Remember, the Espiner interview hinged on his point-blank, repeated refusal to answer a reasonable question about the conduct of a Minister of the Crown.
Why did Richard Worth have to go as a Minister?
Because the Prime Minister made a very firm judgement about his conduct and said, from memory.
I don’t understand why ,what I think are bright people will stick their head in the sand and want to look like an idiot for actually voting for this lot after knowing about their operation.
1. Most people haven't read the book and, because they don't follow politics, didn't understand (or even care about) the substance of what it depicts. They did form the view that Judith Collins was pretty dodgy -- I'm confident that there were Curia polls to that effect before she was finally dispatched.
2. They didn't feel secure about Cunliffe, or about Labour leading a government.
It is not over the top, nor inaccurate, to use the terms “disarray” or “divided” when the majority of the caucus has taken active steps to block the leader’s desire to have a leadership contest before the end of the year.
No, those are reasonable words. Having Shearer running around flouting his party leader’s instruction not to speak to the media certainly indicated that. "All out war" is probably going a bit far, though.
Labour’s caucus is divided. The gallery is reporting that fact. It’s that simple. I know there are those on the left that are uncomfortable with the state Labour is in and are looking for people to blame. But I can assure you it’s not the media’s fault. The blame for Labour’s predicament lies fundamentally within its own ranks.
Yes. But that’s not the same as demanding an apology from Cunliffe to the country. That’s just silly.
So it was ok when the PM was being given a hard time before the election, I certainly don’t remember you calling for an easing of the questioning
Because he had questions to answer that cut directly to the heart of government, and gave evasive and disingenuous answers for weeks. Because he stood accused of secretive and unethical behaviour, and refused to condemn such behaviour by a minister, and by his associates. Remember, the Espiner interview hinged on his point-blank, repeated refusal to answer a reasonable question about the conduct of a Minister of the Crown.
but not ok when the Leader of the opposition who has just lead the party to a historical defeat is trying to be tricky, is called on his actions
Did you actually read the post, Raymond?
There was his f….d up Psychoactive Substances Bill.
It was only after Campbell Live ran story after story on this insidious shit did he finally pull the plug on it. The amount of personal damage this bill caused was devastating and sickening. Did he care…Only when the heat got too much.
I'm sorry but that's bollocks. Synthetic cannabis was available for sale for years before the bill and for just over one year in a regulated regime under the bill. All kinds of things were screwed up in the execution of the law -- and basically, synthetic cannabinoids were a very poor candidate for regulated sale in the first place. But the idea that it only arrived with the Psychoactive Substances Bill is nonsense.
I believe he intends on reintroducing an amended version of this bill again this term. What a dangerous experiment again.
No, he isn't. The amendment bill in May got rid of the interim regime and got straight to the "all psychoactive substances are illegal until proven low-risk" stage. Hopefully the MoH will manage to introduce basic things like proper product-testing if and when a product passes the approval process.
There's also a major review of the Misuse of Drugs Act coming up. I'm not very hopeful of the Law Commission's recommendations being followed, sadly.
Like it or not, what I’m hearing is that Kelvin Davis just got the basics right in ways Labour hasn’t in Te Tai Tokerau for a long time – reconnected with a lot of flax roots networks, rebuilt up an effective and energized ground operation, and worked his arse off in a huge electorate that’s really hard to stay visible in because it’s geographically huge and your target voters are widely dispersed.
Yes. And it's not like he was coming from nowhere -- he was bloody close last time. He will make a decent and capable MP and he may well hold that seat for a long time.
In terms of what Labour policy most might’ve been aware of (if not the details) I think some of negative reaction to the CGT plays into the result.
Yes, in that, particularly through Cunliffe's hapless grasp of the details, it created exactly the uncertainty the voters didn't want.
I don’t think Labour needs to do all the soul-searching and so forth that people are talking about.
Worse result since 1922 strongly implies otherwise, IMO.
I do take Matthew’s point about leadership though. National without Key would be a very different proposition.
Agree with 1-4.
But not 5.
5 is the one I'm least sure about, tbh.
This is why I’m angry and disappointed in the result as it’s going to make my job more difficult and I can see schools and the children in them suffering. I have around 8 years left before retirement and I would like to enjoy them working with the children I teach. I’m not sure it’s going to be that easy.
The demonisation of teachers makes me so sad. This is going to take a long time to undo.