Waikato Times endorses a delay
December 1st, 2011 at 12:42 pm by David FarrarToday’s Waikato Times editorial:
Over the next few days the caucus and wider party must articulate a new vision for the party.
But that gives no time to establish why Labour’s share of the vote dropped 7 percentage points from 2008, an 85-year low point for the party. Fairfax blogger David Farrar contends the question Labour should be asking and answering before naming new leaders is why it lost that much support. He notes that in 2002 National dropped 9 percentage points from its 1999 result. It did not replace its leader immediately, but commissioned a review to ascertain where it had gone wrong. The results of the review triggered significant change for the party.
Labour is bound to baulk at taking advice from a Right-wing commentator. But it looks like good advice for any well-beaten party, no matter the colour of its stripes.
It is good advice. I never deliberately give bad advice when I blog, in some sort of psychological trick. Labour would do better to delay their decision. The new leader will get a brief mention before Christmas and then disappear over the summer. Far better to keep the contest going over January and elect the new leader just before Parliament resumes in February, to heaps of publicity.
I can understand Phil Goff not wanting to stay on as Leader for longer than necessary, but there is a sensible solution. Appoint an Acting Leader for two months or so, as they do in Canada. The Acting Leader could be Annette King or even Trevor Mallard.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Interesting that after being told continuously by right wing commentators that the Labour Party could not win while Goff was the leader it is now being told by them to slow down and do a review to find out the reasons why it lost.
[DPF: Mickey seems to suggest that the only factor in the loss was Goff, and that all they need to do is change leaders. I hope Labour continue to listen to his advice]
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Interesting that you never listen and just keep making shit up. Enjoy opposition, you own the farm.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Micky – that would be because it wasn’t the only reason they couldn’t win this time.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Or even more radical; leave the position vacant. With Parliament not sitting, why does the Parliamentary Labour Party need a leader? The party president could chair caucus if you need someone, or they could do what they did in Athens and draw lots.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
What a great idea – appoint King as leader … just imagine how many uncontested multi million dollar contracts she can then sign to make sure her husband stays employed…. The woman is tainted beyond belief…. putting her at the top of the party is so wrong… just so wrong it’s not even worth contemplating. Why not bring Peter Hausmann in to run the party…..
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
All the drawn out publicity made Ed Millibands selection that much more popular?
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Trev as Acting Leader would be a good choice IMHO.
He has plenty of acting experience, after all he acted as campaign strategist (
) and has spent most of his time in parliament acting as an utter prick.
Ideal for the job.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Johnboy
The later wasn’t acting – that is how he is…
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
The languor party do not want to be asking the hard questions. This is because they are really a conservative party defending the status quo on asset sales, don’t touch welfare, leave acc alone, no changes to labour laws, no reform in education. Health apart from acc does not get a mention. None of this is progressive apart from the gay agenda which is but does not really touch middle nz.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Lmao.
Trev as leader.
hahahahahahahaha
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Trevor as leader would actually be good for Labour. Anyone coming in as leader after him would seem like a real breath of fresh air.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Really, this is what they should have been doing 3 years ago. They have, under Phil just wasted the last 3 years. Take as much time as you need to get a new leader, and while they are at it, clean out the dead wood. Luckily for labour, as most of their MPs are list they they won’t have to worry about any peasky by elections and the associate cost of which they don’t have the money.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Several times I think the idea was expressed before the Election, that it was obvious Goff needed to be replaced to have a chance of winning, but no one wanted the ‘poisoned chalice’ – those eligible would rather wait to vie for the position now, after Labour lost.
So, the theory was, if those possible leaders in Labour were not so interested in the party scoring higher, but just after the position, when Goff inevitably stood down, why vote for the bastards.
Now they are scrambling for the job – again without consideration, it would seem, for what is actually best for the Party, so again: why waste very much attention on the bastards.
Despite my contempt, see how restrained I am in my language.
PS: As Goff goes, why not campaign master-mind Mallard as well?
et pour votre intérêt, Johnboy – http://vimeo.com/28551506
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:37 pm
The monstrous wife reminded of someone not very bright Yvette.
Perhaps I am lucky she never delivered my barbed wire.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Interesting that after being told continuously by right wing commentators that the Labour Party could not win while Goff was the leader it is now being told by them to slow down and do a review to find out the reasons why it lost.
Mickey, do you realise you didn’t actually say anything remotely valid?
The righties correctly said that Labour would not win with Goff. But David is not now saying its a mistake to replace him altogether, he is saying Labour should do so with a measured approach.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@mickey savage / greg presland: the reason that Labour suffered its lowest poll results for around 80 years, had more to do with the fact you ran a poor campaign (courtesy of Trevor Mallard) and that Labour opted for big spending policy (courtesy of the Unions) at a time when belts have to be tightened. These issues (plus the fact that Phil Goff clearly followed bad media advice and tried to take on John Key in the area of personalities) led to such an overall poor result.
A clean sweep of the old guard is required within Labour – and I’m sure you know that. Once this clean out has been completed, you’ll then need to work out how to reclaim the traditional left leaning vote that was cannibalised by the Gweens and NZ First.
That’ll keep you busy for a while…
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Maybe labour are hurrying because the election is only 3 years away?
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 2:28 pm
@murray – touche, I lol’d
@presland – god it must be noisy in your head right now. All those excuses as to why Goofy et al failed. Media of course being the primary one. No need for a review, none at all. You just keep doing the same old, eventually the dim witted voters of UnZud will figure out labour are the promised land and come back to your open arms.
‘cept…
No. Sorry, not going to happen. NZ’d knows the global economy is funked, and Goofy’s borrow more (and borrow to invest, I loved that one, that was SO friggen cool!) mantra failed. Epic fail. NZ households are paying down debt as a priority right now. Most of us thinking voters get it. Thank god Goofy and his mates got the arse. And they did, it was a big stiff one right back at ya. JK and Nationals mandate was 48% for, 1 million other votes silent acceptence. labour was 27% of the voting population. Hell, Winston on 3 weeks can get nearly 7%.
Damn thats gotta hurt.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Yeah, full moon should go to the top of the dung heap, every dung heap heeds a blowfly.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Does anyone else get the impression Shane Jones is about to quit Parliament? his behaviour the last few days has been a bit odd to say the least.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:48 pm
The only Labour MPs ‘allowed’ to leave parliamant this term are list ones. Labour can’t afford the by election/s cost and neither can it take the risk of being further beaten in yet another election so soon.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Whatever insights it may gain from any post-election analysis there is very little Labour can actually do to change seeing as it is little more than the political wing of state employees, and whose sole purpose is to plunder the productive sector.
All it can do it try and think up appropriate new bribes – again at the expense of workers in the productive sector – to draw in sufficient votes from other special-interest groups.
This is the new class system: militant and politically organised state employees versus the workers in the productive sector; with the state employees typically earning more, retiring earlier, having greater job security and taking more sick leave.
Vote:Perhaps their Labour Party should propose a new law so that the rest of us also have to carry their heavy shopping home from the supermarket? I mean, why not?