If the media were stopping at “scrutiny and criticism”, I wouldn’t see a problem. But I don’t think that’s an accurate characterisation of Gower & co’s conduct.
And it would be nice to see "scrutiny and criticism" being applied more consistently to ... oooh, you know, the actions of and processes followed by that even larger power bloc within parliament.
Would you still agree that when the media is being used to attack the opposition, democracy as a whole suffers?
In case you simply don’t see it, the two cases are not symmetrical.
The role of journalism should be to hold the powerful – i.e., the government of the day – to account. Not the powerless – among which number we should include Cunliffe at the moment. The problem is not that journalists "attacked" Key at one point in the election campaign: rather, the problem is that they largely failed to do their jobs in the preceding six years.
And what exactly should the public call him to account for? That’s THREE baseless accusations (“tricky”, “tricky”, “rort”) you’ve managed to crowbar into one comment. You must be feeling so pleased with yourself.
That’s just not realistic,
That was kind of the point Jack was making – the various media recommendations are contradictory.
no alternative but to show some humility
to the public? yes, but also to their fellow workers in Opposition. As I’ve already said upthread, I think Labour have to learn to work visibly, consistently, and cheerfully with the Greens (and others). During the next three years, they need to work as a team, among themselves as well as with other Opposition parties. For at least some of that time, it might be a good idea for Labour to explore joint leadership among co-equals with different areas of specialisation.* Which would be one way to respond to the calls for leadership change, without giving in to the media demand for bloodletting. IF – and I wouldn’t say it’s proven at this point, and that in itself is probably a clue to the source of their electoral woes – they have people who can step up to that, who are adult enough to collaborate with others from a position of mutual respect and trust.
Much as I hate to admit it, though, the recent election result does seem to indicate that voters respond to a “strong leadership” message more than to any individual policy. So, unless Labour can get positive traction with a more collegial approach to doing policy (and, you know, DOING OPPOSITION, which should be absurdly easy given what they have to react against, but they failed miserably at it last term), it looks like, about a year out from the next election, they might still need to focus on one strong leader in order to be electable. But I really hope they try the collegial approach first, and moreover I hope they can succeed in it.
* By the way, following on from adopting a multiple leader model, wouldn’t it be awesome if the “Leaders’ Debate” media events became more like (verbal) tag-team wrestling?
To their credit though
With banks, their business always, inevitably, is to their credit...
It occurs to me that one thing Labour desperately need to do in the next three years is to visibly, cheerfully, and consistently cooperate with the Greens -- to show that together they form a viable Opposition, and prove that one day they could form a viable government.
Which may be difficult given the incumbents Labour will be lumbered with.
That’s the figure I saw too – but note that that average residence time includes rentals, which almost certainly change somewhat more frequently than self-owned homes.
whenever he’s genuinely challenged he falls to bits and starts lashing out in random directions with immature insults instead of actually addressing points.
Scarily, that may well be a selling point for some of his supporters.
Were the following governments ineffectual
This doesn’t negate the point that personality shouldn’t be allowed to trump policy. Did any of these examples rely solely on personality? Whether or not you agree with their policies, they also had clear goals for their vision of society, established over a long political career -- none of them were parachuted into politics through backroom deals to be a figurehead. (Another argument against the primacy of personality cults is that several of these examples were arguably hampered by their personality. I would say Kennedy, Lange, Obama, Clark all underachieved relative to their -- lofty -- goals.)
You can go back and edit your posts on this site (within a 15-minute window), rather than multiplying them.
As you say -- do your homework...
“Let them eat steak”, eh?