Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe
610 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
CJM, in reply to
You're right, I've amended original post.
-
izogi, in reply to
People would be encouraged in any electorate with an Old Labour candidate to split their vote between Old Labour and Labour. Then they could actually benefit from strongly contesting both votes.
If it actually worked, do you think the two groups would ever agree on who’d get to supply the Prime Minister? :)
It’s not exactly something that’d go down well with me for the same reason I dislike coat-tailing and intentional overhang (which this is) and everything else that actively seeks to skew proportional representation. MMP’s much better than FPP ever was, imho, but it’s still not perfect and (unfortunately) still relies on good will from participants to achieve the outcomes which make it better. All this tactic would do beyond short term is reduce the public’s trust in the electoral system to produce a fair and representative outcome.
-
Sue, in reply to
"this “expensive process” is the one laid down by the Labour Party"
NO Craig - wrong - the vote only happens IF
Caucus passes a vote of no confidence in the party leader
The Party Leader ResignsCaucus didn't pass a vote of no confidence
The Party leader resigned, forcing an election that he's standing in
He didn't have to resign, that's his choice, the election is his making -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
He didn't have to resign, that's his choice, the election is his making
Nothing less than an investiture will do for Grant Robertson? Really, what is this? To say nothing of the fact that this "expensive process" was actually a boon for Labour's media visibility and its party membership last time around.
-
Sue, in reply to
But again, why have this election?
aren't resources better spent looking at why everyone hates labour
then by all means an election for leader if leadership is pointed to as a cause of loss, if not then no need for a leadership fight.why step down then stand up?
I can't get past that.I can't get past doing all this before the review of why labour is loosing, because it's not as simple as the combined opinions of this blog.
This is regardless of my opinion of Robertson, sure I'm not the most savvy well read person on this blog so obviously halve my opinions. But post election the only person talking about leadership elections was Cunliff. Maybe I'm missing some political gene or some male gene that make this all obvious but to me and friends it seems a dumb waste of time
-
David Hood, in reply to
Some, but it is all basically provisional until specials are in, since the '11 totals include specials. Like most people who play with data, I will probably be busy the weekend after final results are in. Look for something after then. What I have done, though, is gone through the Wayback machine and gathered up the '11 (approx.) electorate level enrollment figures from the electoral commission pages that no longer exist (as they only publish the up to date ones)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/71yhgul5ukkj5wc/electoraldata11.txt?dl=0 (utf-8 text file)
While the '14 figures are available (so people could gather them a little easier), here they are gathered up in the same form.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lj79xbyyppx0fx3/electoraldata14.txt?dl=0
This is how I am normalising the results on the basis of the number of voters in each electorate.
-
Sue,
Also i hope a vote of no confidence in anyone is an option in this leadership vote
Because as much as I like Grant Robertson. More and more, I think this is stupid right now. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Maybe I'm missing some political gene or some male gene that make this all obvious but to me and friends it seems a dumb waste of time
Elections aren't a waste of time. Democracy isn't a waste of time.
-
Sue,
I agree
This election is not about democracy to me
Democracy already told labour a few things
why not learn from that democratic process which represent far more people than an internal party vote -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Caucus didn’t pass a vote of no confidence
No, instead members of his caucus have slagged him off publicly as an incompetent egomaniac who was so deep in denial after an electoral thumping he’d cheerfully burn the Labour Party to the ground? You can’t have it both ways, Sue.
Serious question – has Cunliffe behaved in a way contrary to the rules and constitution of the New Zealand Labour Party? Sure, he forced the issue – but I’m no more inclined to curse him for doing so than when John Major called his critics bluff in 1995. Unless I’ve really missed something, he’s perfectly entitled to test his mandate. And if I was a Labour man, I’d say that would be a lot less damaging than months on end of Cunliffe as a lame-duck leader getting white-anted Gillard-style.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Elections aren’t a waste of time. Democracy isn’t a waste of time.
And it's not anti-democratic or a "waste of time" for Cunliffe to test his mandate -- and in a way which obviously some people would rather didn't happen, but which is entirely lawful and legitimate under Labour's own rules.
I'm not sure what "male gene" is required to respect an organisation's own rules and democratic processes, Sue, even if you don't agree with them.
