|
dusty posted:Labour is better off figuring out just what the gently caress it stands for. It's not going to the polls for another 3 years after all. The problem with Labour is it doesn't have a clear vision, and the public has noticed. It's not clear why Labour exists anymore - every single member I've met is to the left of the party. Agreed. They have time on their side as a party, but Shearer won't get the whole term is he fails to deliver like Goff. At the moment, Labour appears to be falling into the trap of its ALP friends across the ditch - its "principles" are dictated by focus groups and the media cycle to beat National for the sake of beating National. They hate National so much it clouds their long-term judgement. Labour will say, do or ditch anything that helps them to win voters (ala nationahood speech, GST free fruit and veg, unicorns for all) rather than having any core goals and selling them to the public. Buzzwords like "fairness for all" don't actually mean anything in practice, particularly when many of Labour's policies last year had holes so big you could drive a truck through them. A major difference between National and Labour at the moment: National: Has actual policies within an identifiable ideological brand and sells it well. Explains its policy within its formidable and popular brand. Labour: Please love me I'll do anything *writes angry blog post about how voters need to WAKE UP* This is why the Greens are doing better, they actually stand for something. People can probably say three things they stand for. I suspect they will do well out of a Labour refocus. I hope Labour gets some hard truths while they seek member feedback as they are at the moment, but whether the party hierachy listens or rear end covers will be the proof in the pudding.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Sorry Dusty, I wouldn't get your hopes up too much about the Labour Party internal review after seeing the "external advisors/critical friends" they've appointed - it's literally all people who already agree with the party or are/have been high-profile Labour MPs under the Clark government: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10788500 Rob Salmond who is pro-Labour and writes for Pundit. Selwyn Pellett who advises Labour on economic policy. Parekura loving Horomia - current MP Margaret Wilson - former Labour MP, widely regarded as one of the worst Speakers in recent years by people across the spectrum, Clark stalwart Tim Barnett - former Labour MP of 12 years, Clark stalwart Bryan Gould - former British Labour MP and Herald columnist. NZ Herald posted:The review will be led by another team, who will consult and meet with members. That group includes current MP Nanaia Mahuta, former MP Rick Barker, Ruth Chapman and Mark Hutchinson. No-one gets the members riled up like Rick "Who?" Barker. Coatsworth didn't even try to hide that Mahuta and Horomia were 'token Maori' appointments. They couldn't find a single person from Ratana who was willing to participate? Or no high-profile Maori Labour-sympathist from outside the party at all? I was really hoping Labour would appoint some external political consultants perhaps from Australia/Britain and properly go over the many ways in which Labour needs to lift its game - not just in the polls, but in terms of structure, member engagement, union affiliates and strategy. There is lots to do. But I guess hiring a bunch of people who literally already endorse everything you should be trying to change is less of a bitter pill to swallow. Even the name 'critical friends' reads like 'we chose these people because they already endorse what we're doing, but will make some token recommendations that don't offend too many inside the party". As a former Labour member, this is really disappointing. Edit: on second thought, Labour's dire financial situation means they need to get people who will dedicate their time and effort to the Labour Party for free/little cost. So of course that's going to affect who you can get to participate, but still. How does a bunch of people who are largely Yes Men help?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:A major difference between National and Labour at the moment: Seems like you got those two party names reversed. National are clearly the one coasting by on Keys popularity while Labour have actually been trying to address some of the core issues in the country. Something like GST free fruit and veg may not be an instant win-win for everyone but it's still the right thing to do. National: Quick fixes and popular smarmy smiles Labour/Green/Mana: Addressing real problems that people would rather forget about
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Yeah, not inspiring names are they? In defence of Margaret Wilson - I know she has done a lot work with the NZCTU over the past few years looking at how other jurisdictions set wages. Post ERA introducation NZ wages still stagnated behind Australia (relative to productivity and GDP growth) - which indicates that the labour market simply does not have the mechanisms to deliver wage increases under the status quo. Labour's 2008 election policy on labour essentially adopted the NZCTU's position. edit/ Pararoid - Labour under Clark delivered nothing but piecemeal change. Witness the much-vaunted Cullen fund, which isn't even a 10th of the size it needs be. Witness WFF which subsidises employers by giving workers government wage subsidies. Witness civil unions, not gay marriage. Witness the emissions trading scheme. dusty fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Brighter future.xls
