Hard News: Madness in Mt Albert
328 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Which is completely rational for him and for his party, but I don't think it's without political risk.
Can you elaborate on what the risk is ? Even if National win an extra seat, what will be the marginal effect ? They've still got a majority with ACT. One more forgettable National backbencher isn't going to change things much.
As for the Greens, the benefits are quite concrete, and widely supported within the Auckland province and the National Executive (can't speak for other provinces. Labour may not be happy, but that won't stop them doing a deal with the Greens in 2011 if that's what it takes to get back into government.
-
Oh, and why do media memory batteries have to be recharged every three years? So Labour and Greens fight, so they can't work together later?
Er ... Bolger and Peters 1996, Clark and Anderton for years, Tariana Turia and Don Brash 2005, Clark and Peters 2005, etc ...
(edit - as Mikaere points out)
-
Well, yes, but it wasn't exactly old school investigative legwork by the reporter.
It generally isn't with Garner. He's an ace fielder of tips, but I don't see him as someone who spends many hours on research. It's not really his job.
-
Since you mention Anderton, it might be worth pointing out that being loyal footsoldiers did the Alliance no favours at all. Being loyal footsoldiers *in opposition* makes even less sense. And besides: loyal to what kind of common cause? I seem to recall Labour getting into bed with Peters and Dunne after the last election. (And to reiterate, I'm a Labour voter.)
-
I suspect he'd rather strongly object to them being claimed as "Green issues"
Well, if you swap the capital G for a small one.... they are all environmental issues to one degree or another...
-
Green supporters are far more concerned for their party to act like a grown up and be independent. If that means giving some back to a Labour party that has consistently tried to marginalise them, perhaps Labour shold have thought about that a few years ago.
Though some Greens supporters are supporters because they thought the Greens could be relied on to work with Labour.
How many would not have voted for the Greens in the last election if they had known they would be entering into a memorandum of understanding with a National government?
-
Slater is the muck racker, DPF is the moderate commentator on the muck, his wingnut followers then frame the debate back in the terms Slater and the National Party filth unit want and all the journalists in town interview kiwiblog for their stories - voila - topic de jour?
Labour did use an identical tactic to disseminate the H-Fee smear against Key using their proxies at The Standard so they're in no position to complain about how unfair it all is, and it's hardly the fault of the media or the Nats if they're simply more competent at executing these strategies.
-
I agree with Tom, it is about time Labour stopped reacting to Kiwiblog and set its own agenda for the by-election. The worst that can happen now is for these nutters derail the campaign before it has even started.
-
3 News has obtained articles written by Mr Shearer
OMG magic! Thanks goodness we have Duncan Garner to dig up this super-secret stuff! Is there no limit to 3 News' omniscience?
-
How many would not have voted for the Greens in the last election if they had known they would be entering into a memorandum of understanding with a National government?
And how many people who were undecided between labour and the greens would have voted labour in the previous election, had they known Clark would make ministers out of Peters and Dunne?
-
Can you elaborate on what the risk is ? Even if National win an extra seat, what will be the marginal effect ?
Losing this marque Auckland seat would be a major issue. I don't mean this critically, but the Greens haven't organised around seats so possibly don't see them as important as Labour (though I suspect they do).
The point made up-thread that Mt Albert's possibly more contestable than people realise is an important one. We don't yet know the impact of Helen's leaving and Labour have to field a strong candidate (I know only two of them and both seem good) to do justice to the local electorate, to Helen's legacy and to combat the popularity of the government.
Labour may not be happy, but that won't stop them doing a deal with the Greens in 2011 if that's what it takes to get back into government.
Norman's got to bolster his leadership, that's clear. He's new and he's got to build a profile to withstand the impact of Jannette retiring. That too is clear. I guess my concern was that Labour and the Green not fall out so soon during the National/Maori/Act administration and Goff's leadership as they've a history of constructive government that should form part of both parties' campaigns in two year's time.
-
Can you elaborate on what the risk is ?
If Norman was to poll well enough to let National through the middle, it would damage relations between the parties, at least in the short term and at the grassroots level. I would imagine the local Labour people would feel carpetbagged.
Given that at the local level (and potentially in Super-City elections), the two parties are on the same side of the same issues, it would be a shame if their ability to work together was impaired.
Again, I'm not arguing that the Greens shouldn't put up their co-leader in Mt Albert.
-
Norman isn't standing to win, but to gain a national profile
I agree Russell that infights are out, so I'll resist making the same patronising remarks about Labour MPs' motivations. Power hungry? Reputation thirsty? Pullleeease.
Actually, it seemed the opposite to me. The Greens were enthusiastic about a serious campaign on this seat long before any candidate discussions were held.
Good on Lynn Prentice for living there and being up with the issues. Too bad she's not in the party that really understands the solutions.
Fact still remains: nothing would suit Labour voters better than a Green victory.
-
If Norman was to poll well enough to let National through the middle, it would damage relations between the parties, at least in the short term and at the grassroots level. I would imagine the local Labour people would feel carpetbagged.
