All these details are in the policy document which has been sitting on the Labour website for months..
Would have helped if Cunnliffe had read it - me thinks.
I were there,
in the cold,
crumpling old sewing patterns
waiting, listening, straining
in the dark,
there were I...
</scattered scatological impressions>
Here's the 'David Cunliffe and the long drop from the top' thread back...
I can only surmise that this is a paternalistic narrative put forward by people who claim to really know the interests of Māori and Pasifica people
The way I usually hear it, the working class is white and male. The way I usually see it is that the working class is brown, and pretty much evenly distributed across the sexes, although the women do seem to get the shit end of that shitty stick.
ETA: I'm pretty sure the whole idea is wishful thinking, though, because the old guard would not have the courage for it.
There's a much simpler reason it doesn't happen. National and Labour have long known they could do this scheme. But it would lead to a massively overhung parliament with neither party better off (since both doing it) and the public's faith in the system would be completely eroded.
In National's case they would make a Country party that would contest the rural electorates but tell the voters to party vote National. This Country party would then get a huge overhang.
I've heard that both National and Labour have considered doing this but always stopped when they realised it would lead to the opposition doing the same. I think that's a good thing - as if either party did this in a major fashion it would destroy MMP.
I can only surmise that this is a paternalistic narrative put forward by people who claim to really know the interests of Māori and Pasifica people.
Or it could be a cynical attempt at divide-and-rule of low-info voters, straight from the Lee Atwater or Karl Rove book.
To be fair, it is the darling theory of a number of left-wing middle-aged men, Chris Trotter in primis.
that would be the conservative part of the left, I'm guessing.
The "grim face or power" is a good watch. According to Sir George Chapman it took "six weeks" of debate to decide Muldoon over Jack Marshall in 1974.
Top table changes are heavy affairs. In the private sector the clash of egos , the removal of rivals and the forming of factions and favourites for control is very common.
I actually think your open letter is a weak minded attack on Cunliffe, it is not a brave move to air “your” feelings and assume to know Cunliffe’s aspirations in such a public way , it is simply a way to kick a man further down, like the role of an executioner really. How do you know what he aspires to be or do really? I might think he is well over the attack culture hiding in the depths of the Labour Party. It is good that someone put their heart and soul forward to aspire to lead the party and under such circumstances. So does your and others personal dislike/ disrepect for Cunliffe make him all bad and you and your public letter all wonderful and right – Did you send it to Mr Cunliffe?? or just to media.
At least now David Cunliffe has put it out to the NZ Public and others that can decide on merit who shall be leader. I doubt I would trust any of the contenders based on their history exposed now and their inability to stand united- but just my opinion. It would be like trusting the rat isn’t going after the next tasty morsel that exposes themselves as leader.
I am also surprised by your comment about people would not vote leader because of Cunliffe – why is it that so many people actually admired the man and his campaign and even warmed to him? He wasn’t only up against a negative media attack but up against the nasty anti club ABC (and wider) in Labour.
I would hope the internal review covers the damage done to the party (and its leader) by the people that undermined Cunliffe and the Labour Party and from when it really began. There has been plenty of time to do a lot of damage.
You and I am are entitled to our opinions, but normally it is not made in such a public attacking way… no one is going to trust nor get behind any person leading any party when it is so nasty and messed up and divided as Labour has shown itself to be now.
Awesome stuff Ian. And to be very clear I have not suddenly become obsessive about Muldoon as much as campaign strategies, and so I was a little concerned to open the victor’s link, but Knowledge bro. Thank you.
The first thing that grabbed me about Muldoon’s town hall meetings was that he began almost two years out from the election. It’s a tragedy that his family was the sacrificial lamb for his ambition, but I imagine that’s not unusual in politics as in many jobs. So: 2 years.
The second thing was that the team were touring provincial halls all around the country. Andin saw
productions like ‘L&P Top Town’, or ‘It’s in the Bag’ united New Zealand
Andin assumed I was referring to a TV show. However in the end of that sentence:
in some strange intangible way.
