OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Ben, I think you’re grasping at some sort of false malevolence.
Yup – not the president of the Phil Goff Fan Club here but what exactly could he have done that would have satisfied you Ben? I said at the time that the election result was good enough that he could have pulled a modified Helen/Major and said, “OK, anyone who thinks I’m not fit to continue as leader can mount a leadership challenge at the first post-election caucus meeting rather than sleazing along to the Press Gallery over the next three years. Because we all know that's not going to play right into the Government's hands.” But he didn’t, so there we go and here we are.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
a very pedantic distinction
If we can’t be pendants what point is there is life?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
For starters, Labour nearly got back into government after only 3 years.
Oh, wishful Kool-Aid drinking there Ben. You might as well say Labour "nearly" got back into government in the UK last year, if only they'd been able to stitch up an amusing but improbable seven way coalition.
-
I don’t think Damian’s comment really warranted that response.
I know the conversation has moved on, but... how is Giovanni's remark an unreasonable response? I too am perfectly well-served by either Labour or National in government, because I'm middle-class and well-off. It's not 'picking fights' to note that this isn't really a matter of life or death for a lot of people here, because that's the way we skew demographically. So my "Hating National With The Passion of a Thousand Fiery Suns" thing, which is my political approach, is therefore... almost academic, or hobbyist, in a way? I'm probably just a smug asshole, really.
-
The reality is, and some people here might find this painful, but Labour needs to reclaim middle New Zealand. That means focusing on the main issue these people care about, which is, put simply, gaining a better life for themselves.
Some people might go on about social legislation, but at this present time, thats not the focus, people who are worried about getting a job or retaining their job simply don't care about these things. As Shearer said this evening, they need to find out why labour supporters have deserted them. My father works at a hotel with a lot of young people who work split shifts and horrendous hours for minimum wage. They don't vote. If it wasn't for my father (bless him) they wouldn't know that people used to get overtime and extra allowances for working split shifts. They don't realise that there is an another way.
Labour needs to reach these people and show them that other way.
-
Dear all of yous taking exaggerated umbrage to my comment about alienating the activist rump being a not-bad thing: As I made abundantly clear over there, I don’t mean get rid of the folks who’re doing the hard work and getting results – I mean that if folks can’t see the reasons for Labour’s decline since 2006 by now, they’re never going to see it at all.
Utterance of the words “not too bad” or “just a few tweaks around the edges” or “in-touch, really” or “bring back Helen” or “Goff should stay on as leader” should be a ticket for the figurative wall. (Yes, the Key government’s majority is slender, but if you think a grand coalition including Catherine Delahunty, Hone Harawira, Winston Peters and Richard Prosser has a snowflake’s chance in hell you’re very much mistaken. I would bet a large amount of cash money that if a re-election were needed Key would emerge with an outright majority and hold it for a long time indeed.)
That’s not about hating on well-meaning folks or deriding years of loyal service, or whatever. It’s to say that there should be no space in a political movement for people who can’t perform, who aren’t really committed to reform, or who think Labour can do better by just pushing the same old barrow a bit harder next time.
Re-educating people because of sentimental links to the party is too time-consuming; it burns resources that could be used for building a more disciplined, effective political movement. Folk who can’t or won’t shape up should ship out. Yes, it might mean the loss of some old hands. But if that means an influx of young blood, fresh ideas, new people and perspectives, reinvigoration, it’ll be worth it.
Flame away.
L
-
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?(Berthold Brecht, 1953)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yup – not the president of the Phil Goff Fan Club here but what exactly could he have done that would have satisfied you Ben?
He could have held on a lot longer, and driven the process by which the leader was chosen towards a reasoned analysis of their strategy and policies.
Oh, wishful Kool-Aid drinking there Ben. You might as well say Labour "nearly" got back into government in the UK last year, if only they'd been able to stitch up an amusing but improbable seven way coalition.
That's MMP, it's made of coalitions. In the UK they don't have the same system. I know it's hard to get your head around after all these years, but get used to it, it's here to stay.
Labour needs to reach these people and show them that other way.
Yes, but they do also need to show where all these jobs are going to come from, otherwise they're lying. Which is why they needed to actually work that out before they make it their key message. But now it's on Shearer to work out that which has defied Europe, America and Japan.
Flame away.
I'll bite. All of your statements are predicated around Labour being nothing more than a power grabber. You don't care to elucidate a single principle that they stand for in that analysis, and thus it is you who doesn't get what happened to Labour. By trying to stand for more they ended up standing for less. I can't tell from what you said, why I should vote for Labour at all. It's like you believe that sufficient marketing can sell any old lemon. It can't. What Labour needs to make is a better product.