-
linger, in reply to
i hope a vote of no confidence in anyone is an option in this leadership vote
You just answered your own question, I think. Because Cunliffe can be pretty sure he doesn't command enough confidence from caucus to continue as leader; and moreover, the election result may indicate significant erosion in his support amongst the wider membership, who basically elected him as leader last time. I agree, the timing is unfortunate, and as I've said before, it might be better for Labour instead to abandon the One Leader model ... but I can see why Cunliffe thinks it needs to be done now.
-
Campaign managers, yes, who are volunteers, and generally reasonably large campaign committees who are also volunteers. The line that Cunliffe's pushing, that people didn't try hard enough is actually pretty offensive. It's also not backed up by any evidence - and I would say that if the ABC club is able to make such precise, fine grained decisions about the Labour party campaign, and have them carry through to results, they're wasting their talents screwing around with Cunliffe, they should sell their services to Clinton as extremely expensive consultants, because they're obviously geniuses.
As I said, Clayton is a different thing. It's not about the leader, it's about Clayton. Same with Nash. They weren't trying to undermine the leader, they're just self-centred.
-
Tinakori, in reply to
"It’s like having a discussion with a National Party election pamphlet."
Perhaps this explains the election result, Kyle!
The tax changes in 2009 involved a shift from one type of tax to another so they did not increase the tax burden overall, hence not decreasing demand.
And your comments about so called austerity illustrate my point exactly. National borrowed huge amounts of money to prop up public spending and cushion the effects of the GFC. You are implying they should have spent been more as Labour and the Greens were demanding. This would have resulted in even higher levels of Government debt.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
As I said, Clayton is a different thing. It's not about the leader, it's about Clayton. Same with Nash. They weren't trying to undermine the leader, they're just self-centred.
So you're saying some people did work harder at their own election than at the party vote, exactly as Cunliffe said, but it doesn't matter because they weren't actively doing it to undermine Cunliffe? Uhm. Okay.
-
No, I’m saying that if Clayton Cosgrove being a self-centred blue dog is what lost us this election, then Helen Clark would never have won an election.
[And, er, who did give Clayton that high caucus spot? Who said "Clayton will be the next minister for earthquake recovery", and made damn sure that Clayton was safe on the list so that that could happen?]
-
Sue, in reply to
Craig nobody can have it both ways, except maybe you
first - you give me "but Cunliffe isn’t “forcing” anything "
now it's "Sure, he forced the issue "So enough of the FFS please
It's fine to disagreePersonally i think we should all be worried about Gio espousing Democracy. How can those idiots on the right keep calling him Marxist
I wish i didn't have to vote, i don't, but i'm not a subscriber to the world of just don't vote, and if i vote no confidence it will go down as a destroyed vote or someone too stupid to read their ballot properly.it's loose loose, whoever wins on November 19th i doubt will be around come the next election.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
[And, er, who did give Clayton that high caucus spot? Who said "Clayton will be the next minister for earthquake recovery", and made damn sure that Clayton was safe on the list so that that could happen?]
The caucus of which Cunliffe was the undisputed leader since there was no majority faction undermining him, it's just a lie manufactured by the media. As demonstrated by the wonderful discipline and message unity exhibited by said caucus after the election.
-
I mean really, the collective taking of David Cunliffe's responsibilities - Robertson made sure he even blamed him for the man apology comment - was truly moving.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
first – you give me “but Cunliffe isn’t “forcing” anything ”
now it’s “Sure, he forced the issue ”You're being spectacularly disingenous there, Sue, and while you're perfectly entitled to disagree with me you're NOT entitled to totally misrepresent me.
Now, could you please answer the question: Has Cunliffe behaved in a manner that's contrary to the Labour Party's own rules? Not "has he behaved in the manner you think he should" or "is this leadership contest happening at a time of your liking".
Again, as far as I'm aware he's perfectly entitled to test his mandate in the way it's happening. And I'd certainly argue that if you think the prospect of months of being white-anted is a tenable position for any political leader, I'd say you're rather naive at best.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
How about having one party where everyone involved believes in the same aims and supports those elected to lead it?
Yes, how is that working out?
