Hard News: To be expected
163 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Moz, in reply to
Oh, come on. There are about a dozen attacks on Labour in a not-very-long thread, a
In your honour I counted 42 comments, 12 critical of Labour of which I think 7 count as attacks. "Bad mistake on Labour's part", for example, is critical but not an attack, while "they reneged on rod and janette" I'm counting as an attack.
From which I gather you're counting any criticism of Labour as an attack, or you're reading with a bias where attacks shine through in a way that other comments don't.
-
But (I think) the sensible thing for Labour to do in this situation would be to say to the Greens ‘We’ll think about it. Maybe closer to the election. Let’s keep talking.’
Sounds like they already did say that.
From Audrey Young in the Herald
Mr Cunliffe told the Herald tonight he envisaged that Labour would try to negotiate a formal coalition agreement with the Greens after the election,
"The Labour Party will be the core of the incoming Government working co-operatively with the Green Party who are our longstanding friends.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
From which I gather you’re counting any criticism of Labour as an attack, or you’re reading with a bias where attacks shine through in a way that other comments don’t.
Nah, I'm not, but "corrupt", "spineless", "lost at sea", "flailing", "owned by the unions" et al did seem unhelpful to me.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Sounds like they already did say that.
Also:
"I'm the leader of the Labour Party and my job is to maximize the Labour Party vote," he said ...
But Labour would quite possibly be working with other parties as well "and whatever the coalition arrangements are, they need to be able to spread across more than two parties."
This seems clear and reasonable to me.
-
Mr Cunliffe told the Herald tonight he envisaged that Labour would try to negotiate a formal coalition agreement with the Greens after the election,
“The Labour Party will be the core of the incoming Government working co-operatively with the Green Party who are our longstanding friends.
That’s not the same thing at all. If the press goes to John Key and asks him if he’ll give the Conservative Party a seat this election he won’t say, ‘No. We’ll talk to them after the election. My job is to maximise the National vote.’ He’ll say. ‘We haven’t made any decisions either way yet.’ Maybe it’ll be a smart thing to do six weeks out from the election. But maybe it won’t. He’s keeping his options open because he has no idea what’s going to happen and because he’s smart and likes winning elections.
Labour doesn’t know what the election campaign will look like either! Six weeks out from the election it might be a good idea to campaign in tandem with the Greens - just as it was for them to team up with the Alliance during the 1999 campaign - at which point it would have been helpful to have had three months of preliminary discussions. Sure, it might also look like a terrible idea, but now they don’t get to choose. And they risk losing soft-Labour voters to the Greens.
-
bmk,
My first thoughts on hearing about it this morning. Is Labour are clearly thinking they can redo 2005; go into coalition with NZF and negotiate abstention from the Greens for a few tokens.
What their mistake is is that the Greens will make up a much bigger portion of the parliament than they did in 2005. I think the Greens should initiate talks with National at least to prove to Labour they can't be taken for granted. And tbh I think I may well prefer a National-Green govt. than a Labour-NZF one - especially the way Labour have been operating.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Hard to see that's not the play though, right? It's a clever way to bash Labour as being untrustworthy etc --- the 2005 trope reappears with depressing predictability --- and emphasise the importance of voting Green if you're wavering Green/Labour. Shades of Corngate.
Oh, who's being a wee bit precious now? If you want to go there, this is quite a clever way for Labour to dog-whistle the Greens as flaky and entitled, so a vote for the Greens is just the splitter's way to guarantee three more years of National. That's the play, right?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
My first thoughts on hearing about it this morning. Is Labour are clearly thinking they can redo 2005; go into coalition with NZF and negotiate abstention from the Greens for a few tokens.
What their mistake is is that the Greens will make up a much bigger portion of the parliament than they did in 2005.
I do honestly think they know that. And that their hope is to be negotiating a coalition with the Greens after the election.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Labour doesn’t know what the election campaign will look like either! Six weeks out from the election it might be a good idea to campaign in tandem with the Greens – just as it was for them to team up with the Alliance during the 1999 campaign – at which point it would have been helpful to have had three months of preliminary discussions. Sure, it might also look like a terrible idea, but now they don’t get to choose. And they risk losing soft-Labour voters to the Greens.
Steady on. No one was asking John Key whether he wanted to campaign jointly with Colin Craig, were they? What Cunliffe said to Audrey Young hardly seems to constrain him as the election approaches.
-
Steady on. No one was asking John Key whether he wanted to campaign jointly with Colin Craig, were they?
No, I am aware of that thanks. But National doesn't have a large potential coalition partner who just asked them to campaign with them so I used the Conservatives as an analogy.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
But National doesn’t have a large potential coalition partner who just asked them to campaign with them so I used the Conservatives as an analogy.
Which makes the analogy a not very good one. Asking John Key "what do you plan to do about Colin Craig" is not the same as asking David Cunliffe "what is your response to the Green's proposal to work together". The idea that Labour could spend the next four months peddling the line "we haven’t made any decisions either way yet" is a bit silly.
