David Shearer: Thanks everyone for attending this special caucus meeting. I know the last few days have been tumultuous ones, but we need to address the behaviour of one of our caucus members.
Trevor: Yeah, and we all know who.
Showing posts with label David Cunliffe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Cunliffe. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Some Advice To Labour's Leader
- Be strong. Be decisive. Cunliffe must be punished for his disloyalty. Although David Cunliffe has done nothing wrong, so you should not punish him too hard. In fact, Cunliffe is the victim in all of this. Any punishment should be meted out to others, those who created this gigantic mess in the first place. Like Chris Hipkins, who spoke out so aggressively against Mr Cunliffe. Of course, Hipkins might have been speaking out on your instructions, in which case you're the one to blame, and you owe Hipkins an apology for making him do your dirty work. On the other hand, Cunliffe has been plotting with mischievous intent, so stick to the original plan and punish him and promote Hipkins for being so loyal, before punishing Hipkins. Except Cunliffe hasn't done anything wrong. Unless he has. Don't listen to the lies other people are spreading, unless it suits you to do so, unless in doing so you find yourself acting unethically, unless you have some "greater good" argument to justify acting unethically in the short term. Be your own man. Be strong, be inclusive and accommodate your enemies, and crush them too. Don't put up with disloyalty, but dissent and debate are healthy signs so long as nobody questions you. Are you going to tolerate that sort of backstabbing? There are too many people trying to tell you what to do. Don't listen to anyone else. Follow your heart and just do what's right. Are you writing this down?
I Am Backing David
I've been surprised at the volume of unadulterated garbage written about what is going on within the Labour Party.
Monday, November 19, 2012
A Day In The Life Of Patrick Gower
5:08 am
Just asked David Cunliffe the big questions: "Does David Shearer have your full support? How will you vote if the leadership issue is put to the vote in caucus?" He won't answer me. I ask him again. Still no answer. My cameraman suggests we come back later and try again, when Cunliffe's awake. We climb out his bedroom window.
Just asked David Cunliffe the big questions: "Does David Shearer have your full support? How will you vote if the leadership issue is put to the vote in caucus?" He won't answer me. I ask him again. Still no answer. My cameraman suggests we come back later and try again, when Cunliffe's awake. We climb out his bedroom window.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
The Good Farmer: Cunliffe On Economic Development
David Cunliffe today gave another strong speech on economic development issues. A written version of his speech is here.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
How Not To Win Friends And Attract Voters
Duncan Garner asks why does Labour hate David Cunliffe so much?
It appears that a number of Labour caucus members loathe Cunliffe with such a passion that they would prefer he didn't return from his overseas holiday.
Garner reports that sources within the Labour caucus have told him that Cunliffe will never be leader, no matter what happens.
I have no idea what the heck is going on within Labour's caucus. The David Cunliffe I know is affable and personable, and happens to be the most effective communicator within the entire party.
I suppose it's possible he's playing some kind of despicable Machiavellian game, and is actively stirring and causing trouble, and that he's also good at hiding his character flaws from schmucks like me.
But even if everything people are saying about Cunliffe turns out to be true, isn't that something that ought to be dealt with internally within the party, rather than on the pages of a news website?
Maybe some bright sparks within Labour's caucus have figured that the only way they'll get rid of Cunliffe is if they make it known publicly that he'll never lead the party.
It's a bit of a problem, though, when Cunliffe appears more closely ideologically aligned to the party's activist base than the rest of caucus. How exactly do those bright sparks in caucus with their knives out for Cunliffe think the party's base will treat such a brazen attack?
And what about those soft Labour voters who might conclude from all of this that their party is a dead loss?
Or maybe being in opposition is such fun that some within Labour's caucus are keen to do it for another five years.
It appears that a number of Labour caucus members loathe Cunliffe with such a passion that they would prefer he didn't return from his overseas holiday.
Garner reports that sources within the Labour caucus have told him that Cunliffe will never be leader, no matter what happens.
But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus - he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.
Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him when he became Labour's leader, but Shearer resisted and said he wanted to work with Cunliffe.
That hasn't worked apparently - my sources tell me Shearer is deeply disappointed with Cunliffe and he feels let down. This relationship cannot last.Garner of course will not name his sources, and we could hardly expect him to.
I have no idea what the heck is going on within Labour's caucus. The David Cunliffe I know is affable and personable, and happens to be the most effective communicator within the entire party.
