Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Great post Russell. Phil Twyford's reaction was spot on as well.
-
Hard News: The Hager saga continues, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Well I wasn't the one saying that non-Labour people shouldn't be having their say on the Labour party, so perhaps you confused me for... you.
My point was that Labour's principles aren't owned by those who support parties to Labour's left. Your point was that Labour supporters shouldn't be using Public Address to talk about Labour at all.
You'll have noticed that I tried to end this conversation a week ago. I don't think your latest comment fairly reflects what was discussed and I'd be grateful if you'd spare me any further attempts at staircase wit.
Thanks in advance.
-
Losing elections? Not worried. Economic policy? Not really an issue. 9 years of National? Sky not falling.
Bring back Buck
Neoliberalism is, bizarrely, a compromise position
you might be overstating the impracticality of idealism
the only way the Left can make progress
haircutYou talk a lot of shit, Ben. I'm tired of responding to your straw men.
It's so packed with contradictions that it's scarcely worth addressing
I've read a few of your 8591 comments I've felt the same way about. Are you even a Labour supporter?
I think we're done.
-
Hard News: The Hager saga continues, in reply to BenWilson,
It's also not really time to worry about the shocking length of time National's been in government, since they've never once had less than three terms in power since then
That's a remarkably flippant way of dismissing the democratic objectives of the Labour movement. I don't know what we're doing here if not discussing how to prevent National from winning.
During the last forty odd years, Labour has been in government twice. The Fourth Labour Government was elected after Muldoon bankrupted the country. The Fifth Labour Government was a response to the Shipley/Peters meltdown. It would be nice if we were more than a cleaning crew for National's fuck-ups.
It's hardly like they need much pushing. The forces driving them to sell out are way, way more powerful than anything I will ever be able to bring to bear.
I can't really comment on this because I genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
My own view is that the next Labour-led government should look something like the Clark/Cullen years. That means incremental increases in government revenue, consistent surpluses and strategic intervention as circumstances allow (e.g, KiwiBank, Air New Zealand, the Railways).
If the rest of the Left wants to go a great deal further than this, let it do it on a private sector basis, in the way Maori tribes and the cooperative movement do. We could build an alliance of successful businesses to countervail the BR; set up our own media organisations. The only realistic chance of the old style Left ever getting what it wants lies in creating our own proving grounds. It would be better than sitting on the sidelines and whining.
But what little I have I'm going to use as my conscience dictates.
Okay, I think we broadly understand each other's positions. Shall we leave it there?
-
Sure. But you equally have to expect that putting up a win-at-all-costs suggestion is also going to get some disagreement.
Okay. But there's a lot of space between being a perennial also-ran and selling out.
If things carry on as they are, there'll be nothing left to protect.
-
And there's plenty of places where only Labour people can express their opinions and vote etc on the party and the leader, and this isn't that space.
Do tell me more about the homogenous nature of your space.
-
I just don't see how we move from here if one of the left wing parties isn't competing for the middle third of New Zealand's voters. I'm not saying a policy shift is required.
If you want to suggest that competing to actually win elections is a betrayal of principle or a kind of false flag operation, I think you've got to anticipate a pretty pissed off response.
Edited for tone.
-
Well, I voted for Sepuloni. Does that count?
Not on its own, no.
I'd like to see them doing it without giving up everything they might have stood for
I don't think it's helpful for you to present yourself as a defender of Labour's principles and to portray others as a threat to them.
<publicly stated goal>
<private goal>Whatever.
-
I think you might be overstating the impracticality of idealism.
Idealism is only impractical to the extent that it prevents you from achieving your goals. Are you a Labour supporter?
if they [win] by turning into National, I wouldn’t see it as any kind of win if they did take the election
I think I said that Labour needs to attract voters who are currently supporting National if it wants to implement its policies. There's an important difference between broadening your appeal and mimicking your opponent.
But they’ve lost all control over the direction of economics
Given that the economy has the left's primary concern for more than a century, that's a pretty major problem. On a longer term view, I agree that there's been a lot of progress.
-
The modern progressive movement isn't a departure from some imagined ideal. I can't tell you how uninterested I am in debating matters of doctrinal purity at this point.
Labour should be aiming to win the next election. EOFS.