Tensions within Labour
This has the potential to get interesting. Firstly Goff does a further u-turn on the foreshore and seabed:
Opposition leader Phil Goff has indicated Labour is backing away from its stance of allowing customary title of the foreshore and seabed to be awarded to iwi that meet the criteria involved.
Labour’s submission to the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act earlier this year recommended the legislation be amended to allow customary title, rather than simple redress and protection of customary rights. …
Asked to clarify whether that meant its position on customary title had changed, Mr Goff told the Herald he remained open to considering it but would first have to be convinced it was necessary.
So Phil Goff is advocating a position different to Labour’s own submission on the law. As expected, this is causing some tensions within Labour, according to Vernon Small:
Labour leader Phil Goff will be asked to explain his controversial “nationhood” speech at next week’s party caucus meeting.
Discontent, especially on the Left of the party, has centred around Mr Goff’s comments on the foreshore and seabed policy.
A Leader who has to “explain” a speech to Caucus has some problems.
Labour sources said Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson questioned the speech at last week’s caucus meeting. He was again expected to be prominent among those expressing concerns at next Tuesday’s caucus meeting.
It is significant that Grant is leading the charge, for several reasons.
The first is that Grant will just be doing his job as a local MP. Wellington Central is a very liberal seat, and Labour activists there are very liberal. I have no doubt Grant will have been bombarded by supporters asking what the fuck is going on.
The second is that Grant is often (correctly) described as a future Labour Party Leader. Despite being first term, he is a heavyweight in caucus. Having Grant criticise a speech by the Leader, is not the same as having George Hawkins criticise it.
The third is that Grant is clearly from the leftish faction in Caucus. Now under Helen Clark factional warfare almost ended, and the factions were informal and flexible. But Goff’s speech and the reaction to it, may be the start of the factions becoming a bit more significant.
Sources said the party’s ruling council had already asked Mr Goff to explain the speech on Saturday .
“There will be questions at caucus on Tuesday,” one senior MP said.
The party’s council is almost exclusively from the liberal left side, so this is no surprise.
But another discounted a move against Mr Goff’s leadership, saying the concern should not be read as a sign of “deep divisions” in the party.
Oh absolutely it is premature to start talking of moves against the leadership. Such a possibility would not be considered until late 2010 at the earliest, and even then only if the polls remain dire after the 2010 budget.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Poor old Goff – he will say anything to try and achieve any skerrick of relevance in the current NZ political landscape.
His first flip-flop didn’t work, now he’s doing donuts!
December 4th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Phil – why did you not ring New York to learn out how to squash any caucus dissidents –
Helen/Heather could tell you how easy it is – you frighten them, of course, before revolution happens, but perhaps somebody else in your caucus has already been spoken to, from there.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
John Key changing his mind and visiting Copenhagen = “U-turn” and about $5000 from Lucy Lawless.
Phil Goff changing his mind and re-re-revisiting foreshore and seabed = “please explain” and priceless.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:55 am
It is interesting that the criticism comes from the left.
My prognosis for Labour is that it is likely to follow the same path as National after 1999.
It will first try a moderate, pragmatic centrist (English/Goff). But since centrists are happy with the Govt of the day this will not gain Labour support and will cause support to hemorrhage from the left (just what happened to national in 2002).
It will react to its crushing in 2011 in the same way National reacted to its crushing in 2002: it will change leaders, veer to the left and rally its base (just as national veered right under Don Brash). This produce a better result but will still fail because voters want a middle-of-the-road govt.
Labour will then react in the same way as National did after 2005. Desperate for power, it will rush back to the centre with (probably) another new leader. Whether it can credibly do so (as National did) remains to be seen.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Yep, there is questioning, and the left-wing blogs have so indicated at great length. But a lot less pointed than Ms O’Sullivan variously suggesting that Mr Key is leftward-lurching, incompetent and should be rolled for his lack of supply-side cojones. Matthew 7:5 applies.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:08 am
So Phil Goff is advocating a position different to Labour’s own submission on the law.