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
dusty posted:edit/ Pararoid - Labour under Clark delivered nothing but piecemeal change. Witness the much-vaunted Cullen fund, which isn't even a 10th of the size it needs be. Witness WFF which subsidises employers by giving wage workers government wage subsidies. Witness civil unions, not gay marriage. Witness the emissions trading scheme. Helen Clarks Labour was a hard center line government that didn't do everything it could have to improve this country. Why does that mean we're doomed to repeat those mistakes again and again. It seems like whenever anyone criticises National the first response that comes up is 'Oh well Helen didn't fix that problem either!'. It gets pretty boring to be honest; why don't we try to learn from the mistakes that Helen made rather than using them to justify everything the current government does wrong. On a side note I totally 100% agree with you on Civil Unions being an insulting token gesture; I'd really like to see full blown Gay Marriage back on the national agenda simply because it disturbs me to think of the many US states that are now more socially advanced than us. quote:So job loss was at it highest right when the global credit crisis was hitting and now we're still losing jobs but not so many. Honestly if that supposed to be a good thing we're setting the bar way too low for ourselves. Pararoid fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:Labour/Green/Mana: Addressing real problems that people would rather forget about That sounds like Margret Wilson's idea of answering questions in Parliament - as long as you mentioned the question, you'd answered it. Out of your list, the Greens would be the closest to your definition of providing actually credible answers. Labour just seemed to pick buzz-word policies and decide the fact they'd talked about something should pick up voters, never mind how practical it was. Remind me again what issues throwing tantrums about how Greens white-anting your policies and stealing your traditional voter base actually addressed? Or maybe those Labour MPs were just running around like headless chickens in a completely disorganised campaign? The unquestionable "Nats bad, LABOUR GOOD!" thing is the reason why Labour are where they are. They've got too many people saying yes and everyone is too busy being angry that John Key exists to ever say no. And even then in the last election they had many many chances to roll Goff and try to put together a campaign with a decent leader and policies, but no one wanted a poisoned chalice so they just let him take the fall. Yea. That's totally inspiring leadership right there. And Mana...well Mana doesn't seem to understand where governments get their money from, so I'm not sure their policies should really count. Pararoid posted:Helen Clarks Labour was a hard center line government that didn't do everything it could have to improve this country. Why does that mean we're doomed to repeat those mistakes again and again. Because Labour and its supporters don't actually think they've done anything wrong. Somewhere, somehow, a Nat is responsible. Always. Butt Wizard fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:
You might disagree with what they do, but there's 10000 members out there (of which I'm one). What a cock you are to speak for these people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
dusty posted:Go gently caress yourself. They're undertaking a review right the gently caress now. I am sorry, I must have confused the recent election where Labour was rejected by 70% of the electorate and crashed to their lowest election result in decades with something else. Miss Chaos has already summed up this review better than I could: miss_chaos posted:...I wouldn't get your hopes up too much about the Labour Party internal review after seeing the "external advisors/critical friends" they've appointed - it's literally all people who already agree with the party or are/have been high-profile Labour MPs under the Clark government: But your needlessly personal and vindictive response basically proves my point, at least in your case. Labour won't change while people who believe in it aren't prepared to ever criticise it, and the party itself isn't exactly setting itself up for things they won't want to hear with their 'friends of Labour' summit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
Interesting how there's been no mention of the regional meetings that are open to the public. http://www.labour.org.nz/review_meetings
