Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm not sure why the obviousness of the crime is the key driver here. There are many obvious but unimportant crimes, and many unobvious but important crimes.
-
I think it's pretty legit to say that the cops should investigate the possible interference of a senior minister in a major criminal investigation before they raid the homes of any journalists.
I also think it's pretty legit to say that the cops shouldn't really be raiding the homes of journalists full stop, absent a pretty important reason, and when they do they should be careful not to put the important public functions of journalism at risk. (The idea that this case is comparable to one where a journalist is hiding a murder is revealingly absurd.)
[Or, basically, what Deborah said.]
-
If you're really that terrified by overhang seats, you can always give everyone else compensatory top up seats to restore proportionality.
-
How come that shit couldn’t be sorted in a 7 hour meeting?
Because David Cunliffe wanted to pull the trigger as soon as possible to maximise his chances of winning, and when the caucus refused to play along, he went unilaterally, again to maximise his chance of winning.
-
as surprised as I was when Keith Ng pretty much threw down against Cunliffe last time this happened
Why do all these Labour Party people keep saying that David Cunliffe is bad idea?
-
No, I’m saying that if Clayton Cosgrove being a self-centred blue dog is what lost us this election, then Helen Clark would never have won an election.
[And, er, who did give Clayton that high caucus spot? Who said "Clayton will be the next minister for earthquake recovery", and made damn sure that Clayton was safe on the list so that that could happen?]
-
Campaign managers, yes, who are volunteers, and generally reasonably large campaign committees who are also volunteers. The line that Cunliffe's pushing, that people didn't try hard enough is actually pretty offensive. It's also not backed up by any evidence - and I would say that if the ABC club is able to make such precise, fine grained decisions about the Labour party campaign, and have them carry through to results, they're wasting their talents screwing around with Cunliffe, they should sell their services to Clinton as extremely expensive consultants, because they're obviously geniuses.
As I said, Clayton is a different thing. It's not about the leader, it's about Clayton. Same with Nash. They weren't trying to undermine the leader, they're just self-centred.
-
Actually, claiming that candidates weren't seeking the party vote really is insulting to volunteers. Candidates don't run campaigns on their own: they run them with huge amounts of help. If you think Goff wasn't trying to win the party vote, you also have to think Michael Wood, the Mt Roskill LEC, etc etc were all in on this conspiracy. It is insulting.
As for Clayton. Clayton has run the same campaign for the past ten years, no matter who the leader is: Clark, Goff, Cunliffe. It's not about leadership, it's about Clayton believing the only wan to win is to run a blue-dog campaign in a National seat. It's a strategic mistake now that that seat is no long marginal, but it's not about the leadership, it's about Clayton being convinced he's god's gift.
-
If Clayton Cosgrove was leader, I would see that as a very very big problem. But he's not.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Yes -- but it also indicates that it's not Clayton Cosgorve & Friends who are worried about the prospect of another three years of David Cunliffe.. It's Clayton Cosgrove, people who like Clayton, people who think Clayton needs to reconsider his position in the party, people who think Clayton should be out on his ear, etc. It is a big big tent.