I suppose it's possible he's playing some kind of despicable Machiavellian game, and is actively stirring and causing trouble, and that he's also good at hiding his character flaws from schmucks like me.
But even if everything people are saying about Cunliffe turns out to be true, isn't that something that ought to be dealt with internally within the party, rather than on the pages of a news website?
Maybe some bright sparks within Labour's caucus have figured that the only way they'll get rid of Cunliffe is if they make it known publicly that he'll never lead the party.
It's a bit of a problem, though, when Cunliffe appears more closely ideologically aligned to the party's activist base than the rest of caucus. How exactly do those bright sparks in caucus with their knives out for Cunliffe think the party's base will treat such a brazen attack?
And what about those soft Labour voters who might conclude from all of this that their party is a dead loss?
Or maybe being in opposition is such fun that some within Labour's caucus are keen to do it for another five years.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
To The Disappointed
I have some advice to those Cunliffe supporters now suffering from the anguished disappointment of their hopes.
Hush now.
Even if he wasn't your pick, David Shearer is a good man who has given a lifetime of service to others. He may not possess the flowing oratory that your man does, but flowing oratory isn't everything. Look at Barack Obama's popularity ratings.
Give Shearer a chance and then, if he fails, you'll be free to say "look, I told you this would happen!"
But "this" hasn't happened yet. Give him a couple of years to prove himself.
One thing is certain. Labour will not win in 2014 if its supporters continue to publicly chip away at the party and each other.
I'm not trying to tell you what to do, and if you decide that Labour's no longer your cup of tea then by all means say what you feel.
But the only way we will get a Labour government in 2014 is if the party is disciplined and on-message.
One of the criticisms of Labour I heard an awful lot prior to the election is "they don't deserve to run the country if they can't run their own party."
It is a fair criticism. The party made an awful lot of mistakes in the last three years, and allowed a perception to grow in the media and in the minds of the public that Labour was disorganised and lacked a clear vision. Its attacks on the government were often misdirected and frequently resulted in injuries due to friendly-fire.
Sometimes it takes a bad election loss to bring reality crashing down, and my feeling is that is has. There is an appetite for change within the party, and hopefully Shearer and Robertson are the people for the job. If we don't support them, and if we spend the next couple of years bemoaning the decision not to select Cunliffe, we will probably see a National victory in 2014.
And another thing. Some people have been predicting that the selection of David Shearer spells the end of Labour as a credible political force.
But even if Shearer fails, the party will survive. It's been going for almost a hundred years now, so I don't think it's too bold a prediction to say that the party will endure the fallout from this leadership battle.
Hush now.
Even if he wasn't your pick, David Shearer is a good man who has given a lifetime of service to others. He may not possess the flowing oratory that your man does, but flowing oratory isn't everything. Look at Barack Obama's popularity ratings.
Give Shearer a chance and then, if he fails, you'll be free to say "look, I told you this would happen!"
But "this" hasn't happened yet. Give him a couple of years to prove himself.
One thing is certain. Labour will not win in 2014 if its supporters continue to publicly chip away at the party and each other.
I'm not trying to tell you what to do, and if you decide that Labour's no longer your cup of tea then by all means say what you feel.
But the only way we will get a Labour government in 2014 is if the party is disciplined and on-message.
One of the criticisms of Labour I heard an awful lot prior to the election is "they don't deserve to run the country if they can't run their own party."
It is a fair criticism. The party made an awful lot of mistakes in the last three years, and allowed a perception to grow in the media and in the minds of the public that Labour was disorganised and lacked a clear vision. Its attacks on the government were often misdirected and frequently resulted in injuries due to friendly-fire.
Sometimes it takes a bad election loss to bring reality crashing down, and my feeling is that is has. There is an appetite for change within the party, and hopefully Shearer and Robertson are the people for the job. If we don't support them, and if we spend the next couple of years bemoaning the decision not to select Cunliffe, we will probably see a National victory in 2014.
And another thing. Some people have been predicting that the selection of David Shearer spells the end of Labour as a credible political force.
But even if Shearer fails, the party will survive. It's been going for almost a hundred years now, so I don't think it's too bold a prediction to say that the party will endure the fallout from this leadership battle.
Monday, December 12, 2011
And Locusts Too
Danyl thinks the Labour Party's problem is that it's "full of hysterical simpletons", on the strength of a silly piece written in the Herald on Saturday by David Hawkins, a Cunliffe supporter.