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:I am sorry, I must have confused the recent election where Labour was rejected by 70% of the electorate and crashed to their lowest election result in decades with something else. quote:But your needlessly personal and vindictive response basically proves my point, at least in your case. Way to not be a smarmy dick in your own response calling someone else out on being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:I am sorry, I must have confused the recent election where Labour was rejected by 70% of the electorate and crashed to their lowest election result in decades with something else. Ahahaha did you actually just claim that one post on the internet proves that every Labour voter thinks that National is responsible for all their problems?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:I am sorry, I must have confused the recent election where Labour was rejected by 70% of the electorate and crashed to their lowest election result in decades with something else. The only thing lazier than your original post is the reply. Let me remind you - you originally blessed this thread with this uninspired turd: "Because Labour and its supporters don't actually think they've done anything wrong. Somewhere, somehow, a Nat is responsible. Always." Oh classic line broseph, here come the 5s! But you're wrong. I presume you'd class me a "Labour supporter", and if you'd been paying attention I've been critical of the party in your own thread you dipshit. edit quote:Ahahaha did you actually just claim that one post on the internet proves that every Labour voter thinks that National is responsible for all their problems?  dusty fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Goat Bastard posted:Ahahaha did you actually just claim that one post on the internet proves that every Labour voter thinks that National is responsible for all their problems? ClubmanGT posted:at least in your case Nope, guess I didn't. dusty posted:The only thing lazier than your original post is the reply. Let me remind you - you originally blessed this thread with this uninspired turd: "Because Labour and its supporters don't actually think they've done anything wrong. Somewhere, somehow, a Nat is responsible. Always." Oh classic line broseph, here come the 5s! Alright, let me hopefully rephrase this in a way that won't trigger your default deluge of top-shelf argument winning sarcasm: Labour's review process is every bit an indicator that they're not actually serious about meaningful reform. Just like the last time they supposedly accepted that the Clark era eventually lost its way, and then chose to sit back and let Phil Goff take the fall on the campaign. Everything about Labour for the last three years has been a refusal to accept they've been wrong. Shearer looks like a leader who can send a different message, but the review process doesn't look like it's been set up to deliver everything but repeat the same entitlement to votes attitude we saw during the election. And as for blaming Nats for everything, well: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10788736 quote:Legislation modernising rules on who can prescribe medicines to patients and also streamlining the process for approving new drugs passed its first stage last night - five years later than it should have, according to Labour. I don't know about you, but I can think of at least one reason why National aren't the ones answerable about what legislation was and wasn't passed five years ago. Seems more like a question for the Government at the time, don't you think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Nope, guess I didn't. You did though, didn't you? You said that his post "basically proves my point" that "Labour and its supporters don't actually think they've done anything wrong. Somewhere, somehow, a Nat is responsible. Always". If you only meant him then why generalise it to Labour and it's supporters? Because that is the point you claim his post has proved. Maryan Street is also not all of Labour's supporters. And I'm not one of them either, for the record.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
I get the impression that Clubman and Miss Chaos seem to think the Labour review should be conducted by Cameron Slater and Cactus Kate with maybe some help from David Farrar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 10:18
|
|
|
Varkk posted:I get the impression that Clubman and Miss Chaos seem to think the Labour review should be conducted by Cameron Slater and Cactus Kate with maybe some help from David Farrar. But take a moment. This year Labour have shown they want to do things differently - just take a look at the "Primary debates and speaking tour"TM that Cunliffe and Shearer embarked on this year. Sure, it was a meaningless sopp in that members didn't vote; Caucus voted alone behind closed doors. So why bother? It was an attempt by the future leadership to involve the membership. Labour are getting closer to real crisis - all political parties run on cash and members, and Labour are desperately short on both. There will be impetus for some radical change at some point. Also, it isn't clear what change Labour could make that would satisfy ClubmanGT forinstance. As a non-member does he really care how the Labour Party formulates its list, or how affiliate votes are used? No, he's just pissed at incompetent MPs doing incompetent poo poo. Just imagine how awful it must be to know Maryan Street is out there saying stupid poo poo right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 10:46
|
|
|
