Hard News: To be expected
163 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
So ...
The Greens have now said that remaining on the cross-benches is an option for them, which I think they're obliged to do in the circumstances.
And Labour has made a complete pig's arse out of making it clear that the decision was that of the leadership team rather than the caucus. Cunliffe should have just said that this morning.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
And the narrative...
...is what you get
when you put the 'rrat'*
amongst the 'naive'
needs, must...
telling times a'comin'
*from Southland
obviously!
;- ) -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Also a concrete alignment might appear to split Labour internally as well and it's been shown to fuel media and the Govt.
As a Labour voter , I can see the diverse group that makes up the Party being good enough to accept that a coalition can happen with the Greens after Sept20 but could cause factions now and I can see how NZF could accept the Greens are part of that too. Why is it that everyone says NZF cannot make deals about the Greens but can make deals about anyone else. To suggest past form wont allow it when frankly they have shown they can with other Parties. If Peters is such a fox he can do a deal with the Greens.Why is that impossible to believe? Isn't that what MMP is all about. -
Sacha, in reply to
oops, wrong Rob
-
Again though George, you’re a Green party member! Of course you like the idea that Labour commits to the Greens.
Yes. Their Wellington Central campaign manager (a volunteer position). But I also accept that politics is a business in which numbers count, and Labour would be ill-advised to take a course of action which made it harder for them to form a government. They are essentially saying to the Greens "come back on the 21st of September".
I am asserting that this makes a Labour-led Government of any form less likely, rather than more. This isn't based on sentimentality, but on my own expectations about the behaviour of voters - most of whom are non-partisan and vote based on a range of factors including; competence, likelihood of victory, self-interest, likeability, appearance and superficial factors. I do not believe this announcement strengthens them strongly on any metric that matters except for strength, and weakens them on several that count.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Maybe there are downsides to being tightly tied to the Greens, as well as upsides? And in this case, given the upside simply isn’t that large, the natural tendency of cautious social democrats will be to avoid the risk.
or they could refer to the sort of polling Danyl linked to and realise that the bogeyman aint that big and scary. Caution cost them the last 2 elections so I don't see why anyone with half a brain would posit it as a winning approach in this instance.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the decision was that of the leadership team
who's that?
-
George Darroch, in reply to
how does the Green Party play in South Auckland? Well, not very well, to be frank. How about marginals, like the Coast or Waimak? Erm. Ah.
The Greens have done poorly in the South Auckland electorates for the same reason National does poorly; ongoing loyalty to Labour, weak electorate organisations, a lack of resourcing and attention, and poor candidates (a result of the previous factors). Labour doesn't 'need' the Greens in Mangere. But they do need the sum total of the party vote to get sufficient seats to form a government.
-
To further complicate things, Green folks are saying that pre-election positioning will be decided at the party AGM in June.
So any agreement on the proposal to Labour would have had to be ratified by branch delegates at the AGM.
But any post-election deal would be negotiated by a team selected at a post-election SGM.
-
Except that's not really what Labour's saying, is it? I mean, there was no way Labour was ever going to buy the "let's have a formal pre-election alliance" deal on offer, and so to act as if the rejection is a grand insult is, frankly, precious.
I just don't think this deal would have helped Labour. I think the notion that Labour needs to desperately ensure every poll is reported as close, and to do must be willing to throw away independence of action post election, and political distinctiveness, is very questionable, especially given most polls are reported as "left bloc/right bloc" already.
Basically, this deal is being sold as a way to get a better narrative. But there's a bunch of really negative narratives I can come up with, right now, that would hurt Labour in the centre, where it does need to be picking up voters.
And Sacha, yes, Labour and the Greens picking specific policy issues and making specific policy announcements together does have some merit. But NZPower was carefully firewalled so that Labour wasn't seen as giving the Greens a blanket endorsement --- which is precisely what the Greens asked for here.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Labour and the Greens picking specific policy issues and making specific policy announcements together does have some merit.
Hope that can still happen in some way.
-
Sacha, in reply to
NZPower was carefully firewalled so that Labour wasn’t seen as giving the Greens a blanket endorsement
I recall reading that the Greens come up with their policy first on that, and agreed to co-launch with Labour. If there was a blanket endorsement I doubt it was one-way.
-
Russel Norman’s summing-up on Facebook:
Green Party political positioning is set by the branch delegates at the AGM in June. But it’s highly likely that we will do something similar to last election with a strong preference to work towards a Green Labour government. So we thought it would be useful to have discussions with Labour about how we could present what a new government would look like and we presented a proposal to them about how we might do that. Unfortunately they disagreed with that proposal, as is their right as a separate party. But I think it’s the wrong decision. I think the electorate want to see what a new government would look like and, in any case, Key will lump Green and Labour together anyway so we might as well frame it in the way we want it framed rather than just let Key do all the framing. Anyhow, we can get a new government on Sept 20, but it will depend on the strength of the Green vote. The Greens are united, we have a great team, we have a clear plan and we have a positive vision of a smarter greener economy, a more compassionate society, and loving and protecting our natural environment. I was asked today on Morning Report if Labour is simply preparing to do a 2005 all over again (where they went with NZ First and United Future and cut the Greens out) and my answer is that in 2005 we got 5.3% of the vote, this time we are aiming for 15% and at 15% of the vote they won’t be able to cut us out.
