Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Which is probably why the fait accompli for Shearer slipped out of Matthew Hooton's mouth 3 weeks before the election. The result was known, and we're all just being played for dicks.
Ben, that's patently false. You're suggesting the Party conspired to host half a dozen meetings up and down the country and confected candidates all to cover a deal done between a bloke who works for the Nats and ACT and another who's a former NZer of the Year. I think you should be over at that other blog...
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
I'm not suggesting that. You can scuttle a ship unintentionally, if no one is at the helm while the mates argue over who gets to be the new captain.
Clearly you didn't like the process, I get that, however I know many others that did and it represents a significent change from the past. Coatsworth led this as she should have and it was a clear decision to improve engagement and it's worked, from what I hear, if only for the membership.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Mostly, that's down to Goff. His last parting shot, to start off the government after him with a power squabble before the votes are even counted, before National has unveiled it's direction, before detailed analysis of what happened is even available, before their strategy is clear, before their policy is decided.
Ben, I think you're grasping at some sort of false malevolence.
I know from the few people I talk to that this process was intended to ensure the next leader was actively selected by the membership and caucus rather than, in the case of Goff, being handed it without a fight. The view is that it robbed Phil of a solid consensus within caucus. The timing was also determined so that Labour has a front bench to line up opposite National's from day one.
You mightn't agree with the tactics, but they're not intended to scuttle the ship as you seem to be suggesting.
Knowing someone's CV is not the same as knowing what they stand for, or where they want to take the Labour Party. It seems to me that it would have been better to have had a longer period for evaluation of the candidates, a requirement that they articulate some kind of manifesto, and a franchise considerably larger than 34 MPs.
Points well made. I'm not active in the Party, but if I was in the country, I'd be talking to the candidates at the meetings and one of the things I'd want to know would be how they'd talk to people who're not members directly. Shearer's said he intends to do exactly that!
Another +1 to Mr Seemens (and Lew).
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
I just don't know what these people stand for aside from wanting to win the leadership and I don't think that's entirely my fault.
I'm less clear about Cunliffe personally, but Shearer's CV has been well covered in the media plus he blogged some issues at Red Alert. I'm out of the country, so can't really comment on other coverage. Certainly, a lot about the individuals is also easily accessible through Hansard and Parliamentary TV.
I don't get the sense that any of the candidates wanted the job for the sake of it, not even Cunliffe about whom this has been said.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Deborah,
But it seems that the caucus didn't really pay all that much attention to the mood of those meetings, and the response of people there to the candidates.
I wasn't at any of them, so I have no particular insight, however I've heard competing stories about this.
However, that's the choice the caucus has made, and now we get to see whether in fact it was a good choice.
A number of people have talked about broadening the franchise in a manner similar to the Greens' approach. I think that's definitely worth considering.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
I agree, it's been shallow and callous and glibly reported as such.
I'm at a loss as to why you'd think the process was shallow or glib? It's been a lot more inclusive and thorough than any other since Kirk's ('65) or Lange's ('83).
-
Watching Labour pick it's leadership has me agreeing with them.
Ben, that's a very quick judgment you've made there. At the risk of sounding a little trite, why not engage in Labour's policy formation directly?
+1 Tom Seemens. I also thought it was clear, simple and genuine.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to giovanni tiso,
But in the senior political class I'm looking for somebody who is not happy with the model of resourcing disabilities, of thinking about disabilities, and wants to reform it radically.
I'd guess, and not just from Shearer's press conference, that Labour's very open to policy review.
What I was trying to allude to, poorly I admit, is that these articles are highly emotionally charged speculative gestures that I see frequently in the media here and find, quite frankly, a little weird
Fair enough merc. My comment related to the confection of the story. It's an angle without substance and a distraction.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
I see it as a natural position, maybe not conscious, yet I notice the framing is always the same.
This is way too premature! Edwards and Farrar have both speculated on Robertson's loyalty but have identified absolutely no basis. I'm inclined to think Farrar's just kicking the tyres but Edwards, well maybe he just likes being quoted?
Gio, Grant's interest in special education is longstanding. With Paul Gibson and others, he successfully lobbied for additional funding for tertiary students with disabilities around '95 - '97.
I think his "politics" will be more evident now that he's in a more senior position. He did get elevated quickly by Goff, but he possibly didn't have quite the influence over policy that he will now.
-
Loving this new thread! How is that PA has such wonderful writers and visual artists?