But as excruciatingly silly as the Hawkins piece is, it's just one person's opinion.
It's also a partisan opinion that a journo sought out. I know this because I was asked to write a piece in favour of one of the candidates for the same issue of the Herald. I had to decline, because they wanted me to pick sides and I didn't want to.
If you go hunting for dissension and controversy you'll find it in any political party if you dig deep enough.
Every political party has its share of over-excited partisans. They're usually young, and they see things in black and white.
A party that doesn't have this type in large numbers is probably on the path to extinction.
Elsewhere, predictions are being made that Labour may end up regretting the openness of its leadership contest, because a bunch of people have posted strong opinions on The Standard. And yet The Standard is no more representative of the Labour rank and file than Kiwiblog is representative of National's mainstream membership. Both sites attract heated, excited commentary, usually from the same handful of people.
I know many non-Labour people are praying that the losing candidate will go feral, but I suspect there will be little tolerance for dissent or whining within the party once the contest has ended. The process has been more open than in previous years (although it would be even better if members got to vote), and efforts have been made to give party members the chance to see and to question the candidates. If after all of that some MPs do not get behind the new leader I suspect their colleagues will shun them.
That probably won't prevent a flood of excitable and outraged posts from supporters of the loser on The Standard or Red Alert, and I fully expect to read predictions of doom and disaster, of various plagues of frogs, lice, boils and hail, and of the extinction of the Labour Party as a political force.
My own bold prediction is that none of those things will come to pass.
But as excruciatingly silly as the Hawkins piece is, it's just one person's opinion.
It's also a partisan opinion that a journo sought out. I know this because I was asked to write a piece in favour of one of the candidates for the same issue of the Herald. I had to decline, because they wanted me to pick sides and I didn't want to.
If you go hunting for dissension and controversy you'll find it in any political party if you dig deep enough.
Every political party has its share of over-excited partisans. They're usually young, and they see things in black and white.
A party that doesn't have this type in large numbers is probably on the path to extinction.
Elsewhere, predictions are being made that Labour may end up regretting the openness of its leadership contest, because a bunch of people have posted strong opinions on The Standard. And yet The Standard is no more representative of the Labour rank and file than Kiwiblog is representative of National's mainstream membership. Both sites attract heated, excited commentary, usually from the same handful of people.
I know many non-Labour people are praying that the losing candidate will go feral, but I suspect there will be little tolerance for dissent or whining within the party once the contest has ended. The process has been more open than in previous years (although it would be even better if members got to vote), and efforts have been made to give party members the chance to see and to question the candidates. If after all of that some MPs do not get behind the new leader I suspect their colleagues will shun them.
That probably won't prevent a flood of excitable and outraged posts from supporters of the loser on The Standard or Red Alert, and I fully expect to read predictions of doom and disaster, of various plagues of frogs, lice, boils and hail, and of the extinction of the Labour Party as a political force.
My own bold prediction is that none of those things will come to pass.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The Labour Leadership Indecision
So I went along to the Labour Party leadership debate/discussion today in order to make up my mind.
It didn't work. I'm still an undecided non-voter.
The issue for me is one of presentation. I am convinced that both Shearer and Cunliffe are, by and large, politically in about the same place. I don't see the leadership campaign as a left versus right battle, and the issues they spoke about during the meeting made it abundantly clear to me that they want the same things and want to take the party in much the same direction.
So it comes down to this: is the best leader going to be the superb communicator who can cast a spell over an audience during a speech and who has a grasp of policy detail? Or will he be the guy who is less polished but has spent his life living Labour's values?
To connect with the disaffected voters who turned from Labour in their thousands do we need a great orator who can savage the government in the House, or do we need someone with a compelling life-story who provides a stark contrast to the money-trader who made millions on the financial markets?
Cunliffe's almost Obama-like style of oratory will have appealed to many in the audience today. There were even the hoots and cheers from his supporters that you would expect from a US Presidential campaign. Shearer, by contrast, was down-to-earth, and for some will have presented as an agreeable alternative to the hype and noise of Cunliffe and his supporters. Shearer exudes a genuine humility that some say will make him a potent force against the Flash Harry currently in charge of the country. Others, however, think someone with a bit more "mongrel" is needed to match John Key.
Well I don't get to vote, which is probably a good thing. I don't see how anyone can be totally convinced one way or the other about who is the best candidate. Each man is a gamble, because he has obvious strengths and weaknesses. Neither man is the complete package, but then who in a leadership role ever is?