Yes, he did so during his Nationhood speech, which I pointed out, but not many others appeared to note the significance of that. I called it a U Turn just as Brash also did a U Turn earlier on a similar issue.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Its a disgraceful speech, that simple.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Perhaps Liarbore should sign up old Trotts. According to his latest rantings in this morning’s rag we should all embrace the dark side. With commitment like that the man deserves his 15 minutes of fame. Love to see his socialism competing with Shonkeys socialism, should be good for a laugh.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am
DPF: ‘The second is that Grant is often (correctly) described as a future Labour Party Leader.’
Certainly agree but later on maybe, but obviously not this too early in electoral cycle as he is too queer (and good on him for being open about it) for the electorate at the moment, no offence intended but the electoral cycle had swung quite heavily against the perception that Labour was PC, too liberal etc and if they were to put him in now it would be politically fatal as National looks set for a comfortable run into a 2nd term… So yes agree David that if things get really bad in 2010 who knows what the caucus will do, personally I think Robertson is too far in the future to be wheeled out as leader this early so would be interested in anyones thoughts on who is next in line for the tough job that Goff has as the post election (2008) seat warmer till Labour have a chance again…
I think later on Robertson will certainly flex his political muscles (when he has more electoral appeal for a wider national audience) as he has been very active as an electorate MP straight away and is doing the hard yards and is an active political operator…
I think a lot of people don’t realise that Goff is just a seat warmer/care taker leader (even though they aren’t able to admit it as they have to pretend they have a chance in 2011) as the electoral swing against Labour to National was pretty heavy last year and whoever was going to be leader was going to struggle and Goff was the sensible choice at the time for them to rebuild their party for their next turn in govt.
In a managerial sense (shuffling things around internally for the future maybe, keeping discipline – so far except until now ironically with his own speech…) he is good but he is not politically in touch with the electorate (thus his cynical nationhood speech), I would expect some ground work coming to fruition much later on in the future so will be interesting to see if things get so bad that they have to dump Goff early to avoid an electoral blood bath like the Nats did under English in 02…
Also, what about Andrew Little, he has been touted as a leader in 2011 if he were to run (is it likely he will run still or is he content with the Presidency of the party??) and that could cause friction if there is an ambitious new leader (intending to win an election in the future after saving an electoral rout in 2011) in before he comes in expecting to be leader. Or maybe a senior electorate MP could retire and he could come in with a by election… Personally I am not into Little as there is something really cynical about him and it is not just his dual union leadership/Labour Presidency (I am just not comfortable with people who are touted as future leaders before they even come into Parliament)…
Anyway if Goff were to be axed early who do people think would weild the ax?
Cheers
December 4th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Jeff83 – a disgraceful speech indeed, almost as bad as Brash’s with the same title in 2004. He deserves as much shit as the Labour caucus can throw at him. Personally, I hope they give him the boot, but with no obvious replacement ready to step up I doubt that will happen.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@Nick Archer: I wonder if Mallard calls Robertson “Tinkerbell” too?
December 4th, 2009 at 11:37 am
God help us*. John Keyless followed by Grant Robertson? :
– I worked at the United Nations in New York – as a New Zealand diplomat, representing NZ views…
– I managed NZ Overseas Aid Programme to Samoa – a $7.7 million fund with projects in diverse areas such basic education…
– I was an advisor to the Prime Minister and to the Hon. Marian Hobbs.
– I was working promoting and developing the basic and commercial research activities of the University of Otago in Wellington.
http://www.grantrobertson.co.nz/about/
*But there is no God, of course, so we’re stuffed.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am
i think goff should be rolled…
a large part of the problem labour face is their ‘past’..
stretching all the way back to when they opened up the wage gulf with australia..
..with their far-right experiment at the hands of roger douglas..
that was the point in time when everything started to screw up..
