OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
It was a inclusive process, if by inclusive you mean the bit where the candidates went on a roadshow. But it seems that the caucus didn't really pay all that much attention to the mood of those meetings, and the response of people there to the candidates. However, that's the choice the caucus has made, and now we get to see whether in fact it was a good choice.
-
Sacha, in reply to
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.
True, but it also offers a time of focus for a broader conversation - for those who are well-prepared. That readiness has been lacking, including amongst those in disability movements and organisations.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
As in Tottenham/Clichy-sous-Bois turbulent?
I suspect that, globally speaking, that's going to end up being seen as the opening overture to a whole lot of nasty shit that's coming down the tubes. How that plays out in isolated, edge-of-the-world NZ remains to be seen.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
But it seems that the caucus didn't really pay all that much attention to the mood of those meetings, and the response of people there to the candidates.
I wasn't at any of them, so I have no particular insight, however I've heard competing stories about this.
However, that's the choice the caucus has made, and now we get to see whether in fact it was a good choice.
A number of people have talked about broadening the franchise in a manner similar to the Greens' approach. I think that's definitely worth considering.
-
merc, in reply to
I just don't know what these people stand for aside from wanting to win the leadership and I don't think that's entirely my fault.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
I just don't know what these people stand for aside from wanting to win the leadership and I don't think that's entirely my fault.
I'm less clear about Cunliffe personally, but Shearer's CV has been well covered in the media plus he blogged some issues at Red Alert. I'm out of the country, so can't really comment on other coverage. Certainly, a lot about the individuals is also easily accessible through Hansard and Parliamentary TV.
I don't get the sense that any of the candidates wanted the job for the sake of it, not even Cunliffe about whom this has been said.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
How has this process been worse than any other leadership change? They're usually done behind closed doors.
Which has never made it right. It could have been done in a much, much better way. Mostly, that's down to Goff. His last parting shot, to start off the government after him with a power squabble before the votes are even counted, before National has unveiled it's direction, before detailed analysis of what happened is even available, before their strategy is clear, before their policy is decided. It's all been done in the exact reverse order to what it should be. It's lost the initiative entirely.
I'm genuinely puzzled by the feelings this whole thing seems to generate.
I'm puzzled by how people don't care. It speaks to me that a feeling of disengagement has become so normal, that they don't even notice it. They don't mind that the consultation of them about who will, quite possibly, be the next government of this country, isn't a far more open and inclusive process.
-
Knowing someone's CV is not the same as knowing what they stand for, or where they want to take the Labour Party. It seems to
me that it would have been better to have had a longer period for evaluation of the candidates, a requirement that they articulate some kind of manifesto, and a franchise considerably larger than 34 MPs. I don't even know if any of the candidates advocated one member one vote for future leadership elections. -
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
Maybe it’s because I’m not as left as some people here (nor am I as right as other people elsewhere, and I probably vote the same as most of you anyway), but I find it hard to completely dismiss one side as being completely devoid of policy, theory, ideas and just popular because someone smiley is the leader, while the other side is an awesome policy machine with a doofus, and the media won’t let them win.
Everyone has theory and ideas, but how much policy you have can be a matter of principle. If your politics hold that government can be used to do good, you're liable to have a lot of policies about the good things government should do. If you believe that government should be small and keep out of people's way, you probably have a smaller set of policies.
Labour will always tend to be a better policy machine than National, but that's not a fair criticism of National. Ducks will always tend to look like ducks quack like ducks.
I’m not trying to be glib, but it is worth pointing out that Labour ran the country for 9 years until quite recently, and that the media hasn’t changed a lot in that time. So it’s not that stacked against the left.
I doubt that the media as a group of people are particularly biased, barring noticeable individuals. However, a commercial media will usually be biased by financial imperatives towards stories that interest the greatest possible number of people. Stories about detailed policies aren't the strongest contenders. Therefore, it seems like there'd be a systemic bias against parties who spend a lot of time trying to promote policies.
If all of this hangs together (and I'm not saying it's a particularly rigorous argument), then the media would be somewhat against Labour.
Which is not to say there aren't other systemic factors that work against National.
-
But it seems that the caucus didn’t really pay all that much attention to the mood of those meetings, and the response of people there to the candidates.
Lew put it best over at the Standard :
Alienating the obsessive activist rump who still don’t understand why Labour has been doing badly since 2006 isn’t mad. Embracing them would be.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Mostly, that's down to Goff. His last parting shot, to start off the government after him with a power squabble before the votes are even counted, before National has unveiled it's direction, before detailed analysis of what happened is even available, before their strategy is clear, before their policy is decided.