Link here. Trigger warning for massive fits of pique from Russel’s Facebook followers (Labour is “corrupt and self-serving” etc). The volume of bile being spat at Labour for differing on the issue seems unhelpful.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I just don’t think this deal would have helped Labour. I think the notion that Labour needs to desperately ensure every poll is reported as close, and to do must be willing to throw away independence of action post election, and political distinctiveness, is very questionable, especially given most polls are reported as “left bloc/right bloc” already.
Basically, this deal is being sold as a way to get a better narrative. But there’s a bunch of really negative narratives I can come up with, right now, that would hurt Labour in the centre, where it does need to be picking up voters.
I can see the arguments both ways, but as I said in the OP, I'm not remotely surprised that Labour didn't go for the pitch.
-
Stephen R, in reply to
I mean, there was no way Labour was ever going to buy the "let's have a formal pre-election alliance" deal on offer, and so to act as if the rejection is a grand insult is, frankly, precious.
And listening to Russel Norman this morning on National Radio, he didn't appear to me to be being precious. I thought that Guyon was trying to get him to play that card, but it just didn't happen (which seemed to throw Guyon off, perhaps because he didn't have any cue cards for what to do when Russel didn't bite.).
-
Hard to see that's not the play though, right? It's a clever way to bash Labour as being untrustworthy etc --- the 2005 trope reappears with depressing predictability --- and emphasise the importance of voting Green if you're wavering Green/Labour. Shades of Corngate.
-
Moz, in reply to
given the upside simply isn't that large, the natural tendency of cautious social democrats will be to avoid the risk.
Yes, and we've seen a lot of that. It seems to go hand in hand with falling polls. Oddly, rather than saying "polls go up when we announce definite policy, we should do more of that", Labour have responded by becoming even more cautious.
It would be tremendously sad if they ended up like the recent Labor result in WA where those who could be bothered to vote gave a solid kicking to both major parties. Especially since NZ elections allow for the "don't like any of them" option in a way that Australia's compulsory voting officially doesn't. I'd rather not have Winston First collect 5% of the vote just for not being Key or Cunliffe.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And listening to Russel Norman this morning on National Radio, he didn’t appear to me to be being precious. I thought that Guyon was trying to get him to play that card, but it just didn’t happen (which seemed to throw Guyon off, perhaps because he didn’t have any cue cards for what to do when Russel didn’t bite.).
I think he's handled it quite well.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
Link here. Trigger warning for massive fits of pique from Russel’s Facebook followers (Labour is “corrupt and self-serving” etc). The volume of bile being spat at Labour for differing on the issue seems unhelpful.
Important to clarify that this set of people represents the general public, ie. is quite different from the set of people who are in Green member-only Facebook groups. Unfortunately, people's engagement with politics is often wafer thin, and premised on stirred emotion.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
That falls apart when Shane Jones starts attacking the Greens on such a routine basis that it becomes obvious that its a strategy, with the Greens constrained from critiquing Labour back because that would trigger ‘bitterly divided’ stories.
Good conspiracy theory, but isn’t it vastly more likely that Jones is simply pleasing himself in the knowledge that any public censure would be politically out of bounds for Cunliffe?
Do Jones' florid outbursts usually seem the result of a considered strategy to you?
-
Moz, in reply to
Link here. Trigger warning for massive fits of pique from Russel’s Facebook followers
Russel, it seems you have picked the worst of the few comments that attack Labour and highlighted it. Which is interesting given your normal position on media angles. Especially since we're talking about Facebook here, where the standard of comment is often dismal.
I thought it was more notable that there was discussion of the importance of strategic voting and acknowledgement that Labour is necessary if The Greens want to be in government.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Russel, it seems you have picked the worst of the few comments that attack Labour and highlighted it. Which is interesting given your normal position on media angles. Especially since we’re talking about Facebook here, where the standard of comment is often dismal.
Oh, come on. There are about a dozen attacks on Labour in a not-very-long thread, and a couple talking about strategic voting. It's not really a big deal -- it's just Facebook, as you say, and not necessarily party members as George notes. But I'm not exactly cherry-picking.
-
Meanwhile, one-man clusterfuck by David Parker on exactly who made the decision. Jesus. Just say it.
-
Sacha, in reply to
so I take it this 'leadership group' is a subset of caucus? genuine question, as above.
-
Good conspiracy theory, but isn’t it vastly more likely that Jones is simply pleasing himself in the knowledge that any public censure would be politically out of bounds for Cunliffe?
That’s possible. But (I think) the sensible thing for Labour to do in this situation would be to say to the Greens ‘We’ll think about it. Maybe closer to the election. Let’s keep talking.’ Because keeping your options open is what politicians do. It’s what National does with its potential coalition partners and I’m pretty sure that’s what the Greens expected Labour to say. Instead Labour gave a flat refusal and went and leaked the talks to the press galley.
I don’t think that’s all a big accident. It’s because they think there are votes to be won by openly distancing themselves from the Greens. Maybe they’re right. I kinda doubt it, but National certainly thinks that linking Labour with the Greens is good politics and those guys know what they’re doing.
But you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think its strategic.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.