For the third time now, tell me how better you think it should be done. Because you’re long on bitter recriminations and short on real ideas.
I have finally had the time to do a big long post on this actually, but given I am about as popular as a pork chop in a synagogue around here I think it would really take up to much room. I guess I am asking for permission.
You obviously don’t know anything about Deborah, or rural New Zealand
After last night, who in current Labour party culture does? You? Not bloody likely! It certainly isn't me, I was convinced the polls were out by 5%. More fool me.
I think it’s your enormous influence over the party that Tom is bitter on...
I am not bitter on anything. I think she would be a great candidate one day, but her selection in Rangitikei set her up to fail, represents a tin ear from the selection committee and presents her in the future for a constant narrative as a "failed candidate sliding in on the list". Is that how a functioning and well informed selection panel should deal with promising candidates?
Wait, wait, Tom.
What I am saying is in Rangitikei Labour went backwards against a second term government. Russell more or less hung on to the core Labour electorate vote, but Labour got a complete drubbing in the party vote.
Why are you even bothering to defend the party organisational culture after such a comprehensive rout?
WE GOT SMASHED. Time for accountability.
I am not counting the election Clark lost because she dominated the party in a way that ensured discipline.
And if you think I am exaggerating the scale of the rejection of the current Labour party and the domination of liberal identity politics, look at Rangitikei, a seat contested in 2011 by none other than Josie Pagani and this time by that favourite daughter of PAS Deborah Russell. In 2011 Pagani got 8902 electorate votes and Labour got 6723 party vote. In 2013 Russell managed 8521 votes and a derisory 5673 party votes for Labour. Yet Deborah Russell was touted as a great candidate, someone with a bright future. Wrong candidate for the seat, pure and simple. A local farmer would have been better.
What idiot couldn't see that an university feminist academic was not the ideal candidate for a rural conservative seat? As it is, she has probably had it now, because she failed politics 101 of doing well in an unwinnable seat before promotion.
You could make the same argument for Tamati Coffey - the wrong candidate in the wrong seat for the mood of the electorate who did nothing to dent National despite being "high profile". At least he didn't go backwards.
Given the (second) total and devastating rejection of the Labour party as envisioned by the PAS liberal elite, why would anyone even bother reading the prescriptions here? A lot of people still don’t get it. The Labour party created under the iron grip of Helen Clark in the 1990s to paper over the ideological victory of neo-liberalism fell apart when she left and has been rejected, twice. A third time will be fatal. I am sorry, but the PAS view of progressive politics had been tried and found to be an utter catastrophe.
The time of reckoning for Labour, first for betraying it's voters with the neo-liberal revolution then for selling out and going up the blind alley of identity politics, is now at hand.
Balancing my annoyance at saying "conduction" instead of "conducting" is the fact that "conduction" is a very good word indeed.
Should be illegal, probably is, but Farrar would explain how they were really interested a couple days out from the election in changing all their messaging. Which is to say, he'd just lie and the police wouldn't care anyway.
Given the polls have been open for general voting for the last two weeks, allowing any polling, let alone push polling, is an appalling lapse of regulation.
If we are going to open the polls two weeks early for general voting, then we need to forbid the conduction and publishing of all polls during that period.
Franks is being given a right-of-reply to David Slack on The Panel in a moment (currently 4.48pm).
Mind boggling. Mora is a joke.
Haven’t seen any media comment lately about appointment of donkey’s childhood mate as spook chief.
David Farrar has a post up where he lists all the important and authoritative people who are saying New Zealanders are not spied on. But the problem is that Snowden and Greenwald have exposed the entire establishment as arse covering and self serving liars. The crisis is as much one of confidence in being able to believe what we are told as much as anything. If Key says "The GCSB does not conduct mass surveillance on New Zealanders" a heft portion of his listeners simply don't believe him, or suspect him of using doublespeak where he has a peculiar interpretation of what "surveillance" is or that someone else might be doing it for us and handing the data back. One of the reasons we need a proper, open and informed formal debate on surveillance and the GCSB/SIS powers is the urgent need to re-establish trust in our authorities in the minds of the general public.