Varkk posted:I get the impression that Clubman and Miss Chaos seem to think the Labour review should be conducted by Cameron Slater and Cactus Kate with maybe some help from David Farrar. Over the last year Labour Party MPs have cared *far* more about what Farrer and Slater are saying than, say, the views of their own membership or even their own leader at times. If Whaleoil wrote Labour a strategy document, they are far more likely to read and respond. One read of Red Alert proves that. I guess the proof will be in the pudding, but things so far seems to point to "how can we appear to have changed without pissing people off internally with actual change" rather than asking the hard questions. And when your party vote is THAT low, there's going to be bits that hurt. I don't think all Labour supporters think that the party has done nothing wrong and is a total victim, but I do think that Labour MPs spent most of the last Parliamentary term in complete denial and that that needs to change. I'm apprehensive that the proposed "consultation" will actually be lip service in practice. I hope some from this thread head along to the meeting and ask pertinent questions. Labour could turn things around - National nearly won in 2005 - but that won't happen unless the party is honest with itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
Found object of the day
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Winston Peters gets sent out of Parliament for calling Gerry Brownlee a illiterate woodwork teacher. Bahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:Winston Peters gets sent out of Parliament for calling Gerry Brownlee a illiterate woodwork teacher. Bahahahaha What we have now is a mix of middle managers and bloggers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
dusty posted:Found object of the day Over 60 posts? I knew it was bad, I didn't know it was this bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
Love him or hate him, Hone Harawira is the only one I see quoted in the strike articles, going on the air criticising the government and employers. loving John 'close the wage gap with Australia' Key.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Midget Fist posted:loving John 'close the There, I fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Midget Fist posted:Love him or hate him, Hone Harawira is the only one I see quoted in the strike articles, going on the air criticising the government and employers. loving John 'close the wage gap with Australia' Key. Well Shearer said they weren't taking sides, but then his MPs starting hanging out at the picket lines etc and immediately white-anting that position. I was listening to Radio Live yesterday (yeah, yeah) and when it was brought up, Matt McCarten said Shearer had only been going to the picket line to support the workers in a personal capacity - as Labour leader, he was staying neutral. I mean, why bother?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:Well Shearer said they weren't taking sides, but then his MPs starting hanging out at the picket lines etc and immediately white-anting that position. I was listening to Radio Live yesterday (yeah, yeah) and when it was brought up, Matt McCarten said Shearer had only been going to the picket line to support the workers in a personal capacity - as Labour leader, he was staying neutral. I mean, why bother? Wait, what? He'll offer personal support but won't offer support from the party he leads?  I'll admit I'm hardly politically minded, but to me saying outright 'this is where we stand' will earn you more respect than muddling about like this and refusing to take sides. Integrity, anyone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
What can Shearer actually achieve here? Nada. He's not a party to the discussions. And personally if I were Labour leader I'd be really loving nervous about pinning my colours to the mast of a bunch of striking wharfies. There's been allegations of intimidation already, and things are only warming up. Don't underestimate just how loving much NZers hate wharfies. Especially when they're "sitting pretty" on $91,000 p/a. Phil Twyford is giving Brown a poke though. Twyford posted:Len Brown is a good man. His Auckland Plan and advocacy for the City Rail Link is the kind of leadership the city has been crying out for. But if the port company’s crude union busting succeeds in casualising its workforce on his watch it will be a stain on his legacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
This is the thing. I am a seafarer, and I think wharfies are the biggest bunch of slack, overpaid fucks in the world - and I am on their side with this strike action. The whole thing about the port trying to force them into casual contracts REALLY sits wrong with me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Kids these days are bloody amazing. Check out this series of blog posts from a secondary student who decided to OIA every secondary school in NZ to find out about their policy of same-sex ball dates. Not surprisingly sphincters tightened across the country. http://www.matthewtaylor.co.nz/2012/02/12/oia-adventures-nz-school-formals-and-homophobia/ quote:Does anyone remember St Patrick’s College in Wellington? Last year in June a story broke about how a male student, who happened to be gay, wasn’t allowed to bring a male friend (and ex-student) to his school ball/formal. The school said it was a management issue if they allowed ex-students or boys from other schools to attend school events. dusty fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
