I thought that was pretty bloody silly too.
Oath – and disturbingly reminiscent of those on the other side who blamed National’s historically low share of the popular vote in 2002 on that damn biased liberal media. Of course, the fucking awful campaign, impossible-to-take-seriously-while-sober policies and the endless internal ill-discipline being played out in public (*) had nothing to do with it.
(* Which was really impossible for the "liberal media" to ignore when National's caucus spent more time trying to hobble their own leadership than Helen & Co. If you obligingly providing a ten car pile up, it's a little rich to complain when people slow down to look.)
Climate Change Ambassador
Macey is a career diplomat and would either have held this job in addition to accreditation to a national or international body (in which case it becomes a political appointment) or should have been appointed through the normal process for state servants.
I reckon it would be useful to OAI the details on Jones' new job (announced yet?). Best case, it might be found in the future to be ultra vires and he'll have to pay back all his salary and expenses?
Yesterday, John Armstrong actually described Jones as “someone who talks political sense in a no-frills way”. I mean, seriously? Jones’ mode of speech is “no frills’? In what parallel reality?
That's typical of many comments and responses. I'm also puzzled by the no frills ordinary bloke claims, I didn't often see that in him.
Jones' oratory rarely impressed me, he looked more suited to a stage contest rather than a soapbox.
How 'bout a bit of research instead of just expecting them to win the latest fashion parade .
She does her research close to the election. Not everyone is constantly engaged with the daily grind of politics. Closer to the time she pays close attention to policies. But with that type of attitude do you really expect people to want to vote for you? Blaming people for not liking you?
Greg/micky doesn't want to know about misfires and is convinced Labour is doing a great PR job that is just being misrepresented by the media and the right wing.
He was asked in his post:
In relation to your last paragraph however, I think it is also fair to add the Labour party having a more competent PR strategy to your list of “if onlys”.
Blaming the media and the pundits simply doesn’t wash with ‘the facts’ either. Labour have made genuine blunders for a long time now – there were some real misfires during Helen’s last campaign – some very confused strategy under Goff – Shearer was an extremely poor communicator – and now we have Cunliffe.
I am actually impressed with the calibre of the people handling the media strategy. What I think the problem is that the party has set itself a herculean task in providing so much detail in policy areas and that it could actually simplify things down and perform better.
An example from the beginning of this year. National comes up with a policy for more pay for some teachers with a $360 mil price tag. There was very little detail, just a promise of more pay for some “expert” teachers and headmasters. The policy is heralded in the press.
Labour comes up with its fresh start package with figures and analysis and backing papers and all sorts of detail. It gets attacked heavily because of slightly sloppy wording in one sentence when the briefing papers makes the situation clear.
I can recall in 2008 Labour released 71 separate pieces of policy the day before the election. 71 …
This is entirely my own opinion but by simplifying the presentation of policy Labour could actually be clearer and more effective and not have to work so hard at producing media.
Just my own 2c tho …
If only the voters will look past all the balls-ups and read the policy Labour should romp in.
I’m also puzzled by the no frills ordinary bloke claims
I don't know any 'ordinary blokes' who went to a posh Harvard business school - Cunliffe might not want to mention that too often either, if that's where he is looking for votes...
...spooky a Harvard just flew over the house!
I am actually impressed with the calibre of the people handling the media strategy.
Unimpressed with that statement myself.
What a funny thread. On the one hand we have a woman praising what the next Labour MP, Kelvin Davis, said about trying to end violence against women. On the other hand, we have men (more than one) saying how they wives and other women won't be supporting Labour because of the way the new Labour leader dresses.
Kelvin Davis has published a Facebook post expanding on his comments about confronting violence against women and listing his other priorities as an MP.
I don't recall anything of this clarity and purpose from Shane Jones in nine years.
On the other hand, we have men (more than one) saying how they wives and other women won't be supporting Labour because of the way the new Labour leader dresses.
If you are referring to me - I wasn't saying that. My partner found the way he appeared smarmy and fake most off-putting and untrustworthy. She hasn't yet decided who to vote for and could well end up voting for Labour - this though would appear to be in spite of Cunliffe than because of it. The dress comment was made in passing rather than being the substantial thrust of her criticisms - which were more to do with both his mannerisms and what he said than what he was wearing.
As for Kelvin Davis I think it's great that he's back in - he's an incredibly impressive candidate. However, it's criminal that he wasn't in before - he should have had a much higher list placing last election.
If you obligingly providing a ten car pile up, it’s a little rich to complain when people slow down to look.)
Yup. And bloody hell, the number of business folk I used to hear complaining about the awful left wing pro-Labour NZ Herald would make you weep.
Meanwhile last night Key's enjoying dinner at the Act Party fundraiser for Seymour.So many dinners So little time.