A quick comment on the deputy leadership contest. I have not heard Nanaia Mahuta speak before, but she impressed. Grant Robertson was also a compelling speaker, and he is unquestionably a future star. I'm not sure if either is ready for the role yet, but in the case of Mahuta that's because I haven't seen enough of her.
Putting aside the question of who the right candidate is, what strikes me about the leadership contest is how the party has opened up and listened to criticism. At the meeting there wasn't too much blaming of the usual suspects (e.g. the media, public stupidity, others on the left, etc etc), and all of the leadership candidates seem to understand that the party has failed to explain to the public why they should give Labour their vote. It feels like any lingering complacency from the Clark years is disappearing.
Finally, a prediction. I don't have any inside knowledge, and I haven't heard any whispers from within the caucus. But while I can't personally choose between the two Davids, I suspect Shearer will win it by a couple of votes. Note: this is not a confident prediction, so don't hold it against me if the other David wins.
It didn't work. I'm still an undecided non-voter.
The issue for me is one of presentation. I am convinced that both Shearer and Cunliffe are, by and large, politically in about the same place. I don't see the leadership campaign as a left versus right battle, and the issues they spoke about during the meeting made it abundantly clear to me that they want the same things and want to take the party in much the same direction.
So it comes down to this: is the best leader going to be the superb communicator who can cast a spell over an audience during a speech and who has a grasp of policy detail? Or will he be the guy who is less polished but has spent his life living Labour's values?
To connect with the disaffected voters who turned from Labour in their thousands do we need a great orator who can savage the government in the House, or do we need someone with a compelling life-story who provides a stark contrast to the money-trader who made millions on the financial markets?
Cunliffe's almost Obama-like style of oratory will have appealed to many in the audience today. There were even the hoots and cheers from his supporters that you would expect from a US Presidential campaign. Shearer, by contrast, was down-to-earth, and for some will have presented as an agreeable alternative to the hype and noise of Cunliffe and his supporters. Shearer exudes a genuine humility that some say will make him a potent force against the Flash Harry currently in charge of the country. Others, however, think someone with a bit more "mongrel" is needed to match John Key.
Well I don't get to vote, which is probably a good thing. I don't see how anyone can be totally convinced one way or the other about who is the best candidate. Each man is a gamble, because he has obvious strengths and weaknesses. Neither man is the complete package, but then who in a leadership role ever is?
A quick comment on the deputy leadership contest. I have not heard Nanaia Mahuta speak before, but she impressed. Grant Robertson was also a compelling speaker, and he is unquestionably a future star. I'm not sure if either is ready for the role yet, but in the case of Mahuta that's because I haven't seen enough of her.
Putting aside the question of who the right candidate is, what strikes me about the leadership contest is how the party has opened up and listened to criticism. At the meeting there wasn't too much blaming of the usual suspects (e.g. the media, public stupidity, others on the left, etc etc), and all of the leadership candidates seem to understand that the party has failed to explain to the public why they should give Labour their vote. It feels like any lingering complacency from the Clark years is disappearing.
Finally, a prediction. I don't have any inside knowledge, and I haven't heard any whispers from within the caucus. But while I can't personally choose between the two Davids, I suspect Shearer will win it by a couple of votes. Note: this is not a confident prediction, so don't hold it against me if the other David wins.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Which Candidate Gets My Non-Vote?
When David Shearer announced he wanted to be Labour leader I didn't know what to think. Then, when it appeared he was favoured by the party's "old guard" and by right-wing bloggers alike, I began to move more towards the Cunliffe camp.
But then I realised it's hardly Shearer's fault if a bunch of people he has nothing to do with decide they prefer him over Cunliffe.
Also, while Shearer may be the man many of the "old guard" want to see lead the party, he also seems to have the support of many newer MPs.
Is he a reform candidate? Who knows?
So I just can't decide who my non-vote should go to. Cunliffe has experience in politics and is a more media-savvy communicator. On the other hand, Shearer has a background in aid and humanitarian work and seems to be a genuinely nice guy. Is he too nice for politics? Shearer hasn't been around long enough for us to know, and he hasn't made much of an impact in the House yet, but he has successfully led teams in third-world hell-holes, so the Labour job ought to be a cakewalk.
The party shouldn't take too seriously Brian Edwards' opinion that Shearer is a terrible communicator and would therefore be a disaster as Labour leader. I've listened for the last five years as various people on the left have panned John Key for murdering the English language and having an awkward and clumsy speech delivery style. If anything these things have made Key more endearing to middle New Zealand. We do not do soaring oratory in this country.
As a fully paid-up member of the Labour cabal I will go along to the public meeting on Sunday in Auckland to listen to the candidates. Perhaps then I will have a strong view on which of the two men would be the better leader.
But it would be even better if I got to cast a vote on the matter. The Labour Party needs to consider as part of its proposed review a process where party members can actually vote on things like the leadership and, God forbid, even the party list. The party list Labour put up this year was about as attractive to voters as a cup of cold vomit, so the current selection process clearly doesn't work.
If that is too radical a solution then I have a more simple one. Just give me a right of veto over all Labour Party decisions. My status as a blogger means I have all the answers, so what could go wrong?
But then I realised it's hardly Shearer's fault if a bunch of people he has nothing to do with decide they prefer him over Cunliffe.
Also, while Shearer may be the man many of the "old guard" want to see lead the party, he also seems to have the support of many newer MPs.
Is he a reform candidate? Who knows?
So I just can't decide who my non-vote should go to. Cunliffe has experience in politics and is a more media-savvy communicator. On the other hand, Shearer has a background in aid and humanitarian work and seems to be a genuinely nice guy. Is he too nice for politics? Shearer hasn't been around long enough for us to know, and he hasn't made much of an impact in the House yet, but he has successfully led teams in third-world hell-holes, so the Labour job ought to be a cakewalk.
The party shouldn't take too seriously Brian Edwards' opinion that Shearer is a terrible communicator and would therefore be a disaster as Labour leader. I've listened for the last five years as various people on the left have panned John Key for murdering the English language and having an awkward and clumsy speech delivery style. If anything these things have made Key more endearing to middle New Zealand. We do not do soaring oratory in this country.
As a fully paid-up member of the Labour cabal I will go along to the public meeting on Sunday in Auckland to listen to the candidates. Perhaps then I will have a strong view on which of the two men would be the better leader.
But it would be even better if I got to cast a vote on the matter. The Labour Party needs to consider as part of its proposed review a process where party members can actually vote on things like the leadership and, God forbid, even the party list. The party list Labour put up this year was about as attractive to voters as a cup of cold vomit, so the current selection process clearly doesn't work.
If that is too radical a solution then I have a more simple one. Just give me a right of veto over all Labour Party decisions. My status as a blogger means I have all the answers, so what could go wrong?
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Team Shearer Receives Further Endorsements
David Shearer has moved ahead in the race for the Labour Party leadership, after a number of prominent figures endorsed his candidacy.
Shearer received a critical endorsement yesterday, when political commentator and National Party member David Farrar declared that Shearer would be a better choice for the party.
And the prospects of Shearer’s rival David Cunliffe were dealt a savage blow yesterday, when former Labour MP John Tamihere attacked Cunliffe’s choice of Nanaia Mahuta as deputy leader.
While Tamihere is no longer closely involved with the Labour Party, he remains highly influential amongst the party’s most sexist brain-farting boofhead pea-brained loudmouths.
But it is the endorsement of David Farrar and others that may end Cunliffe’s leadership bid.
In an opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald on Friday Farrar praised Shearer for not having an ideological dislike of the private sector, and for supporting the involvement of private companies in UN peacekeeping and security operations.
Shearer’s chances will receive a further boost if he can also secure the support of a group of influential former Labour MPs that includes Sir Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, David Caygill and Peter Dunne.
He will also be hoping that John Key, the most popular PM in decades, offers his support.
Shearer’s greatest asset is that he is largely unknown, even though he appears to be backed by many of the party’s longest-serving MPs, some of whom have been in Parliament for more than two decades.
His opponent, David Cunliffe, is promising a “cleanout”, while those long-serving MPs backing Shearer appear convinced that the cleanout must start at the very top, provided it ends there.
The prospect of a cleanout and radical change will terrify those MPs who think that the only reason for Labour’s loss is that voters collectively made a terrible mistake. Many MPs remain convinced that radical change is not called for and that the voters will miraculously wake up some time before 2014 when John Key’s smile fades.
Shearer remains something of an unknown quantity, and it is possible that despite being supported by the party’s old guard and by right-wing figures outside the party he will prove himself to be a reformer and a powerful spokesperson for social justice.
That would be a bitter disappointment to many, particularly those who have the most to fear from a change of direction by Labour.
