really been scheming for a whole term (while Parker/Shearer haven't) and is so complicit with the way the list punished new talent in order to preserve voting blocks in caucus, how come his block was so far behind Shearer's at the starting line, and the former leader and deputy leader - who surely are most responsible about the list selection process - lined up behind his opponent?
-
Sacha, in reply to
if Cunliffe has really been scheming for a whole term while Parker/Shearer haven't
can you recommend a good place to read more about that?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
can you recommend a good place to read more about that?
I haven't got one, I'm going by the Inscrutable Wisdom of Keith. Just trying to apply logic to it.
-
Another thing that gives me pause. iPredict, which has been extremely accurate so far, has been holding Shearer as the most likely candidate for a while. However, recently, it's stopped predicting a Labour win in 2014. What do all those insider traders know?
-
While it is useful to have another forum in which to discuss the Labour leadership contest, I'm afraid the article preceding this discussion doesn't do the author much credit. Keith has built his reputation through well-researched and intelligent deconstruction of others' spinning. Unfortunately, this piece comes over as a piece of Farrar-esque spin. There's nothing wrong in writing a piece supporting your preferred leadership candidate, but why not just write something which honestly and openly espouses the virtues of the candidate, instead of this kind of pretty insubstantial innuendo?
I don't mean this to be taken as playing the person rather than the ball - like I said, Keith's writing is normally first class.
A more important question, to my mind, is how the Labour Party thinks it can address the problem of popular disengagement with politics, when it doesn't even give party members outside of the parliamentary caucus a vote in choosing the leader?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.