Small on Goff’s Gaffes

December 9th, 2010 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

writes in the Dom Post:

Only the God of politics could have delivered Don Brash walking a plank when his party was preparing to dump him. It took the same divine intervention to make John Key say he was going to lead “a Government” when some hardliners in his party were worrying his compromising style would create a “-lite” administration.

The same evil deity had his sport with Labour leader this week. First it made him refer to his finance spokesman David Cunliffe as David Caygill – reminding anyone who can remember that far back that he was part of the 1980s Labour Government and the legacy that Labour has been so keen to distance itself from.

Then he shot himself squarely in the foot by saying at least he had not said he would be the leader of a Labour government.

Well, if you say so, Phil.

And that quote also made Page 2 of yesterday’s Dom Post. It has not been a good week with a no confidence letter from Te Atatu, a speech that flopped, two gaffes and now Manurewa at civil war and a possible by-election.

If Mr Goff wants to increase his extremely slim chances of an upset at the next election, the process is all too slow and too late.

Of course, the received wisdom is that oppositions should keep their policy powder dry till close to the election when voters are focused, the media are more even- handed between the government and the opposition and your best ideas cannot be stolen by your rivals.

But these are not normal times.

Mr Goff is a decent and able politician.

But he is up against perhaps the most popular prime minister in his lifetime. If he and Labour seriously think that in a presidential-style campaign he can shade Mr Key they are dreaming.

If they think he can be sold as the experienced solid alternative – when Miss Clark failed on that score – they have not been watching the crises Mr Key had to negotiate in his first two years as prime minister.

It amazes me how badly Labour under-estimate John Key. You think they will have learnt by now. National never liked Helen Clark, but they always had a healthy respect for her political abilities. Labour seems to believe their own (plagiarised from right wing blogs) slogans.

Labour’s slim hope is that National will lose the election through a series of unforeseen errors or disasters or a severe downturn in the economy.

And that is not impossible. Unlikely, but can’t be ruled out.

Goff needs to do a re-shuffle to have a better chance of victory. The entire front-bench are Ministers thrown out at the last election. Goff needs to promote to the front bench and second row new MPs such as Robertson, Hipkins, Nash, Curran, Twyford and Shearer etc.

Tags: , ,

27 Responses to “Small on Goff’s Gaffes”

  1. jaba (2,120 comments) says:

    seems a fair summary .. much of what he has said has been mentioned here for ages .. his front bench simply lack credibility. If they did win the election with that lot then god help us all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    But what Goff does have that nobody else does is the cowboy strut.
    He could win with that :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. fizzleplug (72 comments) says:

    Goff also has Spud, on Red Alert. Possibly Kris Fa’afoi in disguise (not much of a disguise though).

    And after watching him speak to the media after his speech the other day,it appears he’s developing a William Shatner-like speech impediment.

    There’s. (We)

    Something. (Won’t)

    On. (Take)

    The. (Divi)

    Wing! (dends)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. queenstfarmer (770 comments) says:

    It amazes me how badly Labour under-estimate John Key

    Indeed, they have truly misunderestimated him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    I doubt whether anyone in the Labour caucus has lost much sleep over the content of the leaked Te Atatu letter. The LEC has destroyed whatever credibility it had by suggesting that Chris Carter deserves a second chance.
    The letter is clearly an exercise in spite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    I wonder if Clare Curran will see that DPF has included her in the list of MP’s that could be promoted. After all, Clare appears to be an enthusiastic reader of Kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    John Key and Bill English have one major concern next year, and that has to be the global financial crisis. The public would have to trust that John Key and Bill English are the right Men for the job to steer us through it, for National to stay in power.
    One other issue that may occur is a breakdown with the Maori party over the S&F bill.
    Phil Goff must be praying for something to go in his favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Jimbob asking around about the S &F bill I was surprised at the amount of anger in Maoridom from the fact the so called ownership Maori get is not up to the standaed of fee simple.
    One bloke who is very mild was angered over the fact that visitors to NZ can buy some fee simple Foreshore than put a sign up stating no dogs, no hories on my American owned land.

