Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Policies aren’t sufficient, unless you wed them to values and a narrative.
I entirely agree. They're important to some, and I'd like to think they provide a baseline for popular and informed discussion, but ultimately politicians need to convey a sense of purpose and understanding.
In 2008 we knew that John Key was a self-made multi-millionaire and that he would use his economic brilliance to bring about a ‘step-change’ in the economy
And this is the deceit that will undo him. I don't discount his appeal, but it's not nearly sufficient and the NZ economy can't be independently remedied by his willing it so. Perhaps it is because it directly relates to me, but I clearly remember Key wandering around Wellington Stadium promising no more teary goodbyes. Yeah right.
that’s not the real problem – it’s that nobody even knows any of their policies. That’s the problem, and that’s why they’re failing
I think that's premature. Ideally, Labour would have clearly opened up a couple of significant points of difference and they've not, yet. I expect Grant Robertson will in Health and I'd like to see Mallard back in Education - he had the better of Tolley and education is a traditionally strong point of difference. In ACC, I expect National will open another point of difference too.
Where I disagree with the view you're expressing is the sense of it being too late. It's not. Phil's situation with Hughes was terrible. The ongoing dissent is not helpful. A circuit breaker is needed and I'm still inclined to agree with dc_red earlier. It mightn't be the Leader who has to change.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
Paul, no real disrespect intended; just that what you proferred by way of a counterargument wasn’t one worth the name. While I may be a pretty recent commenter, but I’ve been lurking here long enough to know that’s not generally how things roll. *shrug*
Lew, I have a job.
I would love to have spent the time trawling the 'net to catalogue a list but it's not necessary. Labour's speeches, in and out of Parliament, and a reasonable clutch of policies do represent a body of views that are different from the government. They mightn't be what you wish, but declaring none of them valid is ridiculous. It wasn't a cherrypick, it was the ones I could instantly recall. I could have added the campaign against ECE cuts or the ethical investment stuff or the anti-VSM... but I suspect no list will satisfy you as you are of the view that policies are not sufficient?
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
Yet political parties have been doing that for years, with the right skills and leadership. Has the ground shifted in some fundamental way? In any case, it's the engine room I'd be worried about if I were Labour. Which I'm not.
I am and I'm not panicking. Hughes has gone and may clear his name. If he does, some of the sting in this might abate. That said, I'd have preferred this handled differently, particularly the decision allow him to speak at the subsequent event on dirty politics.
-
Paul, John, and others, cherry-picking a couple of convenient examples to defend Labour's record isn't enough. Any fool can do that.
Lew, just saw this gratuitous comment. Going to let it pass through to the 'keeper (as they say over here). I like the company at publicaddress which is robust but mostly respectful something I think you're struggling with a little.
16% under Helen Clark at one point, Paul. That's half what Labour's regularly polling now. And look what Clark (with Cullen) went on to achieve...
A little while, not a long while, after which I joined the Labour Research Unit. Interesting times.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Again, I'm the guy who thinks they ought to kick him out. However that doesn't reassure me that the next leader - so long as he might be more interested in being 'successful' (as per Lew's diktat) than right - will articulate an equally anti-cuts agenda.
I recall talking with Colin James just before English toppled Shipley. His view was that while English wouldn't have choosen the particular timing, his colleagues had and if it wasn't him, it'd be someone else. I don't think that's the case with Phil. Although I'm concerned for the Party - and for the sake of clarity I mean the Party's ability to prosecute alternative policies to Key - I recall Helen's polling being very low too (and still seeing off a challenge). I think dc_red, upthread wondered about King's position; the parallels are strong (even if the circumstances are very different).
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
Please do provide examples, John. Really.
Sacha, there was a draft economic policy put out a while ago and Claire Curran's run a very well attended open online workshop to develop other policies. Like all parties, Labour's now working on it's List and on a manifesto. As is always the case with Labour, there'll be lots of policy released in the lead up to the election - more than National ever produce (and more than is absolutely necessary IMHO).
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
But I don't think that's how the Goff-lead Labour Party see themselves. I think they're mostly just a collection of individuals who are personally ambitious to be important and powerful, and they understand that they need to be seen to oppose the National government's policies in order to get their jobs.
This is not a new narrative from you Danyl, not very sophisticated though, just completely cynical.
I know a fair number of these people quite well. Probably others who comment here do also. It is quite wrong to dismissive them all as entirely selfish and unprincipled - because that is what you are saying, their "opposition" is entirely convenient. They're not going well at the moment and I agree they desparately need to.
I'm unhappy with the way the Hughes situation has been managed and I'm equally annoyed it'll distract from fundamental issues. That's a leadership problem certainly.
-
Hard News: Arts and letters for Christchurch, in reply to Matthew Reid,
I think donors and folk singing to raise money will be thinking the resulting funds should be going more or less directly to struggling people. They might be less supportive if it is to be used by the government to pay for benefits normally covered by the MSD/WINZ, but I could be wrong.
Speaking exclusively for myself, the reason why the government appeal was preferred for the Rise Up event was because it made it clear that an expat effort was entirely legitimate.
This doesn't mean I don't share your concerns however. I've followed the discussions regarding the government's management of this crisis closely and share many of the concerns aired here.
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Che Tibby,
those goals are george-unsexy.
Hell yes, which is why you use cute phrases like Modern Apprenticeships to make it meaningful. I do a fair bit of policy "confectionary", as do all officials, but you can't shine a shit (as they say here).
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Che Tibby,
i struggle with that. surely working out the details of public policy is the job of public service.
So long as I can recall, Labour's always done a fair bit of policy work but it is largely at the strategic level.
My own view is that a party needs to do enough of their own thinking to develop some coherence, particularly in policy clusters; the major goals in education, employment, IR should line up for instance.
I was involved in industry training before leaving NZ and used to be frustrated that on the one hand, firms would be asked jump through a few (reasonable) hoops to get any funding for accredited training but, on the other hand, WINZ would hand out cash for unaccredited training and MED would offer funding for "development" that didn't include any requirement for training. Entirely mixed messages (and in the case of MED, I'm of the view it was Ministerial failure).
regards that report you link to, i think Cullen might have been all over it. he was the last elected official to address aging.
Indeed. NZ Treasury's saying similar things, I just don't see the same agency buy-in that I see here (albeit primarily federal agencies).