Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The problem with leaving (or threatening to) on personal matters instead of policy, is that you're left with the Epsom Syndrome.
Voters in Epsom (we have been constantly told) are fed up with the antics of Hide, then Banks, then ... somebody or other.
Voters: "Up with this we will not put!"
Response: "OK, you'll get the lefties in government."
Voters dutifully return and do Key's bidding.
So if it's not about policy (as in Rogernomics) then you find it harder to vote for - or work for - somebody whose policies you think worse.
-
As previously noted, those bitter battles of the late '80s were resolved by people leaving Labour, and forming new parties.
The current impasse is because people want the healing, but without the splitting. Hard to see how.
Probably the least bad outcome is that Robertson wins AND the old guard retire - without it being depicted as toys out of pram (if Cunliffe should win). That would be the kind of noble "voters before party, party before self" action that seems about as likely as John Key demanding to be better informed.
-
Headline: 13 bizarre things said by Cunliffe ...
Then you read the 13 things. My personal "bizarre" count was zero. A couple of them were poor attempts at spin (e.g. the Labour vote not going down much), some people may object to the mention of tears as insufficiently "staunch" (though I certainly don't), but taken as a whole, they seem like no more or less than a politician doing what they do. "Bizarre" would be "no toilets on Planet Key" or "little butts saving big butts" or any other infantile insult you care to recall, courtesy of our "likeable" PM.
In other words, are we talking in this thread about David Cunliffe, or the filtered David Cunliffe? The latter has no chance - and nor will Grant Robertson. Or any Labour leader of mortal flesh.
(and before somebody says "Helen!", it's not the 90's and the betrayals from Douglas to Richardson to Winston were a platform then, but a fading memory now.)
-
Hard News: A message from The Fabians, in reply to
As I mentioned in another thread, we already know there are divisions in the Labour Caucus, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near like the Lange-Douglas split of 1989.
So I have a right to ask: how much of what we hear right now is about the party's actual divisions, as opposed to the whole thing being used for selling schadenfreude-flavoured popcorn?
That was a split that reached its logical conclusion: people left Labour to form or join other parties (ACT, United, New Labour > Alliance, etc). They then fought against Labour at the ballot box. It was messy at the time, but more healthy for democracy in the long run (once we'd taken the other logical step and moved to MMP).
If these divisions in the Labour party are about something irreconcilable, then that's what should happen now. If the irreconcilable thing is a basic principle or policy, the leavers might get votes for their new party. If it's just about personal animosity, they won't.
Sadly, it does appear to be the latter, which means no splitting, and no resolving. And from the public, not much caring or listening.
-
Big Issue: Future direction of the democratic left (or centre-left, social democrats, democratic socialists, pinkoes, choose your preferred label). As discussed around the world, with regard to parties calling themselves Labour or SPD or Democrats or ... you get the picture. It's a grown-up thing.
Small Issue: who gets to lead the NZ branch. Not looking like a grown-up thing - yet.
It would be nice to think that there is more to Labour's leadership contest than whether Trevor likes David or Grant likes Jacinda or another David likes some other David. Is there?
Or to put it another way, what are the philosophical differences between the candidates? That's a genuine question, because I have no idea. In fact, I'm not sure if they know either.
-
Come on, surely by now you know the first port of call when there's some shit-stirring masquerading as journalism.
Slater = Collins = Glucina ...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11330147
They. Never. Stop.
-
It's interesting that that this post is getting plenty of views (and 50-plus retweets on Twitter) but only a few comments. Because it's hard to know what to say.
So true.
Thank you for doing this, June. If you ever asked yourself - 'Will writing this make any difference?" ... well, it has.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to
The hero to zero trajectory can be remarkably short. A 2011 Facebook fan page for Chch Mayor Bob Parker reached North Korean levels of adulation - 13000+ likes - before suddenly imploding. I rather wish it had been somehow preserved as an example of mass delusion in action.
This + a gazillion.
Examples from recent history include George Bush senior (approval rating 80% plus - yes honestly - in 1991, but defeated in 1992), Kevin Rudd, and in a slightly different context, Peter Whittall.
This stuff is worth remembering, even if pointing it out doesn't make friends at dinner parties - either at the time (too unpopular) or later (too embarrassing).
We hated Muldoon and we loved Mandela. Except for ... well, most of us.
-
The Labour-Green conundrum is not only about tactics, but the most basic question of all ... What do people really believe?
In short, if we administered truth serum to every Labour MP, and asked them to put in order of preference the Greens, NZ First and National, what answers would we get?
If our Harry Potter truth drugs actually worked, we'd have got people like Shane Jones picking the Nats over the Greens. And quite a few picking Winston over Norman and Turei.
Now, I'd back Labour-Greens every time. And I genuinely believe that the public could be convinced to back that combo. But - here's the thing - only if the people doing the convincing were actually convinced themselves.
But they aren't. So they won't.
Short of purging the Labour caucus - which would probably cost another couple of terms in opposition - I have no idea what to do about this. They are the problem, and they remain.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to
Someone I never heard of until he became a transitory media idol.the whole episode was irrelevant, I suspect, to most people with their noses to the grindstone.
Yes, as long as we haven't heard of them, they can't be doing anything bad.
Have you read any history books, ever?