Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Elections aren’t a waste of time. Democracy isn’t a waste of time.
And it's not anti-democratic or a "waste of time" for Cunliffe to test his mandate -- and in a way which obviously some people would rather didn't happen, but which is entirely lawful and legitimate under Labour's own rules.
I'm not sure what "male gene" is required to respect an organisation's own rules and democratic processes, Sue, even if you don't agree with them.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sue,
Caucus didn’t pass a vote of no confidence
No, instead members of his caucus have slagged him off publicly as an incompetent egomaniac who was so deep in denial after an electoral thumping he’d cheerfully burn the Labour Party to the ground? You can’t have it both ways, Sue.
Serious question – has Cunliffe behaved in a way contrary to the rules and constitution of the New Zealand Labour Party? Sure, he forced the issue – but I’m no more inclined to curse him for doing so than when John Major called his critics bluff in 1995. Unless I’ve really missed something, he’s perfectly entitled to test his mandate. And if I was a Labour man, I’d say that would be a lot less damaging than months on end of Cunliffe as a lame-duck leader getting white-anted Gillard-style.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sue,
But Why force this expensive process straight after an election?
Sure it makes great media entertainment & the best fun ever for national .FFS, Sue. Unless I’m very much mistaken, this “expensive process” is the one laid down by the Labour Party in its own democratically-determined constitution and rules. The media don’t get a say in that. Neither does the frigging National Party.
I don't know why I'm saying this, but Cunliffe isn't "forcing" anything but acting entirely within the rules. Those rules might be inconvenient -- or downright embarrassing -- but it's hardly dirty politics, and nobody outside Labour itself is in any way responsible.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to giovanni tiso,
They couldn’t deselect Mallard – he had enough support in the LEC to withstand orders from above, and that’s no bad thing so long as party democracy means anything
Totally agree with you there -- and unless there's a very nasty surprise coming down in the next few days, Mallard (however narrowly) will be confirmed as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Hutt South at the return of the writ. In the end, that's the only poll that really counts.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
I wonder now whether their votes for Cunliffe last round were trying to send the message to Labour that they wanted Goff/King et al gone.
I obviously can't speak to Labour's internal processes, but the best way to indicate you want a sitting MP on a substantial majority to get gone is to deselect them and dump their arses so far down the list they need a canary and a hurricane lamp. I don't think I'm talking out of school in saying, at least in National, even incumbent MPs need to be reselected. Most of the time, it's entirely pro forma but not always.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to mark taslov,
The ability to effectively engage with opposition, criticism and just general bullshit is a mandatory requirement for a successful MP and most definitely a quote/unquote would be Prime Minister.
And a mandatory requirement for successful "engagement" on the internet is you get out what you put in. Seriously, if someone is convinced you're a liar with a secret agenda what exactly do you engage with? I've learned the hard way that getting on that crazy-go-round ends up nowhere worthwhile for anyone.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to mark taslov,
Much as I appreciate the verbiage, your not being James Dann only further underlines my point. Find another Guest blogger in recent memory on your site who has after two posts completely declined to engage with the discussion on your site about their and I’ll concede your point.
I don't know how or why James should "engage" with anyone, here or elsewhere, who've pretty much called him a liar with a covert agenda who has acted in the very worse of bad faith. Russell is right, more fool me for looking but some of the shit thrown at James on The Standard is vile. "Tribal" in the very worse sense of the word.
-
Hard News: A message from The Fabians, in reply to Russell Brown,
gender-disadvantaged,
What the frosty circle of Hell?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Mr Mark,
Yeah, I get the impression James is pretty ambitious and has therefore hitched his wagon to the Robertson juggernaut. Probably hoping for a reasonably high List spot or Safe-ish Electorate somewhere down the line.
Mr Mark: I guess you're a relative noob hereabouts, but the usual house style is to extend people the presumption they're speaking in good faith and engage with what they've actually said. If anything, James has been up front about where he's coming from and it's pretty shitty to dog-whistle that he's not. (It's also pretty insulting to Russell as well, who I've disagreed with a LOT over the years but he doesn't play bullshit games through proxies or prosecute stealth agendas.)
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to jh,
Labour men are eunuchs.
My entirely unscientific sample of Labour men from back in the day says your thesis is wrong.
But a lot more seriously, what Danielle said.