Ben, I think you're grasping at some sort of false malevolence.
I know from the few people I talk to that this process was intended to ensure the next leader was actively selected by the membership and caucus rather than, in the case of Goff, being handed it without a fight. The view is that it robbed Phil of a solid consensus within caucus. The timing was also determined so that Labour has a front bench to line up opposite National's from day one.
You mightn't agree with the tactics, but they're not intended to scuttle the ship as you seem to be suggesting.
Knowing someone's CV is not the same as knowing what they stand for, or where they want to take the Labour Party. It seems to me that it would have been better to have had a longer period for evaluation of the candidates, a requirement that they articulate some kind of manifesto, and a franchise considerably larger than 34 MPs.
Points well made. I'm not active in the Party, but if I was in the country, I'd be talking to the candidates at the meetings and one of the things I'd want to know would be how they'd talk to people who're not members directly. Shearer's said he intends to do exactly that!
Another +1 to Mr Seemens (and Lew).
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Alienating the obsessive activist rump who still don’t understand why Labour has been doing badly since 2006 isn’t mad. Embracing them would be.
I wasn't convinced by that at all. For starters, Labour nearly got back into government after only 3 years. Some messages just take a long time to get through, and "Labour is for a flatter society again" might be one such message. They could have started with it a lot earlier, by showing the actual policies, most of which are indeed progressive, but they didn't. There was a sharp rise in the disengaged lost vote this time around. Could it be that people do this when they see no difference between alternatives?
-
NBH,
I just don't know what these people stand for aside from wanting to win the leadership and I don't think that's entirely my fault.
Part of the issue here, though, is that for all the talk of 'factions', my impression is that Labour is actually pretty united in terms of policy. I don't have any secret inside knowledge of the party, but I don't get the sense that there are any virulent disagreements about the overall platform that Labour's adopted - despite commentary online, Cunliffe and Shearer don't seem to actually represent 'left' or 'right' factions (and somewhat ironically given parts of the discussion here, my understanding is that Cunliffe's traditionally been placed on the right of Labour when those factions are discussed). That's why the leadership campaign's been based around who's best placed to re-energise the party and extend its base - it's been about tactics since they both agree on strategy.
If you're wondering what Labour as a whole stands for, then I'd think that the policies it took into the campaign provide a good indication: a pretty standard model of social democracy that accepts a market capitalist economic state as part of current society but believes that its excesses need to be curbed through both moderate regulation and active state intervention, and has a commitment to equality of outcomes and 'investment' in society to achieve that but also a strong dose of pragmatism which means it will accept the status quo as a baseline and often favour gradual rather than radical change to achieve that.
Now that might not be an overarching policy stance that appeals to you. It certainly doesn't speak to me, which is why I've only voted for Labour once (in 2005, when I was terrified of a Brash-led government). But I don't think its fair to claim that Labour doesn't have a pretty clearly articulated basic position that informs its approach - and, I would argue, has always informed its approach except for the Rogernome period - and if you're looking for a more radical policy approach then the Greens or Mana will always be a better bet.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Ben, I think you're grasping at some sort of false malevolence.
No I'm not. I think it was foolish, not malevolent.
You mightn't agree with the tactics, but they're not intended to scuttle the ship as you seem to be suggesting.
I'm not suggesting that. You can scuttle a ship unintentionally, if no one is at the helm while the mates argue over who gets to be the new captain.
I'm going to get over this, of course. It's done, it's dusted, it's Shearer. He'll probably do fine. I look forward to him answering:
I'd want to know would be how they'd talk to people who're not members directly. Shearer's said he intends to do exactly that!
-
That's why the leadership campaign's been based around who's best placed to re-energise the party and extend its base - it's been about tactics since they both agree on strategy.
Yes, it's something that crossed my mind months ago - that their entire approach to this election was "if it's a win, it's a windfall, but really, we're all about 2014". In which case it's good to see there's some decent strategizing going on. Goff really was the caretaker, and the choice to resign long planned, and the machination already all done. Which is probably why the fait accompli for Shearer slipped out of Matthew Hooton's mouth 3 weeks before the election. The result was known, and we're all just being played for dicks.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
I'm not suggesting that. You can scuttle a ship unintentionally, if no one is at the helm while the mates argue over who gets to be the new captain.
