OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
It would seem that the thing holding our development in every arena back is a lack of available finance.
Allowing an unfettered monopoly to pay out 85% dividends to shareholders year after year may have something to do that in the case of our critical telecommunications network.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Hell, Michael Cullen could go on a charm offensive and forget the charm bit but when when Labour went into the ’99 campaign promising to raise the top tax rate the costings were there from the start and everyone was strictly on message. Including Clark.
And Mike Munro I believe was a large part of that charm offensive. When he left for the private sector, it showed.
allowing an unfettered monopoly to pay out 85% dividends to shareholders year after year may have something to do that.
That ties in neatly with my cartellisation argument.
-
Note the past-tense that I used. I didn’t start out as anti-Cunliffe, but – quite obviously – I am now.
Oh well. Congratulations. Your hatchet job has at least made me notice the two candidates and listen to what they are saying. The result is I am more pro-Cunliffe. He seems on top of issues and facts, can speak clearly and coherently, remember the names of his fellow caucus MPs and makes Shearer look like a bumbling though well meaning professor.
No-doubt all this means that Labour will go for the least offensive option and blow their chances at the next election.
-
merc,
Herald and Stuff were talking up Shearer this morning, odd.
-
I have to say I find it odd that the leadership of a political party that just lost an election miserably has managed to raise such an unpleasant tone in a PAS thread.
-
merc,
Post RWC loss coach selection zeitgeist. It's the whole myth of our need for a Leader, kind of interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Nemorensis -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I have to say I find it odd that the leadership of a political party that just lost an election miserably has managed to raise such an unpleasant tone in a PAS thread.
Criticism of a PA blog post = unpleasant tone? Surely not.
-
"Under Shearer Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson is set to be deputy and Parker is tipped take the finance role. "
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6130205/Shearer-appears-to-have-the-numbers
Well done Keith. Did you sniff that out?
-
Not that odd that the Herald & Stuff are talking up Shearer when you consider how right-wing they are, which outgoing right-wingers are backing Shearer, and those newspapers' desire for continued Tory rule.
I am pretty ambivalent about this issue. The only time I've heard Cunliffe speak was a year ago, and he seemed disconcertingly open to PFI deals for public sector investment, IIRC. But the disingenuous bagging of him in this post, added to the Herald & Stuff backing, suggests that someone in the Shearer camp has been reading the Mandelson playbook closely.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Well done Keith. Did you sniff that out?
Huh? Shearer has had the numbers from day one.
-
Bart, for myself, I think it is more down to a sense of sadness that Keith has temporarily departed from his normally high standards of fisking, and succumbed to the mucky game of passing off the spinning of unattributed sources, suggesting something ostensibly virtuous on the part of one candidate as a means of having a pop at an opponent. He’s better than that, and will return to form soon, I’m sure. It's not like the government won't be providing him with ample opportunities to do so.
-
Huh? Shearer has had the numbers from day one.
I was referring to the fact that Shearer's front bench seems pretty settled. How did that happen without him offering roles to people? Beats me :-)
I realise also, that in light of the "nasty" comment above I should be using more smileys. I don't recall *ever* disagreeing with Keith in the past, which probably means he is right here. It's just that...I disagree.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Well done Keith. Did you sniff that out?
No, that trio if anything, has pretty much been obvious. Sorry but Keith posted a broad look at the Party and what could be pushing buttons behind the scenes, just as much other speculation has done. He is perfectly entitled to announce his preference, just as many others have done. The Caucus know who and why they want David dadada. There is inside machinations being held close to their chests and we are being drip fed a bit of gossip, that which keeps the shallow Herald happy, and helps to keep Labour in the limelight.
Barthas managed to raise such an unpleasant tone in a PAS thread.
Political Party preference and PAS will guarantee disagreements. Especially if the bloggers indicate their preference. The frustrating thing for me is the right wing got back in, but that is jmo.