As for Kelvin Davis I think it’s great that he’s back in – he’s an incredibly impressive candidate. However, it’s criminal that he wasn’t in before – he should have had a much higher list placing last election.
Absolutely. Again, the dead wood issue comes into play, and the Boag approach won't necessarily work for the existing Labour caucus due to faction balance politics.
There seems to be a life cycle of certain MP's careers: novice backbencher, experienced front-bencher, and then dead wood.
If you look at the list of list MPs in Labour , all up, there is only about 9 list MPs. The rest were put there by the voting public. So Kelvin at 10 isn't that far down.Whoever you think of as "deadwood" has earnt their right to be there. There are not too many on the List. It'll be interesting to see how convenient voting is, as many in rural areas cant even afford the return trips in petrol to voting booths up north. Kelvin will have to encourage the voters up there. I'll see if I can help closer to the time.
Again, the dead wood issue comes into play
Can I just ask who exactly constitutes the 'dead wood' that's supposed to be dominating Labour? Aside from Jones (and for all that I loathe the guy and am glad he's leaving, the supermarkets issue was a really good one to jump on), I can see an argument for Clayton Cosgrove, Mallard, and Damien O'Connor (though the last has a seat for life and from what I've heard is genuinely well-thought of as a constituency MP). Phil Goff and Annette King might have come in during the 80s, but both have excellent command of their portfolios and Goff's work around the MFAT restructuring and Defence has been really good.
So aren't we really talking about three MPs out of 34, two of whom are now firmly on the backbenches? I guess you could bump that up to five if you included Ruth Dyson and Ross Robertson, but again they're both unranked and won't be making the trip back up anytime soon.
there is only about 9 list MPs. The rest were put there by the voting public
All MPs are put in place by the voting public. If voters do not like a party's list, they do not vote for them.
So Kelvin at 10 isn't that far down.Whoever you think of as "deadwood" has earnt their right to be there.
How have they earnt the right to be there? By being in the party for so long? I think Kelvin made more of an impression than many on the list above him, not saying they aren't good MPs but either they are less effective, less promising or have had their time and should have been below him in the list. For example these were MPs above him in on the list who easily could have been placed lower down:
Sue Moroney (10th) - vaguely heard of her but can't think of one really positive thing she's done.
Darien Fenton (18th) - heard of her but again can't think of much she's done.
Rajen Prasad (20th) - heard of but only in terms of his laziness, ineffectiveness and jokes about him being one of the worst MPs - yet he was higher than many worthy candidates.
Raymond Hao (21st) - vaguely heard of.
Carol Beaumont (22) - heard of but mainly only for losing the former Labour safe seat of Maungakiekie in 2008; a feat which rewards her a higher list placing in 2011.
All of these could have been placed below Kelvin Davis. Maybe my perspective is skewed by him being a fellow Northlander - but if you've heard him speak he is very impressive and just the type of person Labour needs representing their party.
So my ironic tweet …
Labour must recapture the appeal to blue-collar males it had during those nine years in government led by a feminist PolSci lecturer.
… got about 50 RTs earlier. One of which came to the attention of Trevor Mallard, who replied thus:
@publicaddress @torshin but some of us had to punch above our weight for that team
Oh really. Do tell.
It seems well past time for Mallard to move on.
All of these could have been placed below Kelvin Davis. Maybe my perspective is skewed by him being a fellow Northlander – but if you’ve heard him speak he is very impressive and just the type of person Labour needs representing their party.
Couldn't agree more. I liked him first time around and I've only become more impressed in the last day.
Ross is retiring and Ruth won her electorate, Mallard won his, O'Connor won his, Goff won his, King won hers, I can go on. Point being these people were voted in by their Electorate. They didn't think they were deadwood and it was their choice. Cosgrove is the only List MP out of those mentioned.
If voters do not like a party’s list, they do not vote for them.
Yep but My Party vote is that. Party vote.
Your party vote supports that party's list, minus electorate MPs. It's not a novel observation that Labour's list in 2008 was skewed and when their overall vote collapsed, MPs with low list rankings were excluded.
I reckon it would be useful to OAI the details on Jones' new job (announced yet?).
Oh, I will be.
@publicaddress @torshin but some of us had to punch above our weight for that team
Oh really. Do tell.
He's talking about when he bashed Henare, despite being the little guy.
Point being these people were voted in by their Electorate. They didn't think they were deadwood and it was their choice.
Oh totally - I was just responding to the commonly-articulated view that the Labour caucus consists primarily of 90-year old Roger Douglas clones who spend their days twiddling their thumbs in high-backed armchairs. The whole deadwood discussion seems like an unhelpful distraction to me.
I don't know if Mallard's 'punch' comment was deliberate regarding his Henare stoush, but note that he said "had to punch above our weight for that team" - past tense.
How long ago? What does he do now?