Folk who can’t or won’t shape up should ship out. Yes, it might mean the loss of some old hands. But if that means an influx of young blood, fresh ideas, new people and perspectives, reinvigoration, it’ll be worth it.
Sounds great, when does it start? Sure didn't start today.
I'm not going to take umbrage at your view. It's valid and it may be true. It might also not be what I think it is, and in practice we actually agree. I don't know enough about the discussions on the Standard to know if your jibe at them was fair but it didn't really seem to be axiomatic to me at all.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
How you combine these three factors to suggest his candidacy was a stitched up three weeks ago and with Hooton is fantasy.
I didn't say Hooton arranged it. That's your concoction there. I'm just suggesting he could have known about it. If that's how it went down. If it did go that way, I'd actually be impressed by Labour, rather than depressed by them. It would show they do actually have a plan, and that their key messages for this election will be built on rather than scrapped.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
It’s to say that there should be no space in a political movement for people who can’t perform, who aren’t really committed to reform, or who think Labour can do better by just pushing the same old barrow a bit harder next time.
Are we talking about MPs, or activists? Because political party members who actually get out there and do stuff are a valuable commodity. These are not the days of mass party membership. Picking a bunch of people and saying "You, you, and you - your ideas are irrelevant under the new regime, begone!" is as good a way as any I can think of to turn a whole lot of people off the idea of volunteering for Labour permanently.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
the day John Banks gets caught giving handjobs for crack. Note I said "gets caught", I'm not saying he doesn't already do it. He's just too wily.
I'm saying he doesn't already do it. How could he? Such a transaction would imply that the value of the goods being exchanged were equal. Following the rules of supply and demand, I think that a) if John Banks wanted crack, he would have to pay in hard currency; and b) if he wanted to distribute handjobs, he would have to do so for free.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I know the conversation has moved on, but… how is Giovanni’s remark an unreasonable response?
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. It didn't bother me. Though that just may have been because it wasn't directed to me. Then again I like his directness.Then again, again,lots of peeps around these parts jump on others for different outlooks. So I can't see Giovanni being treated any different. Still, I like his contribution. I notice when he's not around. Maybe the point get's lost in the translation?
. So my “Hating National With The Passion of a Thousand Fiery Suns” thing,
Keep up the good work. :)
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Such a transaction would imply that the value of the goods being exchanged were equal.
For some, it is. Just have to be in that circle.
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
You don’t care to elucidate a single principle that they stand for in that analysis
To be fair, it's not the full treatise on what's wrong with the Labour party -- I've written things approaching that elsewhere and elucidated a good many principles they ought to stand for, into the bargain. But it's not the principles, or the policies, that are really their problem -- it's strategy and organisational competence.
It’s like you believe that sufficient marketing can sell any old lemon. It can’t.
I suggest you relay these concerns to Messrs Key and Joyce. Belly-laughs all around.
But you're right -- I'm not suggesting that Labour should have a crap product. It's that the "product" isn't just the policy platform and motive ideology behind the party; in fact, these are a pretty small part of the product. Voters liked the policy platform; they just didn't vote for it. By and large they didn't vote for it because they lacked confidence in the rest of the package -- the people, the dysfunctional party structures that gave them the people, and because the party had failed to articulate it in ways they can care about.
L
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
Are we talking about MPs, or activists? Because political party members who actually get out there and do stuff are a valuable commodity. These are not the days of mass party membership. Picking a bunch of people and saying “You, you, and you – your ideas are irrelevant under the new regime, begone!” is as good a way as any I can think of to turn a whole lot of people off the idea of volunteering for Labour permanently.
Depends which people.
In ideological and project-oriented communities the baseline participant culture can help or hinder progress towards the group’s goals. This usually isn’t purposive, most often it just is what it is – an expression of participants’ enthusiasm. In a (would-be) popular movement an insider culture, or one that is at odds with the views of the public at large, represents a significant barrier. This discussion has been had here about the PAS culture and whether it encourages or discourages participation from outside, so I expect you’re familiar with it.
I reckon the extent to which die-hard we’re-never-wrong-even-when-we-lose activism remains in the rump of the Labour party membership after nearly everyone of more moderate views has drifted away is a significant part of the problem, and many of the attitudes I’ve seen in response to David Shearer’s leadership have been along the lines of “the caucus should do what the activists and membership tell it to do”. I think that mistakes the goal of the party, which isn’t to be popular among partisan tragics; it’s to inspire and represent a much wider swath of the Aotearoan population. Labour is not the Greens, for whom an influential niche position is a significant achievement. It is, or ought to be, a mass movement.
