Labour MP Shane Jones appeared on TVNZ's Q&A show over the weekend to debate with Gareth Hughes over plans for a Ross Sea marine reserve.
Despite not being Labour's spokesperson on conservation or fisheries (he's not the party's spokesperson on any issue, after being stood down pending the Auditor General's investigation of the William Yan matter), Jones appeared to endorse the government's approach to the marine reserve issue. He made no attempt to distance his own views from the official Labour position.
Labour hasn't actually determined its position on the issue. So why did Jones appear at all? Did he get clearance from David Shearer before appearing?
Nowadays it seems the only time we hear from Jones is when he is sticking up for his fishing industry mates. He publicly attacked Gareth Hughes over Hughes' copyright bill, despite Labour supporting it, after taking exception to Greenpeace's parody of a Sealord ad. And now he has created further awkwardness for his party over fishing issues.
David Shearer's leadership of Labour would be looking a lot stronger if his MPs were performing well and behaving with discipline, and not opining openly about issues they have no business being involved in. Nothing pisses off the faithful more than listening to their party's MPs going off-message. Politics may seem complicated, but political communications shouldn't be. It's about working out what you have to say and then saying it again and again and again, and being relentless and focused about it. It's something National has been very good at, and this is why there are so few stories about National MPs putting their feet in their mouths (recent PM brain-fades excepted).
Labour needs a leader who will bring wayward MPs into line, because the voting public will not enthuse over a party that does not have a clear and consistent message. If some MPs won't accept that then they need to be encouraged to consider their futures.
Perhaps Jones has already decided on his future. It might explain his recent utterances.
Monday, October 22, 2012
12 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ruth Dyson is Labour's spokesperson on conservation, a task at which (along with all her otyhers0 she has been completely invisible for ovwer four years. Almost all Labour's problems stem back to the lack of renewal leading up to the 2011 election, leaving Labour crippled with a bunch of lazy and entitled rejects who are completely institutionalised with right wing orthodoxy at the heart of it's parliamentary wing. This group (the Mallards, Mahutas, Dysons, the Streets) is totally unapologetic and non-reflective, caring more for protecting the sinecures and baubles of soft and well paid jobs in parliament than anything else. The rank and file will try and move decisively and purge these parasites and wreckers and their cynically appointed and manipulated leadership choice at the party conference. Look out, fireworks lie ahead.
ReplyDeleteShane Jones is one of the few Labour MPs who is respected for their work outside of politics. This is his field of expertise. Why would Labour want to present the political opinion of some academic or ex-union official when they have someone whose standing is well regarded on the topic under discussion? If Labour has a view different to Shane Jones' on the subject, it many very well be a position that is on the wrong side of the argument.
ReplyDeleteJones had the gravitas that Gareth Hughes does not.
Shane Jones is one of the few Labour MPs who is respected for their work outside of politics. This is his field of expertise.
DeleteIt doesn't matter whether Jones is right or wrong. He's not the spokesperson for either conservation or fisheries. He should not have gone onto the show to opine on those things.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry to delete your comment, but you're suggesting someone may have engaged in criminal activity. I don't want a defamation suit against me.
DeleteAside from the point that you deleted Barnsley Bill's for, the rest of his observation has merit.
DeleteShane Jones would add something to NZ First. That might not mean much at the moment, but if Winston Peters could contain his ill-disciplined Parliamentary behaviour, NZ First "might" be more attractive as a coalition partner for whoever in 2014. (But not the Greens!)
Unfortunately the blog platform I use doesn't allow me to selectively edit posts. I have to delete the entire thing.
DeleteI'm not sure about the NZ First speculation. Jones may just prefer to quit politics altogether. He was reasonably successful in business before he entered politics.
The whole "Shane Jones for NZ First!" meme is solely attributable to David Farrar, who has previously linked to Cameron Slater's posts claiming that Jones is on the verge of quitting Labour (in June this year) and that he was in the USA searching for jobs (in August, while he actually was in Wellington and appeared in the House).
DeleteYou may consider whether or not this background makes DPF's blogpost a solid basis for "speculation".
Was Jones representing the Labour Party viewpoint on the programme, or was he Labour MP Shane Jones?
ReplyDeleteUntil Labour has a definitive policy position, let's hear from MPs who have a valid opinion on something they know something about first hand. We get enough opinion from them on issues where they have little traction. Jones was credible and Labour benefitted from his presence, in my opinion.
Sorry Scott. I was speculating on the outcome of that inquiry, which is pertinent to the post because whatever he does cannot happen until the fallout from the inquiry is dealt with.
ReplyDeleteI think he will end up in NZ First. That would allow him to be a bit more open about his first love. Which to all of us appears to be making money.
The Labour party appears less likely to be enamored of heterosexual blokes in positions of power going forward and he does not really fit.
I think you'll find a majority of the Labour caucus and frontbench are straight blokes. They don't mind you *having* a dick, it's *being* a dick that's the problem.
DeleteJones comes across as being more independent of thought than most Labour MPs, understandable given his business background. That independence has a touch of the maverick about it that suggests he could slip into a NZ First role. He shares with Peters a disdain for the hard yards that main Party success demands. Peters is unlikely to favour coalition involving the Greens, whereas Jones could, although his Q&A appearance with Gareth Hughes suggested that he might be far less tolerant of the Greens than a coalition matchup might require.
ReplyDeleteJones' response to the press regarding Shearer's tape episode showed an impatience with the minutiae of politics. That response showed the demeanour of a man looking less comfortable where he is, and perhaps open to a less demanding role that minor Party spokesmanship could present. An "attack at will" role, and no real need to go on the defensive. Tailor-made politics for Peters, and the similarity for Jones is not lost on the many who sense he could make the transition given the rudderless drifting around by Labour at present.
But while Jones might add something to the one-man band that it is under Peters, he would be unable to arrest NZ First's slide to oblivion once Peters is gone. But he just may enjoy his numbered days in Parliament a little more in the meanwhile.