    All the hori MPs in the Nat party seem to be practicing their yes boss no boss to Key and co about the Foreshore.
    If the Maori party MPs are not very careful the Maori seats will go straight back to Labour with the exception of Hone’s seat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    The difference is Grumpy that the visitor BOUGHT the foreshore.

    You Murri’s want us to GIVE you the foreshore (that you lost in a war) so you can put up the “keep out honkies sign”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. starboard (2,516 comments) says:

    The difference is Grumpy that the visitor BOUGHT the foreshore.

    You Murri’s want us to GIVE you the foreshore (that you lost in a war) so you can put up the “keep out honkies sign”.

    Bawhahahaha! Good one JB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pongo (371 comments) says:

    The big speech he made was a copy and paste from Ed Milliband addressing the UK Labour party, has he nothing original to stay. Even Cunliffes great speech actually said absolutely nothing, just hopeless.
    I agree with them withdrawing their support on the foreshore and seabed debacle of Finlayson too, while they are doing it to save being bled dry by Winston I think it is an absolute shocker to have the attorney general decide who gets what is outrageous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. labrator (1,893 comments) says:

    Was it the earthrace boat that Brash walked the plank off? The boat that became the Ady Gill and was skuttled in the southern ocean? Quite a notorious little boat, if my memory is correct, considering it killed a South American fisherman as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    I just love how much you highlight Phil Goff’s incompetence, DPF.

    Because every time you do so, it as a few hundred more votes for the Greens.

    Keep it up. You are doing well by me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Hey Labrator !.. WTF ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. reid (16,202 comments) says:

    “Because every time you do so, it is a few hundred more votes for the Greens.”

    Really? So lots of potential Green voters read KB? Bugger me. I’d always thought they were all completely mental. Perhaps some of them aren’t, after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. big bruv (13,688 comments) says:

    ” I’d always thought they were all completely mental. Perhaps some of them aren’t, after all.

    Name one that is not………just one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @reid 8:37 pm

    Lots of Greens read KB, reid. A small number of us bother to comment (sometime I wonder why I bother).

    But it is always good to know what our political adversaries are up to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Pongo 6:13 pm

    Agreed, Pongo. It was a crap speech, and it was plagiarised from Ed Milliband. It focused on giving more money to people who already have enough money to get by if they don’t want to buy a $60K car to legitimise their wannabe status.

    It completely ignored the many New Zealanders who are struggling in extreme poverty on the minimum wage or on a benefit.

    As I said above, a few hundred (or maybe thousand) more votes for the Greens.

    Thanks, Fill-in Goff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    “Name one that is not………just one.”

    Gareth Hughes?

    http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Green_at_Heart_-_Gareth.pdf

    Well maybe he is still mental. Its just that he’s stopped dressing like a clown since his salary went up a lot. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. reid (16,202 comments) says:

    But it is always good to know what our political adversaries are up to.

    Why? It’s just… what are you going to do about it?

    Name one that is not………just one.

    Er… um…. er…. hmmmm…..

    …toad?

    …sometimes I wonder why I bother.

    I do too toad. Joining the Greens I mean. Seriously it’s just their entire manifesto is made up of policies dreamed up in fantasy by children who don’t yet understand practical reality. Yes there is a segment of voters who are equally naive and apparently that’s around 7% and climbing. Consequently these children get elected. Like children, the Greens are appealing, because they say things that are very human but which apply only in an ideal world. When it comes to adult games where their policies would be implemented, they’re not even in the ballpark. Would you take career advice from a 10-year-old for example? Sometimes I think in order to excise this cancer it would be best for the country were the Greens to just once hold the balance of power and then, when the reef-fish see what their actual policies wrought, they would never ever vote for the Greens ever again. I don’t think the Greens realise how incredibly foolish every single one of their policies actually are for I know that all of them are actually very caring and humane people. It’s just they don’t understand how life works. There is nothing wrong with having a radical transformation agenda, provided one understands precisely how to move society from where it actually is to where it needs to get to and this is where the Greens fall down. They have no path to do this, for they don’t understand society. They think they do, but they don’t.

