Pathetic is the only word I have for it. Is that the best the Oily One can come up with? Reminds me of the antagonists from Foreskin’s Lament.
I gather he also went out this headline this morning with the headline "The King is Dead, Long Live the Queen" and a pic of Robertson with a tiara added.
So, yes: Slater is still a lamentable excuse for a human being.
Bizarre Radio NZ headine on James Morning Report appearance.
"Failed" meaning, presumably, "didn't win Ilam". Just like everyone other than Gerry Brownlee has not won Ilam in the electorate's entire history.
"Threatens" in this context also appears to mean " says he will".
Slater et al have no ‘moral’ position on anything. They’ll smear someone for being homophobic if they sense it will aid their agenda. Whoever the next opposition leader turns out to be, their partner will be scrutinised for vulnerabilities by these ratbags.
Robertson’s sexuality doesn’t really seem to me like the issue that could break the left. I don’t think that even the center right is as homophobic as that. The extreme right, sure, but they’re lost, and fuck them, I say. It could actually sit there as the one thing that nobody can slag off. It’s the one thing that any candidate will actually gain sympathy for, when ruthlessly attacked over it. It corners the bigots and begs them to shine the light on themselves.
I've been thinking along the same lines, with the proviso that it's a big ask for Robertson's partner to have Slater et al sniffing around.
Cunliffe was championed early on by Big Russ. He is a great wonk.
He saw through telecommunications reform, which was a historic legislative achievement. He really had a grasp of the detail.
I thought he was the best option when Shearer stepped down, but I can’t see any scenario involving his re-election as party leader which isn’t a complete disaster.
No, but I think it’s simply shitty – and counter-productive – for any politician (or political activist) to treat voters like they’re selfish rubes and gullible idiots.
If anything, I was suggesting the opposite – the hard path of being straight with voters about the day after tomorrow.
I do think that NZers will reevaluate their feelings about the economy when the housing bubble deflates and dairy prices regress to the mean.
Well, probably. But if the great strategy is “wait until the peasants come to Jesus after everything turns to shit custard” then Labour doesn’t deserve to govern.
The Fabians events I helped with two years ago were basically a critique of these same problems. I was disappointed that the ideas aired there weren't taken up by Labour in a more structured way. Telling people that their short-term feelgood doesn't address long-term challenges is never going to be easy, but it's intellectually honest. It's not expecting the "peasants" to come to Jesus.
The economy’s not going that well.
No, it’s not but there’s also a good number of people, I suggest, for whom it’s not going badly enough to overcome a small-c conservative aversion to radical change.
That's it in a nutshell. But there is a problem with long-term thinking.
Haven’t you heard of the Putnam study which shows diversity is the inverse of civic engagement?
To be fair, we heard of it all the other times you've raised the exact same thing in discussions on this site.
Truckloads of data would be nice. Even supertanker full of anecdotes doesn’t cut it.
But you're kinda saying that if you call people and and ask them a list of questions that's data, but if you front up on their doorsteps and listen to them, that's anecdote.