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Neat, thanks.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
If it actually worked, do you think the two groups would ever agree on who’d get to supply the Prime Minister? :)
So far, there has never been a problem with that. Tradition is that PM comes from the biggest party, but it's only a tradition.
It’s not exactly something that’d go down well with me for the same reason I dislike coat-tailing and intentional overhang (which this is) and everything else that actively seeks to skew proportional representation.
I wouldn't vote for them, definitely. But I don't anyway. I'm just thinking it would be a strategy that would probably work, and doesn't involve them chasing the right wing vote. It is, after all, what National uses, but the "Old National" is just called Peter Dunne or John Banks. My point is that if you can't beat this strategy, then one alternative to endlessly railing about MMP's problems is simply to use the system. If they do that, then finally there is a real incentive on the part of both major parties to call this coat-tailing shit quits.
All this tactic would do beyond short term is reduce the public’s trust in the electoral system to produce a fair and representative outcome.
Yes, it would reduce all the public's trust, rather than just the trust of people on the left.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
It’s not beyond possibility that James has been told to pull his head in and not contribute further by a bunch of people.
Sorry I’d hoped the narrow points of my argument would stop be met with the same rebuttals, but as it really does appear the point isn’t being made; I’m with you there Kyle, I’m sure he even could pull his head in if were serious, but that doesn’t appear to be the case at all. Since my last post, James has posted on Twitter:
an army of keyboard warriors who descend upon the comments threads of feral message boards, yet when push comes to shove, don’t do anything
but there are a notable number from people who claim to be members who live in Ilam, yet did LITERALLY nothing during the campaign
That’s fine, I’m a big boy and I can cope with it. Most of them are cowardly and anonymous, from people who call me a “puppet” etc
In the last half hour. Of all the things here one could respond to, in the interest of transparency, James my details are available from your friend Russell, I seldom use my name here because I’m based in the PRC and on occasion I have had to post on issues that may be sensitive in nature and it’s better safe than sorry. Besides the internet is prone to the anonymous and cowardly, that should have been your first consideration when posted your letter on a web forum. As for people calling you a ‘puppet’, well that’s largely opt-in, if you feel this ‘puppet master politics’ applies to you. I don’t think that it necessarily does, or needs to. But anyway…
You didn’t think before posting this, that it’s possible that part of that 5 million dollars might be capital gains, and which might be taxed under the Labour CGT? Given that there’s very few poor people who are going to be picking up an extra $5 million in wealth each year, this flat tax would in effect be progressive in nature.
That’s right Kyle, I just didn’t think, and what I didn’t think was that an added 15% on John Keys’ current 2.8% still only equals 17.8% tax i.e. about half of the top tax rate. I didn’t think that the Labour Party have had 5 years+ to work on this. I didn’t think that you and others who aren’t the brains behind it and can’t verify myriad as yet unspecified details to be refined by the Expert Panel might still try to explain what Cunliffe didn’t and most certainly that these attempts would to set the record straight would further illustrate and directly contest my point i.e that I’m tired of hearing about the CGT from anyone but the brains behind it.
You could say this about several taxes. GST isn’t affected by your income. You could complicate our tax system by including it in a personal tax return that everyone has to complete so you know what their total income is, or you can simplify it and lose the ability to charge poorer people less.
Again, 5 years to refine it rather than more or less just copying something more or less wholesale from offshore could really reap benefits it’s lazy, and has been shown elsewhere it can easily be rorted, “this is my family home and I’m selling it so the sale is not subject to CGT”.
But please, as I said in my initial post, please:
I’m over hearing someone who rote learned the CGT stumble over the details, I want the brains behind it, someone so intimately acquainted with the detail that they can fill me with confidence about the every last scarab of the policy
Despite peoples’ best efforts my mind hasn’t been changed on this, I’m still over it. and so in the interests of keeping this thread on track and not dirtying up the site anymore. It may be best to just let your desire to be the brains behind the CGT go.
-
Craig Ranapia in reply to me: "....the usual house style is to extend people the presumption they're speaking in good faith and engage with what they've actually said"
Craig Ranapia in reply to Sue (a few comments above): "You're being spectacularly disingenuous there, Sue...."
Milk Monitor, Heal Thy Self.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.