Posts by Tim Ellis
-
Oh, but all of you are missing the point. The point is, JOHN KEY WOULD HAVE SENT TROOPS TO IRAQ AND 60 SOLDIERS WOULD HAVE RETURNED HOME IN BODY-BAGS!!!
We know this is true because Prime Minister Helen Clark said it. So any critical analysis of New Zealand's involvement in Afghanistan under Helen Clark's watch is just treasonous, anti-Labour Party propaganda.
-
Our forces were in Bosnia for 12 years on a formal basis and 15 years all-up. You could certainly contend that Bosnia wasn't a war zone all that time -- while Afghanistan, even around Bamiyan where our people are, just gets nastier and more dangerous. But as a bald statement, it's wrong. Sorry.
Indeed, and New Zealand forces have formed the New Zealand contingent of the MFO in the Sinai for the last twenty-seven years.
-
dc and Craig, I happen to agree with you that there are few people under the age of 30 who do have an exceptional CV for public office. To be fair, Judith Tizard and Helen Clark both had pretty scant CVs when they entered office. That was clearly one of the obstacles that Nikki Kaye faced when she was campaigning--that she was only 28, and didn't have a lot of life experience. She overcame that obstacle.
It is another thing entirely to allege, as Paul Litterick, a close associate of Judith, has done on his blog, that Kaye "fabricated" her CV. That is disgraceful and defamatory.
Sigh ... it's not "spin". I spoke to someone who spoke to Denise Roche on election night.
Sigh, Russell. I've heard someone who spoke to Roche who said that Kaye was going to be a better MP for Auckland Central. I've also heard that several sitting Labour MPs believe Kaye will be a far more effective MP than Tizard was.
And yes, Nikki Kaye ran a hard-working campaign and did a lot of doorknocking campaign, but I gather campaigning was her job for eight months.
And it's been Tizard's job for twelve years to keep in touch with her constituents. I don't go to the art openings or the opera, but I just haven't seen Tizard around. Comparing Tizard's workload to Clark's is just silly. Tizard should have known that her seat was under threat, and should have put more time into defending it. You know when Jordan Carter comes into your electorate to erect hoardings on a Saturday morning, rather than campaign in his own electorate of Hunua, that you should be out there working harder.
I don't hold any ill will towards Judith Tizard. But I do think Auckland Central deserves a far more active and harder-working MP, and I do believe that Kaye will be that person.
-
It seems that the Kiwiblog Right do not have a monopoly on being foul and nasty. This just in from Paul Litterick at fundypost:
If anyone has high expectations of Ms Kaye, they will be disappointed. She is a moppet, who became the candidate because of an internal coup and is in politics for her CV, which to date has been largely fabricated.
It seems Labour are putting all sorts of spin on Auckland Central ("if we'd still had Pt Chev, we would have won"--conveniently forgetting the majority in Pt Chev was only 400 votes in Labour's favour last time). While I respect your friendship for Judith Tizard, Russell, she didn't run a hard-working campaign.
I've lived in Auckland Central for many years. In the last three years, I only saw her once--on the eve of the 2008 election, leading a crowd of about 100 Auckland-wide Labour Party activists down Ponsonby Road. Tizard wrote to me three days before the election, twice--both on the parliamentary frank: the first one saying I was one of only 1,000 people she was writing to in Auckland Central (funny, all of my neighbours got the same letter) to ask for my support. The second letter welcomed me as a voter in Auckland Central, and told me that she was the local MP and was available to assist any time I need.
That was a cynical use of parliamentary expenditure.
Tizard didn't help herself by going around patronising the Greens and telling people that the Greens were endorsing her, when they clearly weren't. There is some spin that Roche was upset that Tizard had lost--yet she has publicly, at least on Waiheke, warmly welcomed Kaye as the MP and said they will work closely together on environmental issues.
So here we have the contrast between an inactive, indolent, entitlement MP, and a hard-working candidate from the National Party. I understand that Judith Tizard no doubt had some responsibilities as a Minister--although to be fair Consumer Affairs isn't the most onerous in the world--but that doesn't explain how Kaye got to door-knock ten thousand doors, while Tizard managed the grand total of zero.
And perhaps Judith Tizard is a lovely and warm and gracious person. It's a shame that graciousness hasn't extended to wishing her successor well, or even conceding defeat. I realise that losing an electorate that you've held for so long is a cruel blow, but there is such a thing as good manners, which too often Judith Tizard failed to display.