I was recalling experiences as an 8/9 year old when the word quickly spread around the school that Chelsea and Sam’s dad had been picked as one of the contestants on It’s in the Bag, and everyone felt just a little cooler. Or when Top Town arrived and so and so’s mum was training with the local team. These kinds of intangibles. I never watched either of these episodes on TV, and just knowing that our town was connected to something larger, something nationwide was big stuff in a town of 20,000 in the swinging Wairarapa electorate enjoying its first taste of Labour since 1975. We felt connected. To the hub.
But as you quite rightly point out: those were different times.
Only a few major entertainment& information sources;
Radio, Reading and Other People…
Dance Halls, shows (including ‘fillums’), meetings – all good options.
So I turn my attention to what would attract me nowadays, and I guess this is something that’s always attracted me, the traditional 3 person team debate. Certainly if the criticism of the brevity of the last TV1 leaders debate is anything to go by then there is still a demand for debates in New Zealand, it remains a viable form of entertainment. Maybe our hangouts have changed, but people still go out, to bars, to pubs, to sporting events, to the theater. There are venues.
Who debates who? Mix up the reds and greens, rotate members, always include a local party member, but ensure that the Labour leader is a strong debater. As for the opponents; invite local National electorate and lists MPs, blue councillors, also look to invite surrogates, people like Michael Laws, who hated (bonus) as he is, is a world class debator. John Banks? Surely he’s got time to kill. Aim for something entertaining, perhaps include a local band, a well-loved timekeeper/MC. As is the case in any cinema, post a ‘no cellphones’ sign. Make use of your best writers, invite and encourage some form of audience and local participation (choosing the winning team/ providing the moot (via radio competition)/a question time). As is the freedom beyond the MSM, don’t be shy of letting the humour stray into the R18, that’s the voting age, Kiwis love it, within reason of course. And what if the red/greens lose the debate? Learn from it, rethink the policies related to the issues being debated and get better at debating your policies. Unleash the mongrel. In the flesh.
But most of all, through the entire 2 year period, and this is the Key thing, never let PM Johno onto that stage. He has more important things to do i.e. running the country.
You assume too much young sir
We felt connected.
But too what? I dont want too get too deep but everything is connected
Right I'm off for a pedicure
I dont want too get too deep
Connected to the hub, to the people and personalities that defined our culture, in a nutshell, finally connected to rest of our country, beyond it merely being a place we’d only ever get to see on TV or out a car window, for the briefest moments we were more than an afterthought farm town, and those pixels on the screen were flesh and blood. In terms of my suggestion, feeling connected to the Beehive, to the politicians as actual eating and shitting people just like us, and being empowered by that, influenced by the effort they could make to connect with us, debate us, listen to us, learn from us and adapt to us: The forgotten 43%.
We run presidential campaigns now, yes. Muldoon style. Bush style, Mitt style, it's all about the face.
That is certainly the direction that the MSM has lead things Jack, and that was my basic reasoning in suggesting MSM-free (Keyless) live, team, debating, tours, to spite the MSM, I guess in an attempt to lead the country in another direction, the object being to hopefully leading the country.
Anyway, it’s out there now, and not to parrot on, But it seems fairly obvious from here that barring economic catastrophe or death, Key will romp in again if Labour - led by whoever - continues to play him at his game.
It's not his game, it's the game. Calm the fuck out of the press pack with charm,wit and policy. Grant could be great t.v for Labour and to win an election you need 51% of a supportive block so hung up orientation non-believers can be marginalised. Can Grant talk?
Grant can talk but so can Cunliffe. I am concerned that with the centering of both Labour and National, that the “fear of the unknown”, “devil you know…” campaign that John Key ran, was an unprecedented success. I worry that attempting to trump Key’s soothing dulcet tones with Grant’s soothing dulcet tones again may fail to stick out as any kind of viable alternative to the average voter. Familiarity is comfort.
I’d never have noted or voted Helen Clark for her wit, as much as her forthrightness, and a perception of integrity. Yes Key displaced her, but there seemed to be a consensus even from members of the left that it was more than anything else, simply, her time to go. Alternatives need to be thoroughly explored. Goff, Shearer, Cunliffe, Grant; look like the results that would come up on Dating site’s advanced search.
And the MSM, are they going to want to associate with him anymore, especially after his attempt to sue a large part of it?
They will associate with whomever they believe will give them the hot stories, juicy, seedy stories, because that's what they've proved themselves interested in, not the stories that require thought, effort, or investigation on their part.
Cunliffe has been George MCGoverned. The press don’t relate to him. Trivial bastards but still always keen for a “Gotcha”.
Every night of the week if possible. Controversy drives readership and the individual press want their stories rocking t.v and ratings.
It’s a writing team looking for gossip. D.C and his press dis-tractors go back a long way but they have won.
Oh mi god, just got home. Some good friend out told me to look at your site and take in all the massive paralysis by analysis that's spewed forth in response to a straight-up, heart-felt letter/plea from James Dann.
What a jumbo load of shit you mostly all spout except for the few straight-up. honest replies to James Dann.
Most of you make beautiful music to my ears given I embraced the coolness of Key and the fact that you amplify it by your blank refusal to take on board what the smart David Shearer said on election night.
He said that "when I was Leader of the Opposition, I had no choice but to concentrate on the attacks behind me instead of those emanating from Mr Key in front of me.
Of course, he was referring to the factional discord, orchestrated and exploited by the destructively ambitious Cunliffe.
Stop looking for any other reasons in the short term for your party's pitiful demise than that misfit, Cunliffe.
All your other hand-wringing and blame and conspiracy theories and bickering all simply serves to emphasise Mr Dann's points and gives substantial momentum to the claim that the wonderful John Key deserves at least four terms.
And on the Twitter:
I’m up to the point where some guy called Mark slags me off for about two pages worth of comments for not “fronting” to him #CommentsDelayed
I had no issue with you not fronting to me James. As I said:
If James were to front up here, I’d have nothing but respect for the guy.
There’s been a bit of slagging off going on on these pages, and I guess I’m glad that you’re at least following the whole discussion, but ‘fronting up to’ me would be no cause for occasion as the only thing you could front up with to me is your having fronted up to the only individual who I’m not asking you to front up to i.e. me.
If on the other hand you decided to front up to someone who was specifically slagging you and your letter off, but not slagging you off for failing to front up, there are options here, though the fact that most of the harshest stuff is coming from new or first time posters speaks volumes. You don't need a sniper's rifle for that stuff.
However, my real hope is simply that you’d make an appearance for no other reason than to shoot the shit in what is – regardless of superficialities – a fairly sympathetic environment, a fact exemplified by my slag being dragged out attempting to rebut the strident defence the good folks here optioned at me over 2 or more pages
Most would agree Cunliffe’s time is up, and so some have questioned your wisdom wrt the letter, but something’s gotta give sometime and in a couple of months it’ll all be water under the bridge. So keep keeping it real and peace to you.
Of course, he was referring to the factional discord, orchestrated and exploited by the destructively ambitious Cunliffe.
For someone who’s embraced the coolness of Key, you don’t seem to place a lot of stock in what he says:
David Shearer was actively undermined by his deputy, Grant Robertson, Prime Minister John Key says.
Duncan Garner has reckons.
In terms of my suggestion, feeling connected to the Beehive, to the politicians as actual eating and shitting people just like us, and being empowered by that, influenced by the effort they could make to connect with us, debate us, listen to us, learn from us and adapt to us: The forgotten 43%.
Oh you mean the fiction we build around ourselves...Not the connection I was referring too. Just the limited amount of mass in the universe is continually being reused. To quote Joni Mitchell "We are Stardust" But knock yourself out... imagine away. How about reading some
All your other hand-wringing and blame and conspiracy theories and bickering all simply serves to emphasise Mr Dann’s points and gives substantial momentum to the claim that the wonderful John Key deserves at least four terms.
So you popped in with your head stuck firmly in the sand (and somewhere else I could suggest but wont lower myself to your level). Yes some didn't want Cunliffe last time nor this but the situation now is, he has the right to do what he has done 'cos y'know that's Labour's way of choosing their leader and guess what? ,he won last time. What ever you think doesn't mean diddly squat so head back to the lying,corrupt poisoned "fool aid" that awaits you on Planet Teamkey. Your insults are pitiful. We are okay having our discussions in the open.