Clearly you didn't like the process, I get that, however I know many others that did and it represents a significent change from the past. Coatsworth led this as she should have and it was a clear decision to improve engagement and it's worked, from what I hear, if only for the membership.
-
NBH, in reply to
Which is probably why the fait accompli for Shearer slipped out of Matthew Hooton's mouth 3 weeks before the election. The result was known, and we're all just being played for dicks.
I think that's a bit harsh Ben - I haven't seen any indication that this was just a sham election and the caucus had already made up its mind. Shearer's been talked about as a leader from pretty much the day he entered Parliament, and I think that Labour probably took on board a lot of the narrative about looking tired and old and several of the caucus genuinely decided that they needed to take a risk in that regard. Hooton's comments I don't see as anything other than mischief-making during the campaign to keep up the political narrative that Labour were destined for a loss and Goff was a lame-duck leader.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Which is probably why the fait accompli for Shearer slipped out of Matthew Hooton's mouth 3 weeks before the election. The result was known, and we're all just being played for dicks.
Ben, that's patently false. You're suggesting the Party conspired to host half a dozen meetings up and down the country and confected candidates all to cover a deal done between a bloke who works for the Nats and ACT and another who's a former NZer of the Year. I think you should be over at that other blog...
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
However, a commercial media will usually be biased by financial imperatives towards stories that interest the greatest possible number of people.
A minor point but I'd argue that isn't true. financial imperatives tend to drive towards stories that offend the fewest number of people. A stories of very strong interest to many people is likely to offend some people. For MSM it is more advantageous to avoid offend than to promote interest.
That is why TV7 is so important because it can afford to promote interesting stories even if they offend some.
-
martinb, in reply to
So yes- to sum up- the majority of Labour activists who have been door knocking, scruntineering, pamphlet dropping, putting up signs and actively working to try to save assets, get children out of poverty etc etc over the last couple of months are obsessive and stupid and therefore shouldn't be listened to. Unlike caucus, the media and the blogosphere which is wise and worldly.
I'm confused if the message is to reinvigorate by ditching everyone who has been working for you. That sounds suspiciously like the Nats line on public service jobs- reinvigorate the economy by pruning the deadweight back office jobs.
I certainly don't think this will be Shearer's line.
-
Alienating the obsessive activist rump..
Yeah, Labour should really be looking at getting rid of all those annoying activists. The corporate model for a party is far more effective – a party with wealthy enough backers can pay for advertising, polls and everything else it needs. You don’t want a load of smelly, interfering grassroots supporters.
Look how well it worked for ACT.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You're suggesting the Party conspired to host half a dozen meetings up and down the country and confected candidates all to cover a deal done between a bloke who works for the Nats and ACT and another who's a former NZer of the Year.
Nothing near so organized, but that doesn't mean that the "contingency that Labour will lose" plan might not have taken considerably higher precedence in their internal planning than the outside shot that they would win. That actually seems sensible to me. It's one possible explanation for their amazingly late efforts.
I think you should be over at that other blog...
Which one?
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Nothing near so organized, but that doesn't mean that the "contingency that Labour will lose" plan might not have taken considerably higher precedence in their internal planning than the outside shot that they would win.
Sorry Ben, I still think you're clutching at straws. Shearer's a risky selection, sure. He's got broad appeal, agreed. There are alternatives, clearly. How you combine these three factors to suggest his candidacy was a stitched up three weeks ago and with Hooton is fantasy.
And I meant Farrar's site... however, he and Bryce Edwards are working on a different conspiracy, so you might want to wait...
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
A minor point but I’d argue that isn’t true. financial imperatives tend to drive towards stories that offend the fewest number of people. A stories of very strong interest to many people is likely to offend some people. For MSM it is more advantageous to avoid offend than to promote interest.
I'll quibble on that quibble. What's being sold to advertisers is the attention of viewers. Avoiding offense is a valid strategy for maintaining attention, but so is stoking controversy. For every person like me who switches the channel when Paul Henry comes on, there are apparently others who will stick around to see whether he's going to say something racist. So I think it's more accurate to talk about holding interest rather than avoiding offence, if we allow that the interest might not always be completely sympathetic.
This is a very pedantic distinction. Which is to say, the best kind of distinction of all.
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
Is it left wing politics to liberalize alcohol law. Including the lowering of the drinking age, allowing heavy advertising on television, marketing in supermarkets, and to reduce funding for drug and alcohol treatment clinics, forcing most of them to close. Or is that right?
Mu. The labels are not of use here.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.