I just think democracy has spoken and Cunliffe has ignored it because he didn’t like the result.
There wasn't a "David Cunliffe should resign as Labour party leader" option on the ballot from which we can clearly divine what democracy said. The election result was a Party vote. And Cunliffe hasn't ignored the result. He stepped down, and offered his party the choice about what to do with him. He probably quite genuinely does actually believe he can do better.
To ignore the will of the public and then say it’s democracy when the membership of the party is much smaller than the general public seems bizarre to me
Well perhaps a thought experiment on what the Labour Party would look like if it operated how you seem to think it should would make it seem a bit less bizarre. If they are to simply take the public choices as their only guide on what to do, they should get rid of 48% of their people and replace them with people like those in the National Party, and they should elect a multimillionaire currency trader as their leader, and then finish the job of privatizing the whole country. They absolutely should get Cameron Slater to start running their more offensive lines, because the country has spoken and they clearly think that's the way to go.
When a party has such a loss they need to accept it and listen and take on board what the public have told them.
I respect your opinion on this but I don't see it as any kind of axiomatic choice. Sometimes you do actually have to double down on a choice, for the big payoff. Maybe those people who form the vast bulk of the Labour Party itself genuinely feel that this is a battle worth fighting.
Just for the record, I'd like to state that I don't support or oppose either candidate. What I support is their internal democratic process, although it isn't anywhere near as good as what it could be.
I find arguments that it shouldn't happen to be incomprehensible and insubstantiated gobbledegook, for the most part. Filled with the platitude of the wisdom of the elders and total contempt for the wisdom of crowds, yet somehow in favour of pointing out that wisdom vis-a-vis the election result, as if somehow Cunliffe's democratic election defeat is a reason why democracy should be suspended internally.
It does not compute with me, and that in itself is a large part of my own detachment. The way they operate is bizarre, like some lost tribe in New Guinea, with a circle of elders, an indentured semi-religious pressure group, and bunch of angry disenfranchised villagers. It's not something I want to have anything to do with, but I unfortunately have to take notice of it because this is a powerful tribe in my neighborhood, and there are even worse tribes around.
Yes I’ve heard of Rowling which is why I qualified it with in recent history.
But in recent history, since Moore there has only been 1 successful Labour leader, and she was kept on after losing. There's no other wins on the board at all to bolster your point about the wisdom of the old guard.
In fact, bmk, the more I look at Labour's leadership choices, the less they back up your claim of their amazingly rapid dumping of unpopular leadership. They elected Nordmeyer after getting kicked out of office over his "Black Budget", and he got a couple of years before getting rolled. Walter Nash managed to also lose 2 elections.
But lemons were quickly dropped when it was obvious the people didn’t like them.
You’ve heard of Bill Rowling? He managed to lose not one, not two, but three consecutive elections!
ETA: Oh, and don't forget Mike Moore, 2 time loser.
Not as in the past, the leader that would most likely appeal to the populace and in particular the potential Labour voting portion of the populace.
That's spinning how it used to work to the max. It's not like they've never once chosen a lemon before the members were allowed to vote. They've lost more than half of the elections since they first won one.
but each to their own.
Indeed. I find the idea of extinguishing a person's rights against their will in their country of birth, where quite possibly most of their family are, quite probably a lot of their assets, their inheritances, their social taonga, their memories, their long term dreams, equally bizarre. There's plenty enough people who can't even be stuffed to vote when they're abroad, without needing to legislate to make it so.
The thing is Phil Goff did the honourable thing and resigned
The soft bugger never did actually commit seppuku though. Instead, he hung on to become the most popular Labour seat holder with National party voters, ever.
You used that word, not James.
Yes, I know, and I stand by the word. If you wish to have a semantic debate (I personally don't), have at it, go look it up. I already did.