I get asked a fair bit why I’m not a member, what work have I done in the trenches, and so forth. But why on earth would anyone with a stressful job and a mortgage and a young family join such a dysfunctional movement, where you’re judged less on teh quality of ideas and more on the length of your tenure or the quality of your connections and extent of your agreement within the existing hierarchies? I admire people who do, but I can see why they are so few.
I guess it’s their party to fuck up if they want to. But more broadly, I think Aotearoa needs Labour, and it needs Labour to perform, and if pissing off a few of the die-hards will help that then it seems like a very good trade-off.
L
-
What he said
-
Labour's new leader seems to be making some of the right noises.
Flanked by Robertson and party president Moira Coatsworth, Shearer immediately put his hand out to other opposition parties, saying he wanted reach across to help New Zealanders.
''I came in with an attitude of working with people and I would like to work closely with the other opposition parties.''
...
''What I'd like the Labour Party to become is a party of ideas. I think it's got a little bit old fashioned in its outlook.
''The Labour Party must grow the membership and it must grow its relevance and we must, must make the Labour Party a big tent, not a small tent.''
Not so sure about branding that so closely overlaps another party they need as an ally.
The MP for Mt Albert said he wanted to create a ''clean, green, clever'' New Zealand.
I guess they will put some energy next into how they convey what's distinctive about their party, in any case.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Shearer seems to be making some of the right noises.
Damn, and I hoping he'd vow to crush Labour's enemies, to see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentations of their women. :)
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Damn, and I hoping he’d vow to crush Labour’s enemies, to see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentations of their women. :)
Give him a month or two of media training, he'll get there.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Give him a month or two of media training, he’ll get there.
I hope not, because I find it weirdly endearing that we seem to like downright awkward political leaders – looking at Key, Goff, Brash, even Helen Clark they’d all have American spinners slitting their wrists and writing hefty invoices in blood.
And after all the tumult and the shouting dies, I’ve probably been paying an unhealthy amount of attention to the Republican field in the US. I’ve had question marks over both Shearer and Cunliffe, but when it comes to vile, stupid and flat-out dangerous neither National nor Labour has anything even remotely in the vicinity of the toxic waste dump that’s the GOP.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I do think Shearer needs to raise his game above what we heard on Morning Report today. It wasn't just a matter of style; he simply didn't seem to have enough to say. And being bullied by Simon Mercep isn't a particularly good look.
Meanwhile, I'm grieving somewhat that we didn't get Chris Finlayson as new Minister of Broadcasting, which I gather had been a possibility. I think he'll made a good attorney general though.
So Broadcasting goes to ... Craig Foss, who I do not expect to be a champion of Reithian values. Here's his maiden speech. Ulp.
(I hasten to add that I, for one, welcome our new Broadcasting Overlord.)
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
Damn, and I hoping he’d vow to crush Labour’s enemies, to see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentations of their women. :)
Seated on his throne of skulls, gazing listlessly as the last surviving members of his own caucus are brought forward to kneel before him. "They are your enemies", whispers his sinister Grand Vizier, "They must pay for their crimes against you". "They are my enemies", he repeats, "They must pay."
Erm... just riffing here. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I too am perfectly well-served by either Labour or National in government, because I'm middle-class and well-off. It's not 'picking fights' to note that this isn't really a matter of life or death for a lot of people here, because that's the way we skew demographically. So my "Hating National With The Passion of a Thousand Fiery Suns" thing, which is my political approach, is therefore... almost academic, or hobbyist, in a way? I'm probably just a smug asshole, really.
Yeah, there's an underlying assumption in asking the question which could be crudely summed up as 'what's in it for me?', rather than 'what's in it for all of us?'
I don't tend to vote based on just my own narrow self-interests. And despite growing concern about jobs, economy, etc, I don't think the population at large do either, otherwise Act would be beginning it's glorious 27th consecutive term as Our Supreme Overlords. All Hail the Sainted Ann! All Hail our Enlightened Objective Self-Interest!
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
And being bullied by Simon Mercep isn’t a particularly good look.
I doubt he is bothered by bullying though. Warlords may be a different kettle of fish, but I imagine the art of negotiation, being one of his known forte, could work with media too. Different style? We may just get used to it. Like that he is not all about the soundbites. Hell ,like even that he thinks long and slow before he responds to what often are ridiculous, repetitive questions? Yeah nah?
-
Sacha, in reply to
And who would have thought of Peter Dunne as the coiffed white knight of public television?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.