Pundits on Goff

December 9th, 2009 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

John Armstrong writes:

emerged from Labour’s caucus meeting yesterday claiming his MPs were unanimous in their backing of both the tone and content of his now-infamous “nationhood” speech. There is no reason to doubt him. Short of doing what is currently the unthinkable – toppling him – the caucus had little option but to weigh in behind their leader – in public at least.

I’m reminded of the old adage that anytime a Caucus feels the need to pledge unanimous support for a leader, the coup is not far off. Not as Armstrong says, this is not the case at the moment – but unanimous pledges of support are things best avoided.

There could be no halfway house. The priority was to present a united front to the world outside. That was evident in Goff and party president Andrew Little, who has acknowledged party members’ worries with aspects of the speech, entering the meeting shoulder-to-shoulder.

Given Labour is rating around 30 per cent support in the polls – 20 percentage points behind National – the party could not afford go into the summer recess amidst internal dissent and with questions over the leader’s actions unresolved.

Goff insists he was not playing the race card when he gave the speech. If he was not overtly playing the race card, however, he knew perfectly well that he was producing enough evidence – be it the use of loaded language like “porkbone politics” or the choice of a provincial city audience for the speech – to lay himself open to that charge.

Yeah I’d love him to make that speech at Ratana, on even in Wellington Central, rather than Palmerston North Greypower. Instead Goff says he is not going to talk about the topic again. Dr Brash had the sincerity of his convictions and was happy to defend his views from one end of the country to another.

The PM put it this way yesterday: the tragedy of Phil Goff was that he had made a speech he did not believe in and as a result the Labour Party no longer believed in him. Not quite. The party has to believe in Goff because for the time being it has no one else it can believe in.

What Goff’s advisors do not realise is that the speech did not have credibility coming from someone who has been an MP for around 30 years and a Cabinet Minister in the last Government.

Colin Espiner blogs:

What I found interesting was that neither Goff nor Little tried to deny that there had been discontent within the party over the speech – they simply used the usual political euphemisms such as “robust debate” and the intriguing comment that “the Labour Party is not a Stalinist organisation”.

Heh the missing words are “no longer” 🙂

Ironically while Goff claims Labour is not “Stalinist” and has always vigorously debated issues, that actually isn’t true. It didn’t debate very much at all when Helen Clark was in charge, and that’s why Labour was so successful.

I’ve no doubt the party is probably a more relaxed and even pleasant place to be now that Clark and her iron-fisted rule have gone, but the free flow of debate and opinion can always be interpreted the wrong way if one isn’t careful.

That’s all I think has happened with Goff’s speech – at least, so far. No one is going to use this to challenge the leader, partly because no one else wants the job right now and partly because there are so many people in that caucus who think they are next in line that they’d never get any agreement on a candidate to replace him.

I’ve always said it is likely Goff will survive until the election, but it will be fascinating to see who stands after the election. At a minimum you could expect Jones, Cunliffe and Little.

8 Responses to “Pundits on Goff”

  1. s.russell (2,122 comments) says:

    The Labour caucus shows unusual wisdom in realising that no-one has any better chance of winning them an election than Goff, and that that chance is very small.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Danyl Mclauchlan (991 comments) says:

    I’d love him to make that speech at Ratana

    That would have been really smart politics, especially if members of the crowd had shouted him down or accused him of racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,952 comments) says:

    So does this mean Goff is now free to clear out the leftist losers in his party?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. slightlyrighty (2,446 comments) says:

    I would think that the next leader of the Labour Party in parliament is not yet in Parliament. Or, if he of she is, is keeping a very low profile. Labour has to go through more reinvention and Goff is not the man to do it. We are starting to see the true legacy of Clark and the damage she has done to Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gravedodger (1,707 comments) says:

    Nah they are still open to the suggestion that the next leader is still at school. Jones ,Little , Cunliffe (with silent ‘t’)and why not renew member Anderton.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MT_Tinman (4,436 comments) says:

    Normally I’d suggest that people leave Phil alone because of the fantastic job he’s doing but the idea of a Little led Labour shower intrigues.

    Never seen Labour get nil votes before.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Whafe (652 comments) says:

    Any lefties that feel Phul Goofy will be leading the Liabor party next election has rocks in their heads… There is no way they could even begin to pull more votes with Clown Pants leading the Labour party….

    It is all good for National though, they should storm in with Clown Pants at the helm…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tvb (5,542 comments) says:

    Disunity is death, the Labour Party have got that message very very well. The discipline is impressive even though their unity is a total fiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote