When David Shearer was chosen as Labour Party leader I told a few people that we needed to give him a year to settle into the job.
I've been critical of Shearer at times, but I have not called for him to be replaced. I have always said "let's give the man 12 months as leader, and then we'll see."
David Shearer has 43 days to go.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
17 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)
Really? It's been less than a year?
ReplyDeleteShocked.
Nothing will happen to Shearer. As per Roy Morgan latest poll, the left coalition of Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana will be in power in 2014. Shearer will be the PM.
ReplyDeleteLeft coalition what a joke. The only thing they in common is they all want to suck of the state tit.
DeleteAs for forming a coherent working Government. It is not going to happen with that motley lot.
Labour is fractured over leadership.
Greens have only got a support of about 5% the rest is dejected labour.
NZF Listening to Winton on the Chinese he reminds me of Enid Powell
Form a Government Dream on
How wonderful.
ReplyDelete@ SS - I feel like there is a bit of a clue why he might get dumped in your handle. The worst thing that can happen to a politician is the sympathy vote. Very few can come back from that.
ReplyDeleteIf what Duncan Garner says is true - that it took six hours of negotiations to get permission for Cunliffe to be interviewed when no one elese was available - then it is yet another crystal clear illustration of the utter dysfunction of the Labour senior caucus. To me Shearer's failure isn't his poor TV presence. it is complete inabilty to bring discipline to the caucus, purge the lazy and underperforming, and energise the opposition. Clearly there are certain senior caucus members (in safe seats or with lofty list placings) who are happy to lose in 2014 to ensure their beltway candidate wins the leadership in the wake of that defeat, but leadership of what? The party caucus remains largely out of touch, under performing and inward looking. Real power in the caucus seems to be built around a core of Wellington based careerists. The wider party organisation, which is strongest by far in Auckland, is taken for granted.
ReplyDeleteMy view is the conference in a few weeks is the last chance Labour has of winning the 2014 election. The power of the Wellington caucus cabal has to be routed, or the Labour party will drift for another decade - if the Greens don't reduce them to irrelevance first.
Or that Cunliffe is not the right man to lead. Remember Cullen has aspirations as well, but made a better minister than he would of a leader.
ReplyDeleteMake that "had aspirations"
DeleteThe Auckland labour party should cut the careerists loose and form a new workers party rather than the current incarnation which is nothing more than the party workers party. It exists simply to keep the likes of Mallard, Robertson and the half dozen other minions from Clarks office comfortably at the trough.
ReplyDeleteThis new party needs to seek out candidates that reflect a traditional labour member, working class. Life experience. Not a lawyer..
Sorry Scott.
Life experience. Not a lawyer.
DeleteI struggle to understand this notion that some professions or jobs don't provide "life experience". What is it you think lawyers do at work? Descend into their cryogenic chambers to be deep frozen for eight to ten hours a day, cut off from the rest of the world?
That said, any viable party needs people from a variety of backgrounds. This includes lawyers. let's not forget that our politicians are elected to make laws, so having people in caucus who know who the legal system works is kind of important.
"I struggle to understand this notion that some professions or jobs don't provide "life experience". What is it you think lawyers do at work? Descend into their cryogenic chambers to be deep frozen for eight to ten hours a day, cut off from the rest of the world?"
DeleteBut isn't this true?
I agree - a range of views and experience is important.
ReplyDeleteExcept for career politicians, whose views i consider practically worthless.
My one problem with MMP is the way is has given a central role to political parties, yet our constitutional arrangements remain silent on the fact of their centrality to our political process. This constitutional silence has led to a perverse situation of actually encouraging low membership, tightly controlled cadre parties where unassailable cabals can seize control of the mechanism of candidate selection for the parliament. To that end,I dislike the idea of career politicians as a professions or jobs that provides "life experience". The idwea of a person deliberately setting out on a career as an elected party list technocrat comfortable in the "moderate" caucus of either party fills me with a mixture of disgust and contempt.
Sanctuary sums it up perfectly.
ReplyDeletePrior to about the early seventies, MPs were relatively poorly paid. This was to reflect the "giving of service" to one's country. Being an MP carried an element of personal sacrifice. Once MPs became well paid it became more of a sinecure.
The definition of the House of Representatives has changed with MMP. The original intent was for MPs to "represent" all the citizens of a geographical area, the Electorates. Party tickets only arose so that the legislative process had some impetus. In Parliament each MP was required to vote in person. When a vote was taken, MPs were summonsed to the Chamber and physically walked through a door into either the "Ayes" lobby, or the "Noes" lobby. MPs were "seen to vote" one way or the other.
Under the MMP system, MPs now represent political factions across the whole country. That faction is the master and MPs dance to that tune or are replaced. Many Parliamentarians are almost completely unknown. MPs no longer vote in person. Each faction declares the number of votes they represent, and MPs are not even required to turn up for the vote.
A majority believes MMP is a better system.
Alistair, I think my view is implied in my comment. We need to have our constitution acknowledge the existence of parties and have strong constitutional conventions around candidate selection. Since you need 500 members to register as a party, I think a legislative requirement for a quorum of party members having a say on who is a candidate on at least the party list would be a huge boost for democracy. I also favour term limits. After all, if you don't make a difference in, say, fifteen years then you are never going to and you should get out of the way for someone else who might. Parliament should be a place where you go to get things done, not snooze on the back benches secure in a safe seat for thirty years. If we had a fifteen year limit in 2014 that would mean no one elected in or prior to the 1999 general election could be in parliament in 2015. That sort of renewal of ideas and people is vital.
ReplyDeleteSanc, well put. I've thought for some time now that term limits are needed, particularly now we have List MPs. Coincidentally five terms was the number I had in mind as other than 1935-1949 there's no 15 year period where neither party was in government. Therefore over 15 years an MP will experience periods both in opposition and in government. I thought about term limits not applying to constituency MPs but on reflection it should as otherwise these MPs can become over powerful relative to their List colleagues and the ability for renewal is limited.
DeleteI agree with the idea of a term limit system but suspect the pension accumulation activities would speed up markedly.
ReplyDeleteScott, teasing re the lawyers. Possibly due to the perception that they spend all day being sneaky rats who have no shame when preparing clients bills. Not my perception of course. I am no lawist. I have a neighbour who is one and I played football against one once and of course most of the cafe's I visit have coffee makers who have law degrees.
"... and of course most of the cafe's I visit have coffee makers who have law degrees."
DeleteThis is a good thing, in order to avoid incidents like this: http://www.slip-and-sue.com/the-famous-infamous-mcdonalds-coffee-spill-lawsuit-revisited/