The sheer number of schools responding with 'Who are you and what's going on?' is astounding. You'd think he asked for a list of students and their addresses or something, rather than a simply policy or procedure that has no reason to be confidential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Wait, what? I guess he's trying to have it both ways - Labour won't be accused of siding with the money-grubbing wharfies* but he'll also be able to say "hey, I support the unions." Amongst the parties, Mana are putting out Facebook status updates like quote:freezing workers, wharfies, fastfood workers, caregiving workers, cinema workers, call centre workers- If Labour starts to give overt support to the strikers - which they should - I wonder how many will then take that as a cue to criticise them? *I don't actually believe this and I think what the Ports of Auckland are doing/trying to do is completely hosed up. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
As much as I hate Whaleoil, he is right that the non-union labour turning around ships quickly without issue is not good for the negotiating position of the wharfies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
dusty posted:Kids these days are bloody amazing. Check out this series of blog posts from a secondary student who decided to OIA every secondary school in NZ to find out about their policy of same-sex ball dates. Not surprisingly sphincters tightened across the country. That is fantastic, good on him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
sanchez posted:That is fantastic, good on him. I think that a lot of schools just outright lied and said "no policy" so as not to have to deal with it. Certainly my school had a policy of "no girl? no go"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
Whaleoilquote:I just had a phone call from the sister of the Turangi Child Rapist, Raurangi Marino. There is no emoticon for this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
So does that mean his sentence being mitigated because of molestation shouldn't count if Uncle Badtouch didn't blow a load on him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Apparently the Crafar farm sales is hitting the National Party in one of its core constituencies, resulting in the rural vote being pushed away from them. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6519680/Heartland-backlash-over-Crafar-farm-fallout
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Apparently the Crafar farm sales is hitting the National Party in one of its core constituencies, resulting in the rural vote being pushed away from them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Apparently the Crafar farm sales is hitting the National Party in one of its core constituencies, resulting in the rural vote being pushed away from them. I'm not sure that it's exactly a sign of a healthy Labour party when Sir Michael loving Fay has done more damage to Key than three years of Labour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
exmachina posted:Yeah but where will they go? NZF?? Probably the most we can hope for is stay-at-home, but i can see a nice barrel of pork before 2014 It depends on whether or not the "tenant in your own country" stuff that Labour's pushing or NZF's dogwhistle politics (same difference, yes) resonates with them, if they can look past their hate of Helen Clark. Labour and NZF might catch a few spite votes but stay-at-home out of spite is probably the most likely outcome. Winston's not an idiot, so maybe he'll make a play for the rural vote. Also, here's the latest RM poll.  http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2012/4751/ National's declining support has seemingly steadied, but Labour are gaining. I guess, despite the criticisms of Shearer in here, there may be something about his leadership that's resonating with people, or the people driven away by National's are turning to him. The Greens and NZ First are generally holding steady, staying on the threshold in the case of NZF, or being well above it in the case of the Greens. United Future and Mana don't even rate, as their presence is by virtue of electorate seats and ACT might as well not even be there with 0.5% - that represents a 50% drop in their support from the last poll, by the way. The Maori Party continues to be the biggest coalition partner and their support is currently holding steady as well - although this may be a reflection of their constituency waiting to see how they move on the Article 9 issues. That's from 877 people via telephone, by the way, so keep that and the flaws of that methodology in mind. I'm sure miss chaos will be in here sooner or later lecturing us all about how RM polls jump around by about 1% every month as well. This was posted at Dim-Post and it's worth thinking about - Labour's gaining, Greens are holding steady and National are showing signs of a very fast decline and this morning's article about farmers being turned off by them could be some cause for concern.  http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/encouraging-trend/ edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 04:39
|
|