Perhaps this would be similar to how we felt when Labour went with Peters and Dunne in 2005 ?
I'd have greatly preferred a coalition with the Greens. But the fact is that without the Maori Party there wasn't a majority to govern with -- from memory, a few thousand votes to bring in Nandor would've done it -- and Labour's other potential partners were refusing to support a government that included the Greens in Cabinet.
Was there another way it could have been done in the circumstances?
Just what the red-greens don't want, and hoping against hope a mistake to learn from.
That was a disaster.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mikaere, I hope both the Greens and Labour resist the temptation to turn this byelection into a fight between themselves, until recently they had a constructive working relationship (constructive, but not ideal).
I would hope that the leadership of both parties makes it a priority to avoid any Labour-Green fight, even if the ranks get antsy. If they can't manage a working relationship, both parties are probably going to be out of government for a long time.
James is right. This by-election is swimming in Green issues: Waterview Motorway, Auckland Super City, St Lukes Enlargement.
To be fair, those are precisely the Labour issues laid out by Lynn Prentice, who lives in the electorate and seems to be well up to speed on campaigning on them. I suspect he'd rather strongly object to them being claimed as "Green issues".
The publicity we would be able to bring to bear on this issues, especially if we stand a Co-Leader, is a rare golden opportunity.
Of course. And that's why it's rational to stand Russel Norman.
I get your point, but like Idiot/Savant I wish some commentators would get their heads around the idea that by-elections are just that. An election not a coronation, where the candidate who gets the most votes wins.
Of course, but it's evident to me that Russel Norman isn't standing to win, but to gain a national profile through participating in a high-profile by-election. Which is completely rational for him and for his party, but I don't think it's without political risk.
Actually Melissa Lee winning Mt. Albert would not see Cam Calder come back. The number of list MPs allocated to National falls since they now have an extra electorate MP.
Are you sure? I was taking DPF's word on that one:
If Lee was the candidate, and did win the seat, then her list spot would be taken up by Cam Calder, who was an MP for around two weeks after the election, before National lost a seat due to specials ...
If National wins the seat it gains one extra MP, regardless of who the winning candidate is. If the winning candidate is not already an MP, then National gains an MP. If the winning candidate is a List MP they will resign as a List MP, and get replaced automatically due to a list vacancy