Comments on: ODT on Labour

By: Rod

Rod — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:21:48 +0000

It is so scary to think that this Labour shambles was held together just by the now departed dictatorial H1 and H2 plus Cullen (dare I suggest the third c**t at the top?) – obviously never was any depth to it, but you wouldn’t think that from the media reporting over the last few years. Odd. We badly need a senate or similar arrangement in case they or a similar lot get back into power some time. The problem with JK is that he lulls us into a comfort zone – pretty sure we can trust him at the controls, but the office itself seems to depend too much on the integrity of the individual in the NZ political structure.

By: thedavincimode

thedavincimode — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:25:24 +0000

That whole frightful crooked cabal is revolting.

The more they decline in the polls, the worse they’ll get. They just can’t help themselves. Fortunately for Liarbore, Givament members seem to have taken it upon themselves to enter into Liarbore’s Munter of the Month competition.

If Hide and English and any other givament entrants in this competition actually stopped shooting themselves in the foot and thought about that then Liarbore would eventually just disappear off the significant landscape and that would be a very amusing process to observe. Recent events suggest that this is a distant prospect.

By: Grant Michael McKenna

Grant Michael McKenna — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:25:10 +0000

“The Labour Party Opposition and its leader are enjoying low support”. I’m enjoying it, they are suffering from it.

Yes, I know that it was the secondary meaning of having the use or benefit of something that was being meant, but they aren’t even getting much use out of it either.

By: reid

reid — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:59:21 +0000

Their problem is they don’t have any gas in the tank whereby “gas” = integrity, honesty, selflessness.

They are to a man, liars. Their every public statement is disingenuous. This is how they ran their govt for nine years. Now that the reef-fish have seen the fact that they have no clothes, they have nothing left because they can’t see that they need to totally reverse their strategy and become men of integrity.

Instead they continue to lie naked and exposed before the (finally) critical eyes of the electorate and unless and until they totally eschew their former ways, they will never recover.

By: getstaffed

getstaffed — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:22:28 +0000

Does it mean that the media were giving them a free pass, and now that the meme of the day is “kick Labour” the pendulum has swung well out the other side?

Absolutely.

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:21:56 +0000

If Tamihere thought Maherey was the cheif smarm, then obviously he had never met Cunliffe.

Anyway, my opinion about Maharey is just worth my 2 cents, because it is never going to happen.

I do look forward to Labours election trouncing in 2011 because the subsequent bitch-fight will be spectacular.

By: Adolf Fiinkensein

Adolf Fiinkensein — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:13:32 +0000

Maharey? You must be mad. Let me see now, how did honest John Tamihere describe him? The chief smarm who could produce screeds of nothingness?

By: jabba

jabba — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:10:32 +0000

the ODT piece simply “stated the bleeding obvious” .. mm, where have I heard that before.
I think Dalziel and King are ready to go, poor old George of course and Anderton is simply treading water wondering what to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if Carter pulls the pin (no ref to his friend meant) so there should be opportunities for the new brigade but to be honest .. will they be any better?
The Bishop is on the radio .. gotta go .. I may join up

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:05:33 +0000

Also I think using the Ginger Whinger as media spokesperson/apologist for every cock-up committed by his colleagues, is not working. Poor Hughes red face and 200 word per minute stammering style just give the impression he is spouting bullshit, which half the time he is. Someone like Chavel would be a better option.

Goff, King, Mallard, Carter, Cosgrove, Horomia, Hodgson – the new broom needs to sweep this lot aside if Labour are to have any chance in the future. A purge of Labours other serial bullshitters like Barker and Twyford will also not go amiss. And once the new Tintin movie is out Hipkins media profile is doomed.

Andrew Little should just stop pretending and become an MP. Lightweights like Fenton should just stop pretending to be an MP.

There is a leadership option that would give Key a run for his money – Steve Maharey. He has the everyman appeal that Key possesses. But any SOS call and leadership fast-tracking of Maharey would mean the rolling back of decades of political protocol that Labour could never do. Goff will go in 2011, and the next rung of leadership no-hopers like King and Mallard will scrap for the control of the party carcass.

By: RightNow

RightNow — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:58:01 +0000

I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks Goff is just a figurehead (and an almost invisible one at that). I can’t help thinking he’s the nominated patsy, and will fall on his sword probably at the start of the 2011 campaign to take the bullet for Labour.
Labour seem to be a headless chicken at the moment. Much of their attitude suggests they still feel entitled to be the government though, especially with the TVNZ7 Plain English promo affair. Why should any party get equal airtime to the government outside of campaign time? It’s not mandated anywhere is it?

By: PaulL

PaulL — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:57:33 +0000

It’s interesting the way the tide turns so suddenly. Labour in govt were seen as being quite competent in a political sense – they were well on message for their first two terms at least. Their third term was quite a bit more shaky, and now they are in a complete shambles.

Does this mean that Helen and Cullen were holding everything together, and as some said at the time, the talent pool was more a puddle?

Does it mean that the media were giving them a free pass, and now that the meme of the day is “kick Labour” the pendulum has swung well out the other side?

Is it just the natural way of politics – and if so, what can National and others learn from it so as to better manage through these periods in the future? It seems a bit to me that it is like the economic cycle. Booms and busts will come and go, it is the natural order of things. You can’t stop them, and they are self perpetuating – it’s almost chaos theory at work. But what you can influence to some extent is how you react to them, and therefore how long they last for.

I think the art of politics isn’t so much to try and stay in power for ever (that won’t happen), but to manage the renewal of your team and of your ideas in such a way as to maximise the booms (periods in power) and minimise the busts (periods in opposition).

It seems to me that the best way to achieve this is to groom a successor very well, and to transition to that person before the election you’re going to lose. Then to let that person rebuild a new team, with an eye to a decent showing in the first term, and to win the second.

What we see with the transfers of power in the Liberal party in Aus is no such planning. We see people who have leadership aspirations but perhaps not the talent (yes Bill, thinking of you) who want to have their go. We see the real talent coming to the fore after all the no-hopers have tried and failed. And, to some extent, I think we’re seeing that you maybe have to churn the leadership a couple of times before it settles.

It could be quite an interesting study to work out what the natural trajectory is.

By: tvb

tvb — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:54:24 +0000

Labour has a number of people at the top who are very tainted. It is a very pointed observation that when Labour has done something wrong – where is Phill??? Being Leader also means fronting things to show the public you’re in charge and will deal with it. Goff’s absence over Phillip Field is one obvious gap. The Rick Barker dodgy poll thing – where was Phil. It is pretty clear to me that Goff knew all about the dodgy polling but was conveniently absent when questions were asked. Does anyone seriously think that Barker could have access to the Leaders’ fund without Goff’s CONSENT?? Or is Goff really saying, nope nothing to do with me, Barker just helped himself?? Now we have this latest over Mallard. I assume Goff will remain silent and hope to avoid media scrutiny. This is not the stuff of a Prime Minister and the public sense it. I think Goff is a very able fellow but I do not think he is a Leader.