Shearer received a critical endorsement yesterday, when political commentator and National Party member David Farrar declared that Shearer would be a better choice for the party.
And the prospects of Shearer’s rival David Cunliffe were dealt a savage blow yesterday, when former Labour MP John Tamihere attacked Cunliffe’s choice of Nanaia Mahuta as deputy leader.
While Tamihere is no longer closely involved with the Labour Party, he remains highly influential amongst the party’s most sexist brain-farting boofhead pea-brained loudmouths.
But it is the endorsement of David Farrar and others that may end Cunliffe’s leadership bid.
In an opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald on Friday Farrar praised Shearer for not having an ideological dislike of the private sector, and for supporting the involvement of private companies in UN peacekeeping and security operations.
Shearer’s chances will receive a further boost if he can also secure the support of a group of influential former Labour MPs that includes Sir Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, David Caygill and Peter Dunne.
He will also be hoping that John Key, the most popular PM in decades, offers his support.
Shearer’s greatest asset is that he is largely unknown, even though he appears to be backed by many of the party’s longest-serving MPs, some of whom have been in Parliament for more than two decades.
His opponent, David Cunliffe, is promising a “cleanout”, while those long-serving MPs backing Shearer appear convinced that the cleanout must start at the very top, provided it ends there.
The prospect of a cleanout and radical change will terrify those MPs who think that the only reason for Labour’s loss is that voters collectively made a terrible mistake. Many MPs remain convinced that radical change is not called for and that the voters will miraculously wake up some time before 2014 when John Key’s smile fades.
Shearer remains something of an unknown quantity, and it is possible that despite being supported by the party’s old guard and by right-wing figures outside the party he will prove himself to be a reformer and a powerful spokesperson for social justice.
That would be a bitter disappointment to many, particularly those who have the most to fear from a change of direction by Labour.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Cunliffe v Shearer
The Labour leadership battle just gets more interesting. David Parker pulled out today and is now publicly backing David Shearer. I'm glad, not because I want Shearer to win but because I thought Parker was probably the weakest candidate of the three.
I can't actually choose between Shearer and Cunliffe, as both candidates have pros and cons. The deputy leadership position looks a bit more interesting, and the party has the potential to really stuff things up if they get the mix wrong.
Leader
I don’t have a strong view on which of the two Davids should be selected as leader.
Cunliffe is a good debater and communicator and has the ability to take the battle to John Key. He was one of Helen Clark’s more able ministers, is smart and is sharp-witted.
Some people have suggested Cunliffe has few friends in caucus, and that he can be arrogant, but I’m not sure how valid those claims are. Admittedly, I don’t really know the guy other than from what I see and read, and have met him only once. But he was perfectly affable and friendly on the day I met him (as politicians generally are when they have their game face on).
I also like David Shearer for the role, because his background in humanitarian work makes a compelling life story that would be irresistible to many voters. If the leadership is to be awarded to the person who most appeals to the public over the next couple of weeks, I’d say Shearer would have the job.
What makes me wonder whether Shearer’s the right person is the fact we haven’t really seen much of him yet. I don’t really know too much about his political leanings, though with his background one can only assume he must fit in well with Labour’s core values. I also don’t know that much about his ability to handle the rough and tumble of politics. This is not a dig at his experience, because he has led teams in difficult environments. But managing party politics is different to running a humanitarian mission. That’s my concern. It may well be that running the Labour Party is a breeze by comparison to the many challenging roles Shearer has had in the past, but the job is different. Is Shearer up to the task? I just don’t know.
On the other hand, I can understand entirely the desire by many to bring in a new leader untainted by what has gone on before.
They're both so good that it's a pity we can't have co-leaders, but it's not the Labour way.
Deputy
I understand politically why Cunliffe has chosen Nanaia Mahuta as his running mate. Mahuta seems to be well regarded within the caucus, and may also appeal to Maori and women voters.
However, Mahuta has a fairly low public profile, and I am yet to be convinced that she would be up to the task of deputy leader. The aim of promoting someone to deputy leadership to better represent the views of women and Maori is laudable, but it cannot be at the expense of the party’s fortunes. I just don’t know whether Mahuta is ready for this, but I suspect it may be beyond her.
Grant Robertson is another frequently being mentioned as potential deputy leader. Unlike Mahuta Robertson does have a high profile. But I am yet to be convinced that he is the right person for the job. Robertson has spent years inside politics, even before becoming an MP, and he worked for Helen Clark. However, voters have sent a reasonably strong message to Labour that they want the party to move away from the Clark era. I regard Robertson as one of Labour's most talented MPs, but his timing might be off.
Shane Jones is also a potential candidate. He would appeal to Maori voters but would also be attractive to many non-Maori. Jones is intelligent, witty and clever, but he probably stands a bit too much the right of the party, and he would also spend most of his time as deputy having to fend off lewd remarks about that incident.
My pick as deputy would be either David Parker, or whichever man loses the leadership battle.
If you have your own opinion please feel free to comment. We don’t get a vote in caucus, but the party does claim to be listening to us.
I can't actually choose between Shearer and Cunliffe, as both candidates have pros and cons. The deputy leadership position looks a bit more interesting, and the party has the potential to really stuff things up if they get the mix wrong.
Leader
I don’t have a strong view on which of the two Davids should be selected as leader.
Cunliffe is a good debater and communicator and has the ability to take the battle to John Key. He was one of Helen Clark’s more able ministers, is smart and is sharp-witted.
Some people have suggested Cunliffe has few friends in caucus, and that he can be arrogant, but I’m not sure how valid those claims are. Admittedly, I don’t really know the guy other than from what I see and read, and have met him only once. But he was perfectly affable and friendly on the day I met him (as politicians generally are when they have their game face on).
I also like David Shearer for the role, because his background in humanitarian work makes a compelling life story that would be irresistible to many voters. If the leadership is to be awarded to the person who most appeals to the public over the next couple of weeks, I’d say Shearer would have the job.
What makes me wonder whether Shearer’s the right person is the fact we haven’t really seen much of him yet. I don’t really know too much about his political leanings, though with his background one can only assume he must fit in well with Labour’s core values. I also don’t know that much about his ability to handle the rough and tumble of politics. This is not a dig at his experience, because he has led teams in difficult environments. But managing party politics is different to running a humanitarian mission. That’s my concern. It may well be that running the Labour Party is a breeze by comparison to the many challenging roles Shearer has had in the past, but the job is different. Is Shearer up to the task? I just don’t know.
On the other hand, I can understand entirely the desire by many to bring in a new leader untainted by what has gone on before.
They're both so good that it's a pity we can't have co-leaders, but it's not the Labour way.
Deputy
I understand politically why Cunliffe has chosen Nanaia Mahuta as his running mate. Mahuta seems to be well regarded within the caucus, and may also appeal to Maori and women voters.
However, Mahuta has a fairly low public profile, and I am yet to be convinced that she would be up to the task of deputy leader. The aim of promoting someone to deputy leadership to better represent the views of women and Maori is laudable, but it cannot be at the expense of the party’s fortunes. I just don’t know whether Mahuta is ready for this, but I suspect it may be beyond her.
Grant Robertson is another frequently being mentioned as potential deputy leader. Unlike Mahuta Robertson does have a high profile. But I am yet to be convinced that he is the right person for the job. Robertson has spent years inside politics, even before becoming an MP, and he worked for Helen Clark. However, voters have sent a reasonably strong message to Labour that they want the party to move away from the Clark era. I regard Robertson as one of Labour's most talented MPs, but his timing might be off.
Shane Jones is also a potential candidate. He would appeal to Maori voters but would also be attractive to many non-Maori. Jones is intelligent, witty and clever, but he probably stands a bit too much the right of the party, and he would also spend most of his time as deputy having to fend off lewd remarks about that incident.
My pick as deputy would be either David Parker, or whichever man loses the leadership battle.
If you have your own opinion please feel free to comment. We don’t get a vote in caucus, but the party does claim to be listening to us.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Nats To Blame For Autism
From David Cunliffe's Facebook page:
Luckily for Cunliffe his post was followed up by this:
Whangarei meeting was great - over 60 locals and three fine candidates from the North: Kelvin Davis, Lynette Stewart an Pat NewmanA bit harsh on autistic people, I thought. And the National Party. People will blame autism on all sorts of things, but the National Party?
Northland has had National MPs for decades and has nothing but the worse autistics in the country to show for it. This team will wake up the North, before it is too late.
Luckily for Cunliffe his post was followed up by this:
Statistics not autistics in previous comment. Will scrap the auto text on my phone!!!Nevertheless, I await the headline on Kiwiblog tomorrow: Loony Labour Finance Spokesperson Blames Autism on the Nats!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)