OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
So every bit of this conversation where we've been talking about Labour's new leadership, and then National being on the back foot, and whether National will lose in 2014, and the way that the media favours them, we were talking about some other party of the left that's going to rise up and win in the next 3 years?
I can see where I went so wrong...
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
I see it as a natural position, maybe not conscious, yet I notice the framing is always the same.
This is way too premature! Edwards and Farrar have both speculated on Robertson's loyalty but have identified absolutely no basis. I'm inclined to think Farrar's just kicking the tyres but Edwards, well maybe he just likes being quoted?
Gio, Grant's interest in special education is longstanding. With Paul Gibson and others, he successfully lobbied for additional funding for tertiary students with disabilities around '95 - '97.
I think his "politics" will be more evident now that he's in a more senior position. He did get elevated quickly by Goff, but he possibly didn't have quite the influence over policy that he will now.
-
Sacha, in reply to
That's just because we tell ourselves that it can't be done. Once again, though, the model is right there in front of our eyes.
When the poor have a Treaty on which to pin their court case securing funding for the programme you envisage, let's talk about MaoriTV as a model. And the "only a matter of attitude" angle had already outworn its welcome, thanks.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
So every bit of this conversation where we've been talking about Labour's new leadership, and then National being on the back foot, and whether National will lose in 2014, and the way that the media favours them, we were talking about some other party of the left that's going to rise up and win in the next 3 years?
Left and right is not about that. It may be that today, at this very minute the Labour leadership contest matters somewhat, but it's not what politics is about. Winning the next election is not what politics is about. Constructing a strong civil society, with movements and unions and public media and an intellectual class and a volunteer sector is what politics is about, fighting battles for civil rights and human rights is what politics is about, actually doing something to make society fairer is what politics is about. The three-yearly circus of our general election, which educates us to magnify the difference between centre-right and centre-left parties as if it represented the full spectrum of politics and the range of what is possible, can actually blind us as to what politics is about.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And as a middle class professional you’ll be served quite well by both parties. The classic win-win.
I don't think Damian's comment really warranted that response. It might not be your intention, but you're giving the appearance of picking fights.
-
merc, in reply to
What I was trying to allude to, poorly I admit, is that these articles are highly emotionally charged speculative gestures that I see frequently in the media here and find, quite frankly, a little weird.
I have lived in other places, English and non-English speaking for lengthy periods, also worked in the advertising industry, NZ is quite unique in it's framing of political articles.
May be geography, maybe population size, it's just a feeling I get.
Oh and Gio I strongly agree, the 3 year circus is actually sickening. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Gio, Grant's interest in special education is longstanding. With Paul Gibson and others, he successfully lobbied for additional funding for tertiary students with disabilities around '95 - '97.
That's great, I don't want to knock any of the practical successes of disability campaigners. But in the senior political class I'm looking for somebody who is not happy with the model of resourcing disabilities, of thinking about disabilities, and wants to reform it radically. Then and only then we can start to fill our mouths with the word "fairness". Until then, we'll keep getting humiliated, and we'll keep having to fight each other for who gets the most crumbs.
-
To those who point out Shearer has only been in Parliament for 2.5 years, they’re right. But they should also remember that Pierre Trudeau became Canadian PM only after 3 years as an MP, and he ended up not just in office for nearly 16 years, but also helped reinforce an independent Canadian identity. It also helped that Trudeau was politically active right before he was elected to Parliament.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Constructing a strong civil society, with movements and unions and public media and an intellectual class and a volunteer sector is what politics is about, fighting battles for civil rights and human rights is what politics is about, actually doing something to make society fairer is what politics is about.
I like this bit.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
But in the senior political class I'm looking for somebody who is not happy with the model of resourcing disabilities, of thinking about disabilities, and wants to reform it radically.
I'd guess, and not just from Shearer's press conference, that Labour's very open to policy review.