    Same with Liarbore except they are adults and they’re cynical and unlike the Greens know exactly what they’re doing and they do it regardless of whether it will work or not. Take Phil’s latest policy of ditching the Foreshore Act in favour of letting the courts decide. That’s actually the correct approach but what it will do is to continue the gravy train of taxpayer-funded litigation for yet another 30 years and achieve tremendous division in the country because judges are up themselves (just like politicians) and think they know better but unlike politicians, aren’t held to account by the entire country every so often. In an ideal world I’d agree with ACT, the Greens and Liarbore with respect to this policy but in the realpolitik it won’t work and will cause tremendous harm. I find it amusing that Goff’s reversing his own party’s stance, it’s just a shame he didn’t have the guts to form a ginger group when Hulun first announced it, which shows what sort of person he is: i.e. desperate and without principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Toad, you wish but if disillusionment is your bag then you go for mate.

    Grumpy, careful for what you wish. Ownership of the FS&SB may seem like the best thing since sliced bread. Quite frankly I see nothing but trouble. If our local situation is anything to go by then it won’t be the nasty honky that’s putting the spanner in the works but it will be Maori against Maori. Already local Hapu are looking at each other in the eye waiting for the flag to fall. Most of these people have known each other for years and are good friends but greed and the hope for a windfall can do bad things. The wife’s family ( Maori ) have lived on the coast for years but even they struggle when talk of ownership raises it’s head. But the main problem I see is that some Maori are only to willing to embrace the white way and their rules yet fail to realise Maori society as a whole has a more “socialist” outlook on life. I’m afraid all the government will do is create another brown aristocracy with Hapu leaders waving the big stick and having a thick wallet. Maori don’t seem to be big on democracy when it comes to their own The government and the courts will rue the day they try to grant fee simple on land to Hapu without somehow working out a way individual Maoris can sell legally what is theirs. This is a very real problem i.e my wife owns land along with other 13 family members. She wishes to give her land to the rest of the family, the Maori land court will not allow this nor may she sell it. If fee simply is granted, individual Maori must be giving the right, if they can prove it so, to sell their land. Collectivism isn’t going to work any more. I see a pandora’s box of problems that haven’t even being considered.

    Meanwhile Phil of it, surely he’s been in parliament long enough to retire with a good pension, I suggest he avails himself of it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    Given that Key only called the Secretary of State ‘President’ Clinton about three weeks ago, isn’t it a bit rich to be having a go at Goff DPF? Fuck, who hasn’t got a name mixed up at some point in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. reid (16,202 comments) says:

    “Meanwhile Phil of it, surely he’s been in parliament long enough to retire with a good pension, I suggest he avails himself of it”

    He’s not a leader SSB. Never has been. Never will be. Best he could have ever been is a Senior Minister but Hulun never let him and politics is his life’s work so one can understand why he’s done what he’s done.

    He’ll lose the next election really really badly despite all the nasty cunning he’ll display but at the end of the day, he’s an also ran and the worst part of that is that he clearly believes it himself and that’s why he’s normally hopeless as a speaker.

    When he’s passionate about something he comes across OK but the last time that happened was at the ACC bike rally a year ago and that was his hobby. His normal interviews suck because he knows it’s all bullshit.

    It’s interesting isn’t it that the left despite their rhetoric always produce the most venal self-serving politicians. The right quite often produce altruistic ones. Why for example are there various millionaires/very high earners in National serving in politics? You don’t often find that in the left, cause all they’ve got is self-interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @ reid: 9:17 pm

    Take Phil’s latest policy of ditching the Foreshore Act in favour of letting the courts decide. That’s actually the correct approach…

    I agree. It is just that Labour have taken forever to come around to the position the Greens and (dubiously, because there has been some racist dogwhistling going on from ACT too) ACT have held for a long time.

    Labour have no doubt run heaps of focus groups, and maybe a couple of opinion polls as well, and found out their position was electorally unpopular.

    But I don’t agree that is what politics should be about. Political parties should front up with what they genuinely believe, and stand or fall by it.

    There should be no MMP threshold – even the bigots from NZFirst should have representation proportional to their support.

    It would probably split both the Labour and National Parties, both of which are disparate coalitions united only by the desire for political power, into several smaller parties.

    But that would be good, because more people would be genuinely represented and parties would actually espouse what their genuine political programme is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    I think Phil is ace, and definitely the best man for the job. He is a true Man. A Man of truth, and principle. A Man to rely on, and take at his very Word. Never has he ever varied or changed track.

    He is a surefire winner for someone. The only other man that is in any way better is the balanced, and empathetic Cunliffe.

    Now he really does impress me. And besides which, he already ‘runs the show’.

    What a Guy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. reid (16,202 comments) says:

    I agree. It is just that Labour have taken forever to come around to the position the Greens and (dubiously, because there has been some racist dogwhistling going on from ACT too) ACT have held for a long time.

    I think your memory is faulty toad. ACT’s position has been consistent since the issue first broke in 2004. Perhaps you’re practicing selective memory?

    But I don’t agree that is what politics should be about. Political parties should front up with what they genuinely believe, and stand or fall by it.

    But political parties never do this toad. Political parties are made up almost entirely if not entirely of activists so far outside the mainstream as to be electorally unacceptable. All political parties if they were honest would espouse totally unacceptable perspectives to the electorate. They moderate them only because they’re not stupid. (Apart from the Greens which explains why they’ve never held power.)

    There should be no MMP threshold – even the bigots from NZFirst should have representation proportional to their support. It would probably split both the Labour and National Parties, both of which are disparate coalitions united only by the desire for political power, into several smaller parties. But that would be good, because more people would be genuinely represented and parties would actually espouse what their genuine political programme is.

    Yes that would be good toad IF people genuinely knew what was good for them. Yes, I know that’s patronising, but it’s true. Most people are more interested in who Madonna is dating than the latest policy on the West Coast Wetlands and therefore how the fuck would they know whether or not it was a good idea to allow the coalmine to go ahead which may or may not decimate the last known habitat of the rare spotted warbler. How the fuck would people make a WISE decision on that if the Greens had TV ads running that said it was the end of the world if it allowed the first sod to be turned and ACT ran ads saying it would produce exports sufficient to allow us to catch up to Australia by 23 July next year? How the fuck would your average reef-fish decide on that? Yes, I know, you and I and everyone else on this blog would see straight through this bullshit on both sides and would make our usual well-informed balanced judgements, but given past experience, how the fuck would you average reef-fish respond.

    What you suggest is the recipe which has seen US politics descend into a purely partisan nightly punch and judy farce which is just as superficial as the actual real puppet show: i.e. adds nothing of real value to the scheme of things.

    IMO your proposal is something to avoid at all costs lest we want to become a nation of morons run by cynics, for all the good people like you and I would immediately leave, having seen the writing on the wall, long before the consequences began to hit home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    “Labour’s slim hope is that National will lose the election through a series of unforeseen errors or disasters…”

    Just one disaster will do: Cyclone Winston.

    Bob Jones predicted some time back, to great amusement, that Goff would become PM in 2011 because Peters would return as kingmaker and Maori would return to Labour.

    Not looking so silly now, is he?

    If Winston is kingmaker, Goff just needs to outbauble Key and he’s king. Peters would have no love for Key after the way Key (quite rightly) ruled him out last time, so, all baubles being equal, it would be in Peters’ nature to play the revenge card.

    Is there any bad blood between Peters and Goff? Not that I can recall. And both are arguably further to the right than Key.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.