As for suggestions that Labour should do what it did in 1999 and signal clearly that it and the Greens will be cohabitors in Government (as it did with the Alliance back then), there's one big difference. Winston Peters.
In 1999, a majority Labour-Alliance result was highly achievable (and the best result for both parties). In 2014, does anyone think a Labour-Green majority is possible (even if you add in Mana ... and maybe even the Maori Party)? No - odds are it's going to need Winston to get over the line. And then what odds that he'll be happy to be a spare wheel on a formal Labour-Greens Government?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And then what odds that he’ll be happy to be a spare wheel on a formal Labour-Greens Government?
I went for "wedding guest" in the original post, but yeah.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
I went for “wedding guest” in the original post, but yeah.
Given the branding of the political party involved, it would be a red wedding. And I'm not over that yet.
But call Peters what you want (and there's many things I'd like to) his centrality to any hopes to change the Government is a big difference to 1999 - and a big problem for "the left".
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Steady on. No one was asking John Key whether he wanted to campaign jointly with Colin Craig, were they?
No - instead there were bizarre fantasies that Colin Craig was just going to be handed one of the safest National seats in the country, with the cheerful acquiescence of Murray McCully and the local organization. Which, let me tell you, resulted in some rather ungenerous speculation hereabouts about how many political journalists would pass random workplace drug tests.
-
When Labour made nice with Anderton (note there was no formal agreement), Labour were on track to be the single largest party. Anderton was ex-Labour, and Labour were running continual attacks on the instability and shameless opportunism of a government that was falling to bits and veering between extreme right ideology and weird corruption. The context was very different from this case.
-
Way off topic, but it's about the upcoming election, so as one soon-to-be-repatriate I'd like to recommend this article.
-
JLM,
This is heresy, and betrayal from me as a Green, but I'm starting to wonder if the best realistic outcome from this election might be for National to have to cobble up a flaky coalition with Winston. As Winston is an interventionist and does have the glimmerings of a social conscience this would put the brakes on the worst of National's excesses as it did in 1999.
It would also be wildly unpopular and would give Labour and Greens a space to get their acts together and their messages cutting through to voters as economics and environment worsen.
-
Jeez, Espiner is being a complete oik this morning
He seems to think we might care more about what he thinks his interviewees think, than letting them tell us themselves …
He needs to get out of his own way,
rather than constantly hunting the ‘soundbite’ he wants……or maybe they need to decide who is the good cop and who is the bad cop – him and Suzie Ferguson seem to be both posturing as the ‘bad ass’ interviewer…
It is very tiresome…
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
This is heresy, and betrayal from me as a Green, but I'm starting to wonder if the best realistic outcome from this election might be for National to have to cobble up a flaky coalition with Winston.
'Heresy" would be too strong a word, but I'd like everyone (including the media) to think very carefully about what price we'd pay for another go-around with a pathological bigot like Winston. Hey, since we've now got to wait until after the election before asking such impertinent questions (at least where Labour is concerned) I guess we'll never know until it's far too late. But you'll excuse me if I find somewhat unreliable the "social conscience" of a man who has dubious distinction of having opposed every piece of pro-GLBT legislation since Homosexual Law Reform.
-
I think if Winston gets in there as a nice bandaid to certain voting sectors, such a combination would prove more intractable to get rid of. And when he is being pandered to with a sufficiently-senior ministry, he does know how to keep his mouth shut. At least about the govt.
And what Craig sez too about Winton's social justice history. I'd rather not have someone with a senior govt role with such obvious biases against queers and immigrants.
As for Jones, I think the only thing "strategic" about his rantings is that the powers-that-be are very obviously not telling him to STFU. A lazy way to appeal to the Green-haters.
-
The Green haters who make up ~1/4* of Labour's vote! Of course Labour wants to keep them in the tent, we don't have the luxury of telling voters they are insufficiently pure --- and if the Greens have any sense, they'd much rather Shane Jones was picking up that vote than Steven Joyce.
* based on the %age of Labour intendings who prefer a Lab-NZF deal to a Lab-Green deal.
-
Johnny Canuck, in reply to
Labour were running continual attacks on the instability and shameless opportunism of a government that was falling to bits and veering between extreme right ideology and weird corruption
Ah, those were the days. Labour landed hit after hit on that hapless excuse for a government. The contrast with 2014 is ... strong.
-
In any case, the Greens will be harder for Labour to ignore than in 2002-2005, for the simple fact that they now have double-digit support – the only third party currently in that realm, and even NZ First at its peak never reached that magic number.
And the Greens' current support is thanks in no small part to a lot of disillusioned Labour voters switching to the them. Disclosure of interest: I was one of them in 2011.
-
Labour may regret this if the Greens decide to not support confidence and supply at all. Good luck running a minority govt with Winnie vs the Nats, and having to seek Greens support bill by bill.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the best realistic outcome from this election might be for National to have to cobble up a flaky coalition with Winston
Looking far too likely. Wouldn't last 3 years, but who needs any more pain?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.