Losing elections? Not worried. Economic policy? Not really an issue. 9 years of National? Sky not falling.
Yes, that is how democracy works. It's also spilt milk - National will get their 9 years controlling the NZ economy. It would have been nice if for the first time ever Labour had been able to restrict them to 6. That would have been historic.
Are you even a Labour supporter?
I'm a swing voter. I've voted for Labour more often than any other party, but not exclusively for them, and not for the party in the last 3 elections (although I've supported the local candidate consistently). So the answer is "it's complicated".
I think we’re done.
That's up to you. I've been debating here for a bloody long time so don't expect me to be going anywhere. Your positions that I've read are mostly compatible with mine except for appearing to be a lot quicker to suggest jettisoning viewpoints. I prefer to just argue strongly with them.
That’s a remarkably flippant way of dismissing the democratic objectives of the Labour movement.
It's just putting your comment that the sky is falling because it's been 6 years since Labour had power into perspective. I don't want National either, but this is not even a slightly exceptional place to be. In my life, we've been here twice before, and both times, the next government was a Labour one.
My own view is that the next Labour-led government should look something like the Clark/Cullen years.
And the All Blacks should bring back Buck?
Okay, I think we broadly understand each other’s positions. Shall we leave it there?
Sure. I'm still going to challenge any statements that the only way forward for Labour is to give away ideology, though. But if you agree to stop making them, I'll stop challenging them. It certainly isn't my vision that the only way the Left can make progress is to make businesses that outcompete the current Masters of the Universe. It's so packed with contradictions that it's scarcely worth addressing. The Left isn't going to go getting a haircut and starting up a small business with an eye to a 250 year comeback, just because that would be convenient for Labour.
But there’s a lot of space between being a perennial also-ran and selling out.
There is. Labour is in little danger of being a perennial also-ran, having been the government periodically since the 1930s, and it's also not really time to worry about the shocking length of time National's been in government, since they've never once had less than three terms in power since then. But fears that Labour could sell out are a little better grounded, since they've done it before, and there are plenty of people clamoring for it.
It's hardly like they need much pushing. We are talking about rich, powerful people, after all. The forces driving them to sell out are way, way more powerful than anything I will ever be able to bring to bear. But what little I have I'm going to use as my conscience dictates.
If you want to suggest that competing to actually win elections is a betrayal of principle or a kind of false flag operation, I think you’ve got to anticipate a pretty pissed off response.
Sure. But you equally have to expect that putting up a win-at-all-costs suggestion is also going to get some disagreement.
I don’t think it’s helpful for you to present yourself as a defender of Labour’s principles and to portray others as a threat to them.
Helpful to who? It's my opinion. I don't pretend to be offering neutral advice as if I've been hired by some corporation to upgrade its image to improve market share. I'm a consumer and I'm saying what I want the company to make.
Not on its own, no.
Well, perhaps I didn't get the memo about what is required to have an opinion about Labour's influence over the future of the politics of my country.
Are you a Labour supporter?
Well, I voted for Sepuloni. Does that count?
There’s an important difference between broadening your appeal and mimicking your opponent.
There is. I'm only taking issue with your statement that it's the end of the story that they should win the next election. I'd like to see them doing it without giving up everything they might have stood for, which is not even an unlikely strategy. There are any number of people jockeying around them to effect a shift to the right as a grand game plan to:
<publicly stated goal> Bring balance back into NZ politics
<private goal> Permanently shift the political center towards their own opinions
I think you might be overstating the impracticality of idealism.
Labour should be aiming to win the next election. EOFS
Sure, but if they do it by turning into National, I wouldn’t see it as any kind of win if they did take the election.
It is worth taking stock of just where the battle is actually at. People of the Left have actually pretty much dominated the direction of social policy. But they’ve lost all control over the direction of economics. It’s been a great win for the Right to de-politicise economics, conveying the impression that it’s a boring science well in hand. Neoliberalism is, bizarrely, a compromise position.
Finally throttled down my strained outrage-ometer and finished the book.
Good on you. I haven't managed to finish, because it will actually fuck with my mental equilibrium, which I need for at least another month.
Something must happen. I now have to think hard about how.
I'm planning a contribution, but it needs some free time to work on it. In a nutshell, I think the main contribution that netizens of the left can make is not to fight dirty with dirty, but to fight it with soap. The solution to our politics being hijacked by secret interests using dirty tactics is not to join them, but to shine as bright a light on it as possible, as Hager did.
The rhetorical power of people opposing this stuff is not really the problem, it's just that rhetoric against rhetoric is only a part of the battle. The war could be won with overpowering factual information.
I see a need for better information that holds our politicians accountable. Something that is an antidote for the memory hole. We need an Iraq Body Count of poverty. We need a Promise-ometer. We need better measures better conveyed of where our country is actually at, and also where it has come from and is going to.
In short, I think we need to supplant the news media with information media, devoid of rhetoric and spin. It seems to be happening already, that people already seek data out for themselves, but it could be vastly improved.
I'm referring to revelations from Dirty Politics. Still haven't finished it but could give some snippets tonight if you're interested (and no one else has jumped in).
I mean the guy is a pathological liar. He is as likely to be pulling your tit as giving you something real, going on form.