What I was trying to allude to, poorly I admit, is that these articles are highly emotionally charged speculative gestures that I see frequently in the media here and find, quite frankly, a little weird
Fair enough merc. My comment related to the confection of the story. It's an angle without substance and a distraction.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
It might not be your intention, but you're giving the appearance of picking fights.
Yes, this seems to have been happening. You know what? I'm just going to fuck off.
-
merc, in reply to
Me too. Liking the same bit.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
To those who point out Shearer has only been in Parliament for 2.5 years, they’re right.
Just being there should give anyone the right to try.Yes? Plus once chosen, should have full caucus support.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I can see where I went so wrong...
I don't think you can, even now. There could be 3 or more parties that rise up. Each getting only one percent, without taking it from Labour, would mean a win for a Labour led government, and it would mean they had to take those parties' policies, which are quite different from National policies, seriously. It could mean a major change in direction. Indeed, any kind of change of direction or heart within any of the National-led coalition that we are going to get soon, could tear the government apart, so slim is its majority, and resting on the party of the most unemployed, unhealthy, impoverished, crime ridden demographic in the whole country. You can't hide your head in the sand and say this is just going to be a bit of a rocky ride for National. It's going to be extremely turbulent. I doubt any of us have lived through times that will be as turbulent as what we're staring down the barrel of right now.
Yes, for the well-off, it might not come home very hard, but there's real poverty in this country, a real class divide, and a real sense of anger and frustration. The shocking crash in the number of people voting isn't a sign that they're all stoked about how things are right now. Many of them simply feel politics isn't the answer. Watching Labour pick it's leadership has me agreeing with them.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Just thought I’d say sorry to Bart or Keith if they found any of the debate unpleasant.
No worries Martin. Not you specifically. I just felt PAS is usually very good about really robust debate of ideas while at the same time keeping the tone inclusive and ... well pleasant. It just seemed odd to me that this topic had stirred people up in a way that I haven't seen very much here.
And I am well aware of how easy it is to write something thinking in one tone of voice and have it read in a completely different tone.
No harm done.
-
David Shearers first statement as leader was very good. His call to be part of the poverty commission and his pledge to get out and re-connect over the summer shows that the man with the right diagnosis of the parties ills got the job as leader.
-
Watching Labour pick it's leadership has me agreeing with them.
Ben, that's a very quick judgment you've made there. At the risk of sounding a little trite, why not engage in Labour's policy formation directly?
+1 Tom Seemens. I also thought it was clear, simple and genuine.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It’s going to be extremely turbulent. I doubt any of us have lived through times that will be as turbulent as what we’re staring down the barrel of right now.
As in Tottenham/Clichy-sous-Bois turbulent?
-
merc, in reply to
The shocking crash in the number of people voting isn't a sign that they're all stoked about how things are right now. Many of them simply feel politics isn't the answer. Watching Labour pick it's leadership has me agreeing with them.
I agree, it's been shallow and callous and glibly reported as such.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I'm just going to fuck off.
Being completely serious, that would be a real shame.
-
Agreed. It would be a real shame.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Watching Labour pick it’s leadership has me agreeing with them.
How has this process been worse than any other leadership change? They're usually done behind closed doors. In this case, party members seem to actually have been quite motivated -- they've turned out to the respective roadshow meetings in their hundreds.
I'm genuinely puzzled by the feelings this whole thing seems to generate.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
I agree, it's been shallow and callous and glibly reported as such.
I'm at a loss as to why you'd think the process was shallow or glib? It's been a lot more inclusive and thorough than any other since Kirk's ('65) or Lange's ('83).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It just seemed odd to me that this topic had stirred people up in a way that I haven’t seen very much here.
Yes. Like I said, I'm puzzled by it.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I don't want to knock any of the practical successes of disability campaigners. But in the senior political class I'm looking for somebody who is not happy with the model of resourcing disabilities, of thinking about disabilities, and wants to reform it radically. Then and only then we can start to fill our mouths with the word "fairness". Until then, we'll keep getting humiliated, and we'll keep having to fight each other for who gets the most crumbs.
Totally agree with that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.