Much as I appreciate the verbiage, your not being James Dann only further underlines my point. Find another Guest blogger in recent memory on your site who has after two posts completely declined to engage with the discussion on your site about their and I’ll concede your point.
I don't know how or why James should "engage" with anyone, here or elsewhere, who've pretty much called him a liar with a covert agenda who has acted in the very worse of bad faith. Russell is right, more fool me for looking but some of the shit thrown at James on The Standard is vile. "Tribal" in the very worse sense of the word.
What the frosty circle of Hell?
Yeah, I get the impression James is pretty ambitious and has therefore hitched his wagon to the Robertson juggernaut. Probably hoping for a reasonably high List spot or Safe-ish Electorate somewhere down the line.
Mr Mark: I guess you're a relative noob hereabouts, but the usual house style is to extend people the presumption they're speaking in good faith and engage with what they've actually said. If anything, James has been up front about where he's coming from and it's pretty shitty to dog-whistle that he's not. (It's also pretty insulting to Russell as well, who I've disagreed with a LOT over the years but he doesn't play bullshit games through proxies or prosecute stealth agendas.)
Labour men are eunuchs.
My entirely unscientific sample of Labour men from back in the day says your thesis is wrong.
But a lot more seriously, what Danielle said.
Su’a William Sio’s line about personal lives was particularly horrible, I thought.
Yeah, he’s not even whistling for that dog anymore. He’s flat out calling for it. But I wouldn’t put that on “the Cunliffe camp”. Sio is a paranoid bigot who probably blames the queers every time it rains in Mangere – and he was when Goff and Shearer were leaders. Unfortunately, he also holds one of the safest Labour seats in the country and nobody seems in any mood to deselect his arse, so there you go and here we are.
And as for Labour’s fortunes “going forward” Grant Robertson will never be Prime Minister of this country. With him as leader, Labour will not be elected into Government. This too is known.
Known by the same people who said nobody was every going to put a party lead by some arty-farty intellectual Dorkland bluestocking into government?
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.
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. To be blunt, I think there's way too may media-political types who should look hard in the mirror when they're wringing their hands about why people don't engage with politics.
Of course it's bloody hard to get people who are focused on things as immediate on paying the bills this month (and whether they'll still have a job this time next year) to think deeply about long-term structural issues. Tell me when it was ever otherwise. But you make the investment in making the argument, and convincing people who aren't malignant idiots for need to be convinced in the first place. And you better be ready to play the long game. Totally agree with you that the Fabians do that in a constructive and useful way, but too many don't.
The moment Cunliffe won the leadership, Labour’s support soared to 37/38%
I don’t mean to be a wet blanket, but if Labour wasn’t polling well after weeks of blanket and largely uncritical media coverage, the party has much bigger and deeper problems than the leadership.
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.
There was a good call on this by someone on Twitter yesterday about this. It said that the supposedly homophobic West Auckland and socially-conservative South Auckland didn’t have any qualms electing Chris Carter or Louisa Walls.
And didn't have any problems electing the rampantly heterosexual David Lange months, despite his support of Homosexual Law Reform through all its stages. Remember when it was the conventional wisdom that if Fran Wilde didn't withdraw that private member's bill, she would cost Labour the '87 election? How did that work out again?