Fuck 'em. It's an election; you fight your corner and let the people decide. This recurring attitude from Labour that everyone else should shut up and get out of the way so that they can win (in the name of "solidarity", of course) is simply arrogant.
And if Labour is so concerned about vote splitting, they can always push for preferential voting in electorate votes, rather than clinging to an outdated plurality model.
-
Let's play with the Law of Unintended Consequences:
Norman wins seat.
2011, Labour (reluctantly) downgrade Mt Albert campaign, in an Epsom stylee. Norman holds seat.
Greens poll 4.9%. Mt Albert saves them.
Labour/Green government formed, with support from Hone Harawira's breakaway Real Maori Party.
(Centrebet, here I come ...)
-
Fuck 'em. It's an election
Thanks for that.
-
Fuck 'em. It's an election; you fight your corner and let the people decide.
I/S, aren't you ordinarily an advocate of consensus politics? This comment reads very FPP to me. Labour will, as they've already clearly stated in their campaign materials, put the electorate first.
-
He's not naive, he just thinks we are (or doesn't care). Garner was less than forthcoming about his sources. From their website:
3 News has obtained articles written by Mr Shearer
Well, yes, but it wasn't exactly old school investigative legwork by the reporter.
No, and neither was "Tapegate' or the H-Fee fizzer or the allegations doing the rounds of the Press Gallery that nobody would touch that John Key made false statutory declarations to both the Companies Office and the Registrar of Electors... well, you get the idea.
The problem with Garner, in my opinion, is that he's so desperate for another "gone by lunchtime" sin-sational scoop, he's gone with some astoundingly weak "gotcha" stories that it would be charitable to describe as lame. At least, I guess, he's a bipartisan dork.
-
Labour will, as they've already clearly stated in their campaign materials, put the electorate first.
As opposed to the usual campaign slogan of "who the fuck are you again?"
-
Norman isn't standing to win, but to gain a national profile
I agree Russell that infights are out, so I'll resist making the same patronising remarks about Labour MPs' motivations. Power hungry? Reputation thirsty? Pullleeease.
James, I honestly don't get the hostility here, or see any equivalent in what I said -- which was exactly what Mikaere said about motivations for putting up Russell Norman - with the words you're throwing around here.
Actually, it seemed the opposite to me. The Greens were enthusiastic about a serious campaign on this seat long before any candidate discussions were held.
That's great.
Good on Lynn Prentice for living there and being up with the issues. Too bad she's not in the party that really understands the solutions.
Er, Lynn is a bloke, and you are being patronising now. Seriously, WTF?
I'm not sure who you're fighting, but it ain't me.
BTW, Gordon Campbell's new column on Mt Albert and the Greens' MOU with National is a thoughtful piece, from someone who has been closely involved with the Greens.
-
I don't regard ACT as far right. Remember ACT came from Labour and Phil Goff and Annette King were very loyal lieutenants to Roger Douglas.
As was that legendary socialist, Helen Clark, by many accounts.
-
Fuck 'em. It's an election; you fight your corner and let the people decide. This recurring attitude from Labour that everyone else should shut up and get out of the way so that they can win (in the name of "solidarity", of course) is simply arrogant.
Good lord, I'm not trying to be a spokesman for anyone. But Mikaere pressed me on political risks, and I do think that's one, regardless of whose fault it is or whatever. I personally didn't say anything of those things, and I don't even think them. Feel free to disagree with what I did say though. Again, why the hostility? This is like a Kiwiblog thread ...
As someone who actually lives in the electorate, I'm starting to find this quite depressing.
-
I/S, aren't you ordinarily an advocate of consensus politics?
In coalition-making, yes. Not in elections. In those I favour strong political competition, and the people seeing a variety of alternatives so they can choose between them. You fight your corner, then you do your best to work together on the areas of common ground (and the Greens and Labour have plenty of that).
-
Good lord, I'm not trying to be a spokesman for anyone.
I'm sorry - I wasn't taking you as one. It was a general comment, stronly-worded because I have some quite strong views on political competition, large-party arrogance, and "solidarity" / "united front" bullshit.
-
The point made up-thread that Mt Albert's possibly more contestable than people realise is an important one. We don't yet know the impact of Helen's leaving and Labour have to field a strong candidate (I know only two of them and both seem good) to do justice to the local electorate, to Helen's legacy and to combat the popularity of the government.
Mt Albert (2009) is not the electorate it was when Helen Clark took office (1981). The property boom was particularly strong in the central Auckland suburbs, driving out lower income workers. The immigrant communities are now more East Asian and less PI. There has been the overspill of Ponsonby gentrification.
Labour needs to field a right-wing candidate to win and any candidate who is capable of writing policy papers extolling the virtues of private military forces is a good choice. This "gotcha" from National will not hurt David Shearer win Mt Albert, but the implied denial (that Shearer might have a right-ward lean) made by Annette King can damage his chances. Also there is the possibility that the NZ left-o-sphere is about to come out and say David Shearer is completely ideologically pure left wing material - which will be bad.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.