Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You know, Paul, I don't always have the serious/shit-stirring ratio figured out with you but could you try being a little more condescending?
I'm not often shit-stirring here, elsewhere definitely, but not here.
-
ah, no. the Greens have been shat on so many times by Labour ("the party of nz's working class"--yeah, right) that they might be forgiven for thinking someone had painted a large "Composting Toilet" sign on their office door (though only visible to the Labour Party leadership).
Perhaps it's just a perception/perspective thing but the combination of alleged bullying and grievances advanced here... but I'm increasingly inclined to I/S's position as previously stated.
Stephen, the Greens mightn't have been part of the Executive, and Russell's already essayed the most recent difficulties, but they were clearly influential over the last three terms. It's only recently they've been the third largest party, I wonder about the validity of the apparent desire to get even?
and why is it that the Greens are always the ones expected to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Labour? (but funnily enough it doesn't seem to work that way for Act/National)
It's been a mixed blessing for ACT though right? Prebble's term in Wellington Central wasn't sustainable, Hide mightn't survive more than a single term in government... doing favours ahead of the electorate's appetite may just be too risky. Either way, there appears no sensible basis for Labour to do other than stand it's best possible candidate in Mt Albert.
-
SH20 - National are offering to complete this quickest.
St Lukes - National will say they are in favour of increasing job opportunities in Mt Albert.
Supa-City - rates, rates, rates and possibly rates may enter into this debate at some point. And Maori seats, which is always interesting in non-Maori electorates.
So yeah National will be campaigning on the issues.
Did I say I live in Sydney? Angus, thanks for the polite rebuttal, gentlemanly of you.
My point was that the Greens and Labour need first to work out how they're positioned on these issues, presumably they're more aligned to each other than they are with the government, before making a tactical decision about how or if they work with each other.
I guess I was also alluding to my sense that Labour are better positioned to win than the Greens and therefore, if there was a risk that a National candidate might squeeze through and advance policies that were in neither's interests then... well, pity there's no party vote hey!
-
.... from the Labour party
Glenn, fair point, but referring back to what Mikaere and Russell said (and Lynn Prentice too) were the local issues, they are not issues the National candidate will campaign on are they? If not, then it matters to both Labour and the Greens who might win surely?
-
Yeah, Wellington Central would be a better shot, demographically... but the incumbent Labour MP has only just been elected.
I'm anything but impartial on this as I volunteered for Grant. I'd've thought the assessment of which seat might be winnable for the Greens depends on where the Greens are heading since that's going to change through this parliamentary term amd under new leadership. Either way, I still don't know why a seat is so essential (though you're right, of course, to remind me the Greens got up in 1999) since they've increased their party vote each year since 1999?
So that would be 1827 votes that presumably went to Helen Clark from Green Party voters.
The gap between Labour (14,894) and National (12468) was 2426.
You can see how it's getting a bit dicey for Labour ...
This information from Russell serves only to reinforce the concerns about Mt Albert.
I'd suggest National's 2008 party vote is softer than my third chin.
Point well made (but I also know nothing of your chin).
-
Well, as electorates go, Mt Albert is actually a reasonably good target for the Greens. They got around 11% of the party vote there in 2008, making it their seventh-best electorate, after Wellington Central (21%), Rongotai (17%), Dunedin North (16%), Auckland Central (15%), Port Hills (14%) and Christchurch Central (11%). Sensing a pattern here?
Yes, but not the one I suspect you're sensing. I sense that the Greens have yet to break through an win an electorate seat and have still played an important role in the governing of NZ since 1999. I'd say Wellington Central will only firm for Labour and that when Annette retires, Rongotai will elect another Labour representative.
My point was that I wonder whether winning a seat is (a) needed or (b) achievable without a move to the centre which could compromise list votes and make the Greens more vulnerable.
It probably make senses for Labour to help gift the Greens an electorate to try and get the latter an insurance policy akin to Act's Epsom. Perhaps Rongotai when Annette King retires?
Gift to Greens? Now that'd be arrogant.
-
I'd have greatly preferred a coalition with the Greens. But the fact is that without the Maori Party there wasn't a majority to govern with -- from memory, a few thousand votes to bring in Nandor would've done it -- and Labour's other potential partners were refusing to support a government that included the Greens in Cabinet.
And that, it seems to me, is at the heart of this quandry.
Labour's candidate will eventually be choosen and they'll be to the left or right of the party but that's neither here nor there. Norman's candidacy will focus everyone's attention on the shifting orientation of the Greens as Norman will have to articulate what the party stands for post Fitzsimmons' leadership. If that's towards the middle, presumably in hope of having more bargining power with either Labour or National, are the Greens hoping to win a seat to compensate for the potential loss of list seats? Is that seat Mt Albert? Really?
-
I think there is some hostility to the idea of one-way solidarity on the Left and that it has some history on these boards dating back at least to the last election.
Gio, like you I'm a Labour voter, though not a member. I don't see the solidarity as being one way but I appreciate that the Greens feel hard done by over the last coalition arrangement (as per Mikaere's latest post). I understand that the Greens are rebranding through the MoU with National and that Norman's got a profile to build.
I don't agree with I/S though that campaigning is somehow seperate from governing. I thought Labour and the Alliance proved the advantages of sympathetic campaigning to win in 1999. Perhaps National and Act did again just last election.
It'd be foolish to think that Labour won't work tirelessly to win Mt Albert for all the reasons mentioned up-thread. I wish Norman well, I want the Greens to be a strong and viable party even if I don't think they need an electorate seat to be that (incidentally, I volunteered on Grant Robertson's campaign in Wellington Central where, I understand, the Greens have the highest party vote).
-
Fuck 'em. It's an election; you fight your corner and let the people decide.
I/S, aren't you ordinarily an advocate of consensus politics? This comment reads very FPP to me. Labour will, as they've already clearly stated in their campaign materials, put the electorate first.
-
Can you elaborate on what the risk is ? Even if National win an extra seat, what will be the marginal effect ?
Losing this marque Auckland seat would be a major issue. I don't mean this critically, but the Greens haven't organised around seats so possibly don't see them as important as Labour (though I suspect they do).
The point made up-thread that Mt Albert's possibly more contestable than people realise is an important one. We don't yet know the impact of Helen's leaving and Labour have to field a strong candidate (I know only two of them and both seem good) to do justice to the local electorate, to Helen's legacy and to combat the popularity of the government.
Labour may not be happy, but that won't stop them doing a deal with the Greens in 2011 if that's what it takes to get back into government.
Norman's got to bolster his leadership, that's clear. He's new and he's got to build a profile to withstand the impact of Jannette retiring. That too is clear. I guess my concern was that Labour and the Green not fall out so soon during the National/Maori/Act administration and Goff's leadership as they've a history of constructive government that should form part of both parties' campaigns in two year's time.