Posts by Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to BenWilson,
They’re quite probably conflicted. It’s a thing to be conflicted over, after all, since the two represent quite different tacks for the party.
Reality is though in the short term they're very much tied up, and it's silly expecting the msm to ignore that.
Maybe people actually like the idea of a party that’s a bit of a chaotic meeting of viewpoints, rather like democracy, and the nation as a whole. The arse-kicking single leader thing is so second millenium.
Big difference between that, and the impression of factions undermining the leadership (even if the faction is a majority of members).
You can have strong internal debate and still present a united front to the electorate.
Seems to me it's pointless complaining that the media are focusing on the wrong things, it's up to both parliamentary & grass roots party to ensure the focus is on Govts failings and their alternative vision for the country. -
I don’t have a dog in the fight and am struggling to make sense of this situation myself, but if members have changed the rules now after being ignored by caucus a year ago, isn’t that taking action?
But at the same time we're being told that's nothing to do with Cunliffe, or any specific leadership challenge.
It seems pretty obvious to everyone o/s the party where this is heading (or at least where those people want it to head), but at the same time no one's quite prepared to be up front about it.
So, yes it's taking action. But it seems they also want to give the impression they're doing something else entirely, especially as some have given a kind of mealy mouthed support for Shearer (in the short term).
If this desire to democratize the party is driven by concerns over the last leadership contest & a belief the wrong man is leading the party, then why can't those people say so. They may well have a point, it's the way they're going about it that seems kind of self defeating
It must seem obvious to Shearer that he's being backed into a corner, but as they're doing it very slowly he & outsiders are not suppose to notice, and then everyone's annoyed when they do.
. -
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to Sacha,
And we saw where their approach got the left over the past few years. Led by some of those backing not Cunliffe but Shearer, I’d note.
Sure, but that Standard posts attacks Shearer for not turning the guns on Key, whilst at the same time making it perfectly clear that they'd (and allegedly the membership) like to see a change of leadership.
They says the rule change has nothing to do with Cunliffe, but everything else in the post make it fairly obvious that that's exactly what it's about. They say there's no plot, but then say he should rightfully be leader.
If Labour party members/activists really want Cunliffe as Leader then stop talking in circles.
I'd agree disciplining him is probably stupid, but so is others saying different things out of opposite sides of their mouths.
It's almost like they love the idea of having Cunliffe as leader, but are scared of actually forcing the issue in case he turns out not to be the white knight. -
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
Depends on your view of Cunliffe really. If you’re anti-Cunliffe, of course you’ll describe it as “naive and innocent”. If you’re pro-Cunliffe, you don’t think “his personal benefit” is what he’s all about.
I genuinely have no particularly strong views, although that's starting to change.
It seems to me if it really wasn't about his personal benefit, he'd make his position clear so the party could deal with it one way or the other and move on.
I reckon you'll find people are probably sicker of politicians seemingly more interested in their own careers and internal ranglings than issues that matter to them, than they have strong views on party constitutional structures.
I don’t think “take advantage” is the phrasing I’d use either.
I guess we'll find out in February, but unless Shearer does something in the mean time the speculation isn't going to stop to then, and I fail to see how that helps Labour.
-
Of course, Shearer could demote Cunliffe for not saying now how he’d vote next February. That’s his privilege. But trying to discpline and not just demote a caucus member, something that Chris Hipkins seems to be implying, for exercising his rights would be really worrying.
You're putting a pretty naive & innocent spin to Cunliffe's actions & statements. You don't have to be a cynical hack to see this as Cunliffe trying to keep the speculation live in the hope things will turn to his personal benefit in the near future.
Ok, I don't believe he's manipulated the rule change, but he does seem to be clearly trying to take advantage of it.
What's going to change between now and February other than the rules under which any vote's taken? So how he votes then will be purely governed by whether he thinks he has the numbers by then. If you're Shearer, and the rest of Labour trying to get on holding the government to account then it's hardly unreasonable to want to bring all that to head.
It's not about Cunliffe 'exercising his rights', but about whether you can go forward with someone quite clearly with designs on the leadership undermining what the party is trying to achieve until its sorted. -
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to Idiot Savant,
I’m more thinking of the related threats to discipline and expel. So, they’re going to have a vote in February, but they’re going to punish and intimidate people so they get the right result. Not exactly democratic, is it?
That seems to be driven far more by a desire to get it sorted once and for all, than any attempt to bully a particular result.
How much damage is the drip drip going to do between now & February? Plus Cunliffe's behaviour is not exactly that of someone committed to putting the good of the party ahead of any private interests. In those circumstances talk of disciplining is hardly surprising.
It's not like it's difficult for Cuncliffe to end the speculation. -
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Something for Labour to aspire to then :-)
-
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to BenWilson,
True, but the longer this drags on the more likely it is that it will have an effect on the public's perception.
As we get closer to the election, and the possibility of a Lab/Green + government becomes a possibility, the more any perception of the governing party at war with itself will scare voters off.
Also, no clue as to what some want Shearer to do? They claim to be behind him, but then have accuse him of 'attacking' Cunliffe.
-
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to Bart Janssen,
<q>That Cunliffe wants to be leader is not news, that he doesn’t have enough support to be leader is also not news.<q>
Unless feels he can get 40% in February, and has the support in the wider party?
All what you say may be true, but the media will do what they always do (plots win over policy every time). Labour's problem is that whatever the reality internally may be, they have to deal the media reality. They run risk of it drowning out anything else they're trying to say.
-
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to BenWilson,
But no one usually achieves 100% support ever, and of course people change their minds, so by that token any leader could at some theoretical point lose majority support. You can't successfully operate on that basis. Those involved if they have the party's interest at heart have to have a sense of how constant open speculation comes across.
It's nice to think of it as healthy internal democracy, but it almost always appears as infighting, weakness, and self indulgence to the public.
I don't see how you can put a cohesive alternative vision to the public at the same time as your leader's future remains in doubt.