Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: News from home ...

258 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 11 Newer→ Last

  • Stephen R, in reply to Grant McDougall,

    It should've just been solely on who caucus voted for, simple as that. Instead, Labour remains deeply divided and backing a leader that doesn't have the wide confidence of his caucus or party membership.

    I thought they changed the rules to the way they are now specifically because they'd had leaders who were popular with caucus but not the party membership?

    Am I mistaken?

    Wellington • Since Jul 2009 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac,

    Funny that Russell, Andrew and others are so quick to voice the Key lines?
    Union elected.
    Failed to vote the one we wanted.
    Little couldn't win a Conservative Backbencher's electorate.
    Mr Key must be grinning in his porridge to be so aligned with these commentators.

    Me? Optimistic. Go for it Mr Little! Prove those who are quick to rubbish demoracy so wrong.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • Seriatim, in reply to Luke Williamson,

    "It makes a good change, I think, from the same 20-odd closeted Parliamentarians bickering over ABC or ABR or whatever their silly minds come up with next."
    Bingo. It's also nice to have a leader who doesn't care about "charisma" (and hasn't Key rather given "charisma" a bad name?)
    I too am baffled by the number of melodramatic comments here - "tragedy! crisis! disaster!" - particularly as I've never heard Little suggesting any course of action that would make sense of these reactions.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 57 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Mr Mark,

    And I’m concerned that the more you or Chris Trotter or Andrew Geddis throw around words like “disaster” and “tragedy” the more it plays into the hands of the Nats and their MSM acolytes.

    You can be concerned if you like. But I hope you are not suggesting I (and others) don't say what I think just because it might be bad for Labour?

    Or, at the least, if is what you are suggesting, can I at least be paid some money for my silence? I'll happily go down the you-know-who path of having/not having opinions for cash!!!

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Luke Williamson,

    The people who actually vote a party in (unions, communities) have said no to Grant Robertson and yes to Andrew Little.

    Huh?

    You do realise that the affiliate vote is effectively determined by the executives of most unions, not the actual members who cast ballots at election time. So, yes … Little got the institutional support of the leaders of the organisations that provide Labour with cash and some foot soldiers. But it's a stretch to say that affiliated union members wanted Little over Robertson, much less that the members of unions not affiliated with Labour wanted this (they vote at elections too, you know!)

    As for the claim that "communities" said "no" to Robertson - this is meaningless waffle.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Seriatim, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    "But I hope you are not suggesting I (and others) don’t say what I think just because it might be bad for Labour?"
    I think the suggestion might rather be that you identify the source of your criticism a little more acutely. What really motivates it? Does it really have solid legs to stand on? I've seen a lot of language but very few facts.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 57 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Ianmac,

    Funny that Russell, Andrew and others are so quick to voice the Key lines?

    You're right. Sorry. I now see that 2 + 2 = 5, for the good of the Party.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Mr Mark, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    That is precisely what I'm suggesting, big fella.

    How does 225 South African Krugerrands (in unmarked notes) sound ? Thought as much. So can I take it there'll be no more anti-Little diatribes for the foreseeable future ?

    Wellington • Since Dec 2009 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Seriatim,

    I think the suggestion might rather be that you identify the source of your criticism a little more acutely.

    http://pundit.co.nz/content/worst-result-ever

    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. But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.

    Now, maybe he'll go on to do great things. Maybe he really is the better guy for the job. None of us really knows. Alls I's sayin' is that in terms of all the possible process outcomes that the election could throw up, I think this one is the worst.

    And that is what I think. Sorry if it is inconvenient, but sometimes these damn thoughts just have a mind of their own.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Mr Mark,

    Krugerrands?

    It's bitcoin or nothing!!

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    but who knows
    repeating
    the same experiment
    again
    may give a different result.

    Blows against the Empirical...
    anything could happen,
    and it could be...
    ...that

    there are unknown factors at play
    new actors in collusion

    new solids in solution
    no more news idols

    ...and sometimes just
    leaving it on the bench,
    as it is, and
    going off on holiday,

    works as well...
    just as sometimes
    the penicillin is mightier
    than the sward

    Time will out...

    : - )

    </this pun is meant
    to fit the grime,
    justice time
    makes a whine>
    ;- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7887 posts Report Reply

  • Luke Williamson, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    Fair call Andrew. It does fascinate me that even amongst the lefty liberals on PA that there is such a split about where Labour should be heading and who should be leading them.

    Warkworth • Since Oct 2007 • 296 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.

    Oh. Now I see. If Little squeaks in it is bad. If one more caucus vote had had gone to Robertson then would have been Ok for Grant to squeak in but not Andrew.