-
- the Green candidate Denise Roche providing a spoiler effect.
Craig has already dissed this point, but it's basically not true. Roche received fewer votes in Auckland Central (as did the Green Party) than Nandor and the Greens got in 2005. Judith went around telling people that Denise had endorsed her for the candidate vote--she'd done nothing of the sort--and ended up annoying the Greens. Meanwhile Kaye treated Roche with respect on the campaign trail.
Unfortunately, the bar tends to fill with a party crowd of questionable taste - perhaps once described as 'white-shoed', with all the connotations that denotes.
Not on a Sunday afternoon though Mark. It's just a nice place to eat on a Sunday afternoon.
-
Paul, does it ever make you wonder that the kind of sneering bitterness you show, may be one of the ingredients that turned voters away from Labour?
National didn't have more resources than Labour this election. Nikki Kaye worked full-time on the campaign, but she didn't have the parliamentary resources that Judith Tizard had. Three days before the election I got a letter from Judith "welcoming" me to the electorate I've lived in for the last twelve years, and letting me know that as the local MP she was available to me. It was sent out under the parliamentary frank.
As far as I know, Kaye didn't have any paid staff on her campaign. Everyone was a volunteer. I don't think you could say the same of Judith's campaign.
-
Some of these people have jobs and families, and might be able to take a week off work for the election, and just do evenings and weekends beforehand.
Actually, many National MPs have jobs and families as well.
National and Labour have the advantage of having full time MPs who spend the months leading up to the election in campaign mode, and then go full time for at least 6 weeks.
In my electorate, Nikki Kaye became a full-time candidate from the moment she was selected, back in March. She slogged it out for eight months, door-knocking, getting herself known, and assembling a strong team around her. Meanwhile, the only time I saw Judith Tizard for the whole year was once, on Friday night, as she took Helen Clark and a crowd of about 100 Labour Party supporters down Ponsonby Road.
I don't think that Nikki Kaye's campaign was strategically very brilliant or particularly clever. It was solid, and she didn't make any strategic mistakes. Operationally she got all the pamphlets delivered and all her hoardings up and repaired. But her really big advantage was that she just worked her as* off for eight months. Her last pamphlet said Auckland Central deserved a hard-working MP. The contrast between her and Tizard couldn't have been deeper.
The Labour Party ran a lazy campaign, with a lazy candidate who took everything for granted. National ran a hard-working campaign with a hard-working candidate who didn't take anything for granted.
-
to general shock and amazement, Peters has been a reasonably good foreign affairs minister, especially with respect to our relations with governments in the Pacific, which are very important.
This line gets patted out frequently. How valid, though, is it really? Think of the foreign ministers we've had in the past: Goff, McKinnon, Moore, Marshall, Lange, Talboys. You have to go back to Warren Cooper to find a foreign minister who wasn't well respected.
Foreign Affairs seldom gets much scrutiny from the media. It's a non-controversial area, dominated by specialists. Is our foreign policy at all different to what it would have been if Goff had remained as Foreign minister? I don't think so.
I don't see how, just because some people might have been predicting that Peters would be a very poor Foreign Minister, and he has turned out to be "not a bad one", is a great reason to keep him on. Especially since he's not going to be getting his portfolios back before the election, and is unlikely to survive it.
-
It is worth remembering that Labour sustained as much political damage through supporting a Green MP's private member's bill.
hear hear.
one could almost argue that they sustained more damage than the current fracas.
Those are both excellent points. Yet they didn't sustain that political damage just six weeks from a general election, did they?
-
But even then. I don't see any need to be so vocal about it. They may be forced by expediance to snuggle up to a scumbag (and forced again if we voters are sadists), but they could at least be honest about that fact rather than pretend to enjoy it.
Yes precisely IS. It is one thing, when there is an overpowering stench in the room, to hold your nose and not say anything. It is another thing entirely to try to convince everybody that the smell is alluring and joyous, and accuse ill motive of anybody who suggests otherwise.
Labour have run interference for Winston for far too long. Their performance before, during, and subsequent to the Privileges Committee shows just that. I imagine that many Labour voters would be very frustrated that they have gone to such efforts for a guy who has never shown any loyalty to Labour, let alone liberal causes, while Labour haven't shown a skerrick of trust and faith towards the Greens.