Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Sacha,
Clearly that’s not the thing I said, is it?
[I'm really not saying that there's anything illegitimate about being a Green and having a view. I'm saying that clearly that view is coming from a different political space than a view from within the Labour Party --- because the Greens and Labour have political differences --- and that that difference is just as real (if not as large, or expressed in the same ways) as the difference between National and Labour.]
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Sacha,
I don't understand why the response to a positive acknowledge of Green diversity and autonomy is a snide remark, but whatever.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Hebe,
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Greens being different! I think it's a good thing, that the Greens aren't just Labour in drag. And of course Greens are allowed opinions --- it's just they are the opinions of Greens, who have different goals and aims from Labour. (And that's true reciprocally, as well!)
Hah! Well it came up as an ad on my Facebook feed (complete waste of money I might add, I'm not in the ward and in a demographic that's very very unlikely to vote) and I thought fuck it, if you want my opinion, here it is. Can't say I'm impressed with Jackson's soft-Tory politics either, to be totally honest.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Sacha,
No, I don't buy that. For one thing, the interests of the parties aren't that convergent; for another, selecting a leader isn't just a meritocratic exercise in picking the "best". If you're not Labour, you'll have different goals and aims for your politicians (which is entirely correct), and while the differences between Labour and national are the biggest, there's still important differences between the Greens, Mana, and Labour.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
Hah! It wasn't you I was thinking of there.
-
Also, can I just say that while there's no enemies on the left etc, there's something deeply funny about committed Green/Mana supporters darkly muttering about the ulterior motives of Hooten/Farrar/Odgers et al.
-
I don't think that party members (or affiliates) are voting blind. I think that one rather revealing thing is that the actual electors commenting here at PAS seem to have a pretty clear grip on the candidates and process.
-
To expand: there's two things here. One is the functional aspect, which is the massive democratisation & opening up of the Labour leadership. This is still an internal party issue, however. It's also massively important. It's what gives you Young Labour quizzing leadership candidates.
There's also a non-funtional, theatrical aspect, which is the way in which, as a result, the leadership race is now a story. Which is integral to the whole thing, but does, sometimes, have to be subordinated to the functional, the-party-decides part.
-
Robertson – one of those caucus members who pushed for the inexperienced Shearer as leader (doesn’t say much for his political nous) and known to be conservative – maybe right as well.
Except he isn't in fact right. He's probably, on the public positions he's taking right now, slightly further to the left than Cunliffe. Based on my experience working with him on the Policy Council, I wouldn't say he's conservative --- he's careful, and doesn't like to fuck up, but those are positives, not negatives. He's also got a clear vision for where the Labour Party should be, and it's not one primarily defined by being Robertson-led, it's one defined by principle.
-
I don’t know that the Labour Party is under any particular duty to decide on political direction in the full glare of the media. I also don’t think that, if you’re not a member, you have any particular right to know the content of the Party’s internal decision making. The party doesn’t write policy by fiat of the Leader, so it’s not appropriate for leadership candidates to be making policy on the hoof.