    You are one with Brian Rudman who ends up writing,

    "But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point."

    Yeah right!

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • bob daktari,

    feel a bit meh about Little... but also felt that about the choices, the campaign for leader and labour full stop since the election

    Saying that if his party peers allow, Little could be the one to at the least construct a solid united and loyal team. If so that alone makes the result a good one - doubt the others would have the support or unity to do as much

    Good luck to him!

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 537 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah,

    Well... I think Andrew will be okay, and maybe even exactly what my party needs. He's relatively unencumbered by strong links to particular groups within caucus, so that might help with a bit of renewal, perhaps more so than might have been the case with any of the other potential leaders. I see that as a positive.

    Having won the unions, he now has to do some work to get the party genuinely onside. I see that as a positive.

    He can be a bit serious at times, but he also has quite a dry and self-deprecating wit. He's very straight, and I've never seen him try to wave off a question or fudge a difficult issue. I see that as a positive.

    He has a good record with respect to helping a large organisation get its house in order and grow. I see that as a positive.

    I don't know Andrew well, but I did grow up in New Plymouth at the same time as him, and we went to the same Friday evening drama classes. My recollection is of a decent and kind young man, who was prepared to work hard and didn't hog the limelight for the sake of it. In the last few years I've seen him at party events and at one or two non-party social events. He's been good company - witty, interesting - and he took the time to give me some very helpful advice when I was seeking a place on the party list.

    FTR, I'm on the record as wanting someone else to win, but also of the view that each of the people running had real strengths to bring to the role, and being happy to work with and for any of them. I stand by that.

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Luke Williamson,

    many hands
    make light work...

    ...lefty liberals on PA...

    I say,
    that's a naff
    super imposition!
    Sinister socialist,
    if you must,
    thank you very much!


    </mock outrage>
    ;- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7887 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    At the heart of the contention over the 'democratic primary' model is that one camp thinks the party is being dog-wagged by a union movement stuck in the 1970s, and the other camp sees a caucus full of dead wood that's crowding out fresh talent.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5416 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Ianmac,

    Oh. Now I see. If Little squeaks in it is bad. If one more caucus vote had had gone to Robertson then would have been Ok for Grant to squeak in but not Andrew.

    Yes. Because I think Grant is a better person to lead Labour than Andrew Little. So of course any result that delivers him the leadership is "OK"!

    But if Grant isn't going to win, then the next-best outcome would have been for whomsoever did win to do so by a strong majority in at least 2 of the 3 voting blocs. To lose quite heavily in 2, but be elected by the 3rd is (IMHO) a bad place to begin with. Especially as I think the way the affiliate vote works in practice is deeply problematic (being in a union myself and having some cynicism about the heirarchical influence involved).

    These are just my reckons. Others will have others. But

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Northshoreguynz,

    OMG, The Labour Party puts a selection process into place, that is as democratic as the party wants. Following that process the party selects a leader. I can't for the life of me see the problem.
    Of all the candidates the party voted for, the one elected is the one most likely to bang heads together to unite both the caucus and the wider party. If anyone currently in the party has an issue with that, then they can fuck off. Mahuta, while being worthy is unknown, Parker too dry, and Robertson a political self serving rat.

    New Zealand • Since Aug 2014 • 16 posts Report Reply

  • Johnny Canuck, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.

    Not sure it matters. Brash beat English by one vote in caucus (after John Key switched sides), and went on to double National's party vote in 2 years. This was the same Don Brash who twice lost an electorate race to ... Social Credit.

    Vancouver BC • Since Feb 2013 • 25 posts Report Reply

  • Susan Snowdon,

    FTR, I’m on the record as wanting someone else to win, but also of the view that each of the people running had real strengths to bring to the role, and being happy to work with and for any of them. I stand by that.

    Same.

    Since Mar 2008 • 110 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    Little could do worse than to appoint Robertson as deputy, or otherwise in a senior frontbench role. What better consolation prize than that?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5416 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Deborah,

    My recollection is of a decent and kind young man, who was prepared to work hard and didn’t hog the limelight for the sake of it.

    That’s reasuring. I hope he has a better attitude than his predecessor, toward coalition partners, who represent actual people, with complementary ideals.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4310 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    This was the same Don Brash who twice lost an electorate race to … Social Credit.

    And the same Don Brash who wilfully had the rug pulled from under him by Rob Muldoon in said electorate, because Muldoon wasn't a big fan of Brash's Hayekian/von Misesian world-view.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5416 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac, in reply to Susan Snowdon,

    Me too.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 11 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.