I pop over to the capture thread for serenity;) -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I was referring to the fact that Shearer's front bench seems pretty settled. How did that happen without him offering roles to people? Beats me :-)
I'm going to play this out in advance: if Parker doesn't get finance, I'll apologise to Keith. If Parker gets finance, I'll say he was played like a reasonably cheap fiddle. And he's a big boy so I'll spare him the smiley face.
-
Shearer and Robertson have walked out of caucus and into leader's lounge.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
They flat together. You don't think they chat. Parker's abrupt departure had to have been a master plan beginning.
scene1
Kitchen at Flat
Shearer: I've been negotiating a Dinner for tomorrow, to make a plan.
Parker : Can we make it Thursday. We have a book club meeting tomorrow. I've been reading " How to win friends and influence people"
Shearer: Oh, not fair, that was my book.
Parker: Maybe I should try the Budget book
Shearer: Yes , that will tie in nicely with the dinner party types.
Parker: Ok, who's coming to dinner?
Shearer: Trev, Phil, and Annette.
Parker: Oh!
Scene fades into darkness, a spotlight emerges on Shearer. -
Stuff breaking news says it's Shearer as well
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
Not that odd that the Herald & Stuff are talking up Shearer when you consider how right-wing they are, which outgoing right-wingers are backing Shearer, and those newspapers’ desire for continued Tory rule.
Ha. I love the vast right-wing conspiracy aspect to this... or it could just be that the political reporter who wrote that story didn't receive a bribe/roughing up from the Publishers' henchmen, and simply asked the Labour caucus who they supported. either one.
-
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Political Party preference and PAS will guarantee disagreements.
Yup no quarrel with you on that point. But I'm sorry I found the tone in this discussion, especially that directed at Keith, to be unnecessarily unpleasant. PAS discusses vigorously and that is great, it's what we hope for, and for many of us why we are here so much. But within that has been an acceptance of differences of opinion.
I don't know quite why this discussion has felt different to me and it may just be me.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
it may just be me.
No, you are not alone :)
-
martinb, in reply to
Hi Bart- is that aimed at me some?
I think as I set out I was disappointed in the tone of Keith's post. It set out to diagnose problems, then simply bagged Cunliffe's bid as the cause of those problems. Especially as I respect Keith as one of the best bloggers around, especially when dealing with fisking using facts and evidence. But this wasn't one of those posts.
I don't think I was unpleasant- but I wanted to know why he thought Shearer was so great and why Cunliffe got such a bagging from him. Certainly not all the problems of the Labour party are Cunliffe's fault!
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
But within that has been an acceptance of differences of opinion.
This is not about a difference of opinion.
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
Action is a lot louder than words. You can see a huge mine...
I'm just researching some stuff for an end of year show at the moment. Big protests and mass coverage in Sept 2010 when the 90 day bill was announced, and on 1 April 2011 when it came in.... a story on Te Karere.
As for the mine, my point is, no you can't, unless you happen to be wandering around that bit of DOC land. But you can see the protest when it's announced, you can see the debate on the current affairs show that evening etc. I think the actuality often slips by quite unnoticed.
How many beneficiary votes will National lose by doing that, do you think?
Who knows? The DPB is almost entirely spent by those receiving it, so I expect the businesses that they spend it in would notice, for sure.I take your point, but I think it's a fairly long bow to draw to say that a small business, which has had a tax cut in company rate, and a cut in personal rate, and is not affected by the GST rise as it claims it back, might not think that the downturn in whatever percentage of the Benefit is no longer spent in its business is a good reason not to vote for National again next time.
I agree with you about feedback loops etc. And I don't see National becoming *more* popular than they are now. They have peaked, yes, IMHO. And the honeymoon is over. I just think we are still a million miles away from a shoe-in Labour/left victory come 2014. And the decision made today will be a factor in that.
-
Damian, no belief in the VRWC here, just recognition of common beliefs, and interests, and therefore congruent actions.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.