..and which has brought us to this sorry state..
goff was one of those gimlet-eyed zealots that clustered around douglas..
all of this just confirms how much goff is yesterdays’-man..
and for labour to have any chance at the next election..
goff has to be got rid of as soon as possible..
to give the new leader time to build themselves as a credible alternative to key..
the oid dogma..of goff caretaking thru to the next election..must be swept away..
labour/the planet/we .. don’t have the time to waste..
roll goff..!..now..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 4th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Like some kind of prose there Philu…
What I want to know is who will roll him (BIG RISK but hey hasn’t stopped this sort of thing happening in politics before!) and who will be the new leader if they do roll him.
ANY IDEAS ANYONE??
Cheers
December 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The past is all they have. Their core beliefs (naiveties?) are a reaction to one period in time when the pendulum had swung against working people. But they failed to see that the system is dynamic and they’ve not learnt anything since.
They can dress it up as much as they like with talk of social justice, opportunities and equality, but to put it charitably, they misunderstand from where wealth and prosperity comes, and for that reason they can’t find it when they lead the country.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Given Robertson is from the far left of Labour and is a gay activist, he might have a hard job taking Labour into power. Depends on the winds of public opinion and prejudices, of course, but historically these have swung about rather than blown continuously in one direction. In Western civilisation, gays haven’t regained the tolerance they had in Ancient Greece, for example.
Regardless of whether gender orientation should be a political issue, it naturally is for an activist, no matter how unjust that is when compared with society’s political treatment of those who hide or even deny an unpopular orientation.
Personally, I wouldn’t vote for a Robertson-led government because of his history with the UN and with Clark. I don’t give a bugger about his personal life.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I would welcome an openly gay Leader of the opposition and, in time, PM.
It would be glorious to see the stunned reaction of all the people (homophobes, evangelical christians, moral conservatives, and idiots of every colour) who were forever dropping cowardly insinuations about Clark & Davis’ supposed relationships.
I would watch with glee as their mouths opened and closed, slowly, trying to in vain to vent their horror and incredulity, impotently ejaculating “But………” “But………..” “But…….” like so many right-wing goldfish.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
@RRM A bit difficult to ejaculate when impotent you’d think.
But I wouldn’t know.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“..Depends on the winds of public opinion and prejudices, of course, but historically these have swung about rather than blown continuously in one direction. In Western civilisation, gays haven’t regained the tolerance they had in Ancient Greece, for example…”
um..!..wasn’t there already a ‘lady’ mp…who used to be a bloke..?
..around these parts..?
elected by an area regarded as red-kneck central..?
just asking..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 4th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
have we already had one..?..a gay p.m..?
does anyone know..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“..The past is all they have. Their core beliefs (naiveties?) are a reaction to one period in time when the pendulum had swung against working people..”
that’d be the years since rogernomics..?
the decades when the labour party was lost in the freemarket-jungle..?
(before it was all self-clear-felled..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Toad
What was wrong with the Brash speech?
It was not racist, it was not aggressive, he did not call anybody a motherfucker and unlike D4J, he did not call for a race war.
All Brash said was that he wanted an end to race based privilege.
Please tell me what is wrong with that?
December 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I reckon Goff could be rolled and replaced by shonKey. Nobody would even notice the change.
Both speak rubbish, do little and are vacuous and vague when opining. Tweedledum and Tweedledee reincarnated.
You have to wonder how much has NZ regressed when we have these two non-entities as “leaders” of the largest political parties.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“..All Brash said was that he wanted an end to race based privilege…”
there would need to be quite the wealth-transfer from the pakeha-elites..to the indigenous-folk..
..to achieve that (desired) balance..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 4th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Err, I think you’re forgetting that Grant can easily change his persona for the public who have such short memories. Helen Clark was all sorts before she got into the upper levels of the Labour Party and I suspect Grant will also start to look differently. Maybe bag a wife, take on a “man of the people” image, buy a farm… Labour are pretty good at pulling the wool over peoples eyes
[DPF: Grant already has a "husband" and I am pretty sure he is not allowed a wife and a husband.]