Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to BenWilson,
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.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
I didn't say it has been run well, I said it's stayed out of the headlines. In the past health has been a constant public nightmare for governments. Where there has been very, very little negative coverage of health issues on the front page of newspapers, leading t.v news, etc.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sacha,
I was thinking about this and it's hard. A big problem is that National has kept or expanded the most popular parts of the previous Labour government.
There's still Working for Familes, 4 weeks Annual Leave, interest-free Student Loans. They're extending maternity leave and free GP visits.
All of this makes it hard for the left to get traction. I think many on the left imagined that by now National would have re-introduced interest on Student Loans, made cuts to WFF, etc. But the fact that National haven't slashed and burned on the issues close to voters has made it hard for the opposition. Health has amazingly stayed out of the headlines for the last 6 years.
Where the government has gone against public will was asset sales but that's not strong enough an issue to lose by itself.
I guess this is all a long-winded way of saying the left have to show a clear vision of how life will improve. And raising the retirement age and compulsory kiwi-saver don't really do that.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to BenWilson,
I respect your opinion on this but I don't see it as any kind of axiomatic choice. Sometimes you do actually have to double down on a choice, for the big payoff. Maybe those people who form the vast bulk of the Labour Party itself genuinely feel that this is a battle worth fighting.
Maybe they do and maybe they will. I just hope that if they do another genuine opposition party arises - as I don't want another 6 years of National. And doubling down seems like that would be the result to me.
yet somehow in favour of pointing out that wisdom vis-a-vis the election result, as if somehow Cunliffe's democratic election defeat is a reason why democracy should be suspended internally.
To me this is democracy of the public - the election result. I think it was clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the public don't want Cunliffe to lead them. Therefore he should resign. To ignore the will of the public and then say it's democracy when the membership of the party is much smaller than the general public seems bizarre to me.
Kind of like if my whole city were polled on something and made an overwhelming choice, then rather than accepting that result the mayor polls the street he lives on and makes his decision based on his street not the whole city that has just been polled.
I'm all in favour of democracy. I just think democracy has spoken and Cunliffe has ignored it because he didn't like the result.
-
Perhaps you misunderstand me (no doubt because I am not expressing myself well). I don't think the old guard is wise. I just think you can't ignore such a massive, historic loss.
The public have unequivocally passed judgement. No caucus could ignore this, I doubt the party membership and unions will either tbh. But if they are foolish enough to then they're just telling the public you were wrong and we were right.
When a party has such a loss they need to accept it and listen and take on board what the public have told them.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to BenWilson,
Yes I've heard of Rowling which is why I qualified it with in recent history. Moore kind of proves my point, the '90 election he was never expected to win and only shortly before it was he installed as leader.
The '93 election he did far better than anyone expected. There was nearly a hung parliament which would have been pretty amazing considering National had had only one term. And despite all that he was dropped as leader.
Ironically, Moore made a similar mistake to Cunliffe by giving a tone-deaf election night speech.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to BenWilson,
It's not like they've never once chosen a lemon before the members were allowed to vote. They've lost more than half of the elections since they first won one.
True. But lemons were quickly dropped when it was obvious the people didn't like them. In recent history the only ones who lost and stayed on were Mike Moore and Helen Clark. In Moore's case it was because he took the leadership on so close to the election. In Clark's case it was because she did well and by many rights should have been PM and was clearly going to be favourite at next election.
The voting public have resoundingly said no to Cunliffe.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to andrew gunn,
So my question: for the vast proportion of Labour voters who are not Labour Party members, but on whose votes a Labour-led government will rely, and who wouldn’t mind having some sort of vague and indirect say in the leadership of the party they’re giving their precious tick to, how is the new process “more democratic”?
Exactly.
Their new method means they get the leader who the party membership most wants. Not as in the past, the leader that would most likely appeal to the populace and in particular the potential Labour voting portion of the populace.
The new method means that the views of voters who have their say on leader on election day no longer have such an impact. The people have voted on Cunliffe as leader and their vote was clear.
Also the newer method means you can end up with a leader who the caucus despise; which is just untenable. It would be like a manager appointing a team leader who everyone says they hate and can't work with. It does happen but it never ends well.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Mr Mark,
Precisely how unusual is it for some erstwhile Labour supporters to be grumpy about the Party leader in any given Election ?
The thing is Phil Goff did the honourable thing and resigned. Cunliffe lost and went backwards but is trying to keep the leadership. This is all for his own purposes and not for the good of the party or the country. If he really wanted to become PM (as I'm sure he does), he could have resigned and bided his time patiently and made another run in 2020 or 2023, many a politician has done this before. He's still young so it's not like he's running out of time.
People make Clark comparisons but Clark's loss wasn't on the scale of Cunliffe's, in fact had Winston honoured his pre-election statements she would have become PM. Cunliffe just can't accept that he's a loser and the public don't like him (hell even his own colleagues don't like him which says a lot) and won't vote for him.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
I see this as strange given the numbers in the Unions supporting Cunliffe. It was the Unions that chose him
It was some unions (not the one my co-workers are part of) - also it was union delegates not all the union members. Lastly even if our union endorsed Cunliffe, we are not blind unthinking followers; our Union doesn't tell us who to vote for and if they did we wouldn't listen but make up our own minds. As it should be.
And all over the country voters have made up their minds and made it clear: they don't like Cunliffe. He needs to go. By re-contesting the leadership he is showing that he is a delusional narcissist who is putting his own desires ahead of the good of the party and the country.