Posts by Lew Stoddart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Well, I don’t think the idealised, egalitarian New Zealand of the ‘many, not the few’ speech necessarily includes the sort of one nation idiocy of the Nationhood speech.
You speak as if there are some firm, preordained limits on political achievement given a certain point in the cycle. You also seem to think that National’s performance and Labour’s performance are not mutually dependent variables. First, true, there are circumstances which mitigate against performance in play; but the job of opposition is to overcome these. If they can’t then by definition they’re failing. Second, also true, there’s not a strict zero-sum dynamic between the two parties, but to the (very considerable) extent that they appeal to shared principles, they are closely linked. If National does well it’s because Labour are doing badly, and vice versa.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
In a way that’s a microcosm of Labour’s problem: not grasping their real task, and blaming the audience for not listening properly.
This is exactly it.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Giovanni, citing those constraints *is* making excuses, *is* being an apologist for poor performance.
You cite the “two nations” speech as ‘who Labour is’, but one speech doesn’t tell us that – and that speech is just one of a series of somewhat contradictory positioning statements the party has made this term as it tries to figure out who the hell it is and stands for. You might also recall the speech with the title ‘Nationhood’ given by Phil Goff on 26 November 2009, which was basically an appeal to racist-populist ‘Waitakere Man’ sentiment. And there are others. Which of these are the ‘real’ Labour? Your claim that they have clearly differentiated themselves from National is by no means empirically proven – it rests on your cherry-picking results just as I initially alleged.
My argument, on the other hand, is supported by – I’m quoting myself from my own comments to that post here, since you won’t read them: “a wide variety of both hard and soft data: poll and by-election results, media coverage, policy and political critique, and the government’s apparently fearless approach to the election”.
Being that as it is you don’t get to argue a null hypothesis that Labour’s uselessness isn’t proven, or provable. You have to refute the empirical details which exist: the poll results, the by-election results, the tone of media coverage and balance of public commentary, and most crucially the audacity of the government’s re-election platform.
Of course, you can make excuses about all those if you like – the polls are misleading, the media are biased, the talking heads are full of shit, people just aren’t paying attention to the things they should because of disaster porn, Labour’s foray into redneckery aren’t ‘real’ Labour; the Nats eat baby-paste on toast for breakfast – I’ve heard ’em all before. But actually, down here in the real world, those metrics are what we use to measure the performance of a parliamentary opposition.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Since you weren't prepared to even read my argument before making your counter, why should I bother? I've had this argument a hundred times with Labour apologists who just want to make excuses, and it always goes this way.
So: sigh.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Excuses. Sigh.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Giovanni, your counterargument is: because National sucked in 2002, Labour have to suck in 2011?
Yeah, nah.
You might also read the comments to that post, in which I scotch the misunderstanding that I'm after a policy release. And several other apologist shibboleths.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Yes and no. Goff is not a natural, inspirational leader, but he he could have remained vaguely competitive. Over the past couple of years I've gone into plenty of detail about specific policy and positioning matters he could have used to his advantage.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Jackie, the better question to ask is " why are people so keen on having Key as "our great leader"?" It's not because people are easily duped -- it's because it's easy to dupe anyone when there's nobody making a credible explanation as to how they're being duped.
That criticism is on Labour -- under Clark, and now under Goff. Because in all honesty, all Goff-led Labour has done is continue the same incoherent strategy of alternately misunderestimating Key, and scaremongering vaguely about him. It didn't work for Clark, and it's not working for Goff, because it's not convincing; the two strands of the argument undermine each other.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Paul Williams,
Paul, John, and others, cherry-picking a couple of convenient examples to defend Labour's record isn't enough. Any fool can do that. If you want to argue that Labour isn't totally useless, I have a standing invitation for anyone who wants to do so, on Kiwipolitico. You might want to read this post first.
L
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Rich Lock,
Rich, it's all in who makes up the numbers. Hooton made this argument t'other week: the only people with the ability to roll Goff are the caucus. As long as Labour polls about the same as at the 2008 election (~30-35%), almost all the list members are assured of keeping their seats. A new leadership would potentially cause volatility in the electorate, and that brings risk to those members (especially at the tail end), but no direct benefit to them (the benefit will be to those list candidates presently outside parliament, who have no say in the leadership). So it's really just been arse-covering by sitting MPs until now.
But that calculus has now changed. Goff is now a riskier proposition, and if he and King handle the election campaign as badly as they've handled the Carter and Hughes incidents, they're likely to lose considerable ground, and that's a direct threat to sitting MPs' careers. Whether it's still a better bet than a new leadership half a year out from the election remains an open question.
According to this line of reasoning, which I find pretty credible despite its source, actually winning the election doesn't even enter into discussion. That's the biggest tragedy and a pretty good reason to hang the useless fuckers out to dry. So my preference, since the election is a foregone conclusion, is for the party to roll Goff and King and risk a crushing electoral defeat, demonstrating that at least they've got a pair; rather than cling on to the dull certainty of a soft defeat.
L