This thread makes me very happy!
Many thanks. you’re a champ.
He is. Many here are.
On Robertson's role, and Parker's performance, I think it's a great decision. Parker may have been, in fact I've been told was, a good senior finance Minister but I don't think he was good in Opposition at all. He was too much the boffin, too technical and abstract, not able to translate economic options into meaningful experiences that families' comprehend.
Grant may need good researchers and support, but that's available, what he'll bring to the portfolio is the ability to make it meaningful and of all the challenges Labour faces, that certainly is one of the most important. It makes great sense to put your talent where it matters and good on Little for recognising that.
It really is Little v Key and Robertson v English. The importance of the undercard, education et al, is also very important and I like the look of Katharine Moody's line-up.
I think Helen assumed that Maharey would succeed had he not retired and on the basis that Cullen went as well. Whether the Party would've elected Maharey is another matter.
He’s clearly got a brain on him, and a lot of experience, and seems like a very good fast talker. I feel pretty stoked really. If he goes through with 70% of what he’s talking about there, I might even switch back to voting Labour, and if you’d asked me that yesterday I’d have said that was impossible.
Andrew is an impressive individual who will, as Mathew said, still have to grab this chance but he has to have the party's support and as Sacha said, Grant Robertson has been nothing short of emphatic in his position and support for Andrew. This is typical of Grant too. He's a entirely principled individual who realises the narrative has to change regardless of him not being leader.
Less than 24 hours after the result of our leadership election has been announced? I think it’s okay to keep on talking it over for a few days. If people are still talking about it say, when the New Year rolls around, then I’d be deeply worried. I’m hoping that the internal focus will shift by 2015, and preferably sooner.
Point well made. I guess I was just slightly disappointed that the moment, and I do mean moment, the announcement was made I was reading criticism of the process like it was somehow new or a surprise which it most certainly wasn't.
As I happily acknowledge upfront, much of it is personal disappointment that a close friend didn’t get the job I think he’s made for.
Ditto Andrew, sort of. Grant is a genuinely remarkable individual who I'd also have liked to be leader. However, Andrew certainly has many similar qualities that could well make him very successful.
However, it troubles me that so many people in Labour are still talking about Labour, and in ways that play directly against unification, and still not talking about matters that impact on the electorate.
I'm sorry if this is something that's been said upthread that I've not acknowledged.
Robertson’s problem however is that he has hitched his leadership ambition to the the dead wood of the ABC clique.
It may be the other way around of course?
For Robertson to unify the caucus, he must have more supporters than detractors surely? And although Mallard, Goff and King aren't hugely popular here, they win their electorates and generally win the Party vote too. Trevor's lost some ground in Hutt South, but that's partly boundary changes and his relative decline is still a lot better than many others I suspect.
I want to see change in the caucus like others here but can I say that personal preferences might need to be balanced against individual performances at the polls and on that count, the three you've mentioned aren't so poor (by contrast, Ross Robertson should have been excised in 2002).
.. if she wants it. The pressure is not fair if she isn’t ready, for the good of the Party. Think about it.
I've got no great read on Jacinda. She does do well in Akl Central but can't yet win it, that's risky?
Exactly. And the complacent warriors of the soft left wonder why we’re concerned.