Written By: - Date published: 6:17 pm, May 20th, 2008 - 92 comments
Categories: labour, Media -
Tags: alt tv, beat-up, phil goff
Well, I’ve seen the video of Goff on Alt TV and I really can’t see what all the fuss is about. Phil Goff’s stated the obvious by saying there’s a chance Labour could lose the next election, he’s reaffirmed his support for Helen Clark and hinted that if the leadership were open after the election he’d consider it.
As No Right Turn observes, only in the warped worldview of the Wellington political elite would the idea of Goff making an honest appraisal of his party’s future and his own be a considered a sign of weakness, or a “gaffe.”
To them, it’s all about “the game”. And as a result, they not only ignore the substance of politics – you know, the policies the parties are offering and the public is choosing between – but also create a place where ethics are the complete inversion of the real world: where deceit is a virtue, having no policies is inconsequential, honesty is a weakness, and acknowledging reality is a sin.
The whole thing strikes me as a beat-up.
UPDATE: Over at TVNZ Guyon Espiner is outraged that Phil Goff isn’t “on-message” and demands he gets his lines in order. Because that’s, like, what our media is for isn’t it?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
SD: why hasn’t helen gotten rolled the last 10 or so times this topic has been raised by the media?
Because it doesn’t reflect what the labour party members think. Phil was simply saying exactly what everyone in the party thinks. When Helen decides to step down, then he is likely to put his hand up.
In the end it is the labour party members that will decide this, not the public, not the media. The caucus makes the actual decision, but they won’t do it without party support.
Your naivety makes it likely that you are young and stup… Ooops mustn’t make assumptions.
SD: why hasn’t helen gotten rolled the last 10 or so times this topic has been raised by the media?
>> every instance stands on its own merits AG. This time is very different.
Because it doesn’t reflect what the labour party members think. Phil was simply saying exactly what everyone thinks. When Helen decides to step down, then he is likely to put his hand up.
) – that change is afoot
>> Goff is flagging to the electorate (or those who may still be labour supporters – remember that poll
In the end it is the labour party members that will decide this, not the public, not the media. The caucus makes the actual decision, but they won’t do it without party support.
>> too slow loses the election.
Your naivety makes it likely that you are young and stup Ooops mustn’t make assumptions.
>> facts please, not abuse big boy.
ha ha – my code phrase was landlord davis…..
SD, I’m a moderator here. I can talk about what I want on whatever thread I want and I don’t take kindly to commenters telling me what to do on my own blog. Nice attempt as misdirection though.
If you think this is a credible challange then I would suggest you are a little credulous. I suspect you are being disingenuous though.
That said the more I see of National’s lack of direction and the more I see beat-ups like this as being all they have the more I look forward to the leaders’ debates and open campaigning.
Hopefully there will be a massive “Key can’t be trusted on $50 tax cuts” media beat up after his furious backpedalling on Breakfast this morning.
Irish – your blog lives or dies on the traffic you get through which in turn relies on open debate to get the traffic…
This thread is (or was) set as a discussion on Goff attempts/signals to roll Clark.
Get with the program buddy. Debate the facts or retire. Resorting to cliches like ‘beatup’ encourages air punching & victory whoops.
[lprent: We've found that traffic goes up when we remove trolls. It is too much hassle dealing with this flood of inane comments.
You're banned for a week. If you prefer to argue, I can make it permanent.
Definitely tiresome. Moving to autozap. My e-mail is in contacts, but I'm not prepared to have thoughtless trolling here. It just drives out the good comment.]
[deleted]
Now I really know that you are ignorant as well as being illiterate.
Tell me – when was the last time that a party in NZ won an election after rolling their leader in election year?
If you manage to answer that then I’ll withdraw the ignorant remark.
gmf: So Key has flip-flopped again. How unexpected.
I wondered how long that would take him to do that. There simply isn’t the money to do it unless he guts the spending or goes into debt. Based on past experience with the Nat’s, they’d probably do both.
The Nat’s haven’t been knowing for thinking ahead into the future. Conservatives look to the mythic past rather than towards their children’s future
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don’t think this is a bad thing at all. If Labour go down in the polls come election time then building the party back up around someone seen as being a moderate can only be a good thing. Clark has obviously fallen out of favour with the electorate and Goff is one of the few senior ministers who is not seen as being ideologically tied to her. It’s too late to have a change of leader before the election, that would be the last nail in the coffin, but if Clark/Cullen can’t get above their current 30% rating I think Goff would be the strongest option for Labour going forward.
The whole thing strikes me as a beat-up.
I don’t think it’s a terribly significant story, but if we’re talking about “beat ups” then I guess we’ve got to ask whether (as far as I can tell) accurately and fairly reporting Goff’s rather dopey and indiscreet interview on AltTV is unfair or unethical. And if this is, how many speculative stores have we seen about National’s leadership?
Somehow, I suspect if Bill English was openly speculating about standing for leader if National doesn’t win the next election (or Key got run over by a bus today), the reaction might be a little different.
Craig. Why should it be the mark of a good politican to pretend that realities don’t exist?
Craig: And if this is, how many speculative stores have we seen about National’s leadership?
Very few, if any. 5 new leaders? – pshwaah, hardly newsworthy.
I suspect if Bill English was openly speculating about standing for leader… the reaction might be a little different.
Doubt it – on past performance more likely non-existent as far as the press goes. Just like the several instances of English contradicting Key and the endless litany of tory flip-flops (latest this morning) over the past couple of years.
Fortunately, Joe Public is well aware of the fact that a leadership change now would be fatal and will see this beat-up clearly for what it is: merely a press-assisted beat-up by National and a continuation of the empty “they’ll never last the term, corrupt! corrupt!” campaign since 2005. Just another spadeful out of the press credibility’s self-dug grave.
I’ve got to say the only gallery journalist I’ve seen handle this with any credibility is Brent Edwards on Morning Report this morning. The rest are a bloody write-off.
I suspect if Bill English was openly speculating about standing for leader if National doesn’t win the next election
Which was not what Goff was speculating about. He speculated about “when Helen stands down voluntarily” (or words to that effect), which is rather different.
And both are about a million miles from the Nat press release “Warfare breaks out in Labour ranks” (first comment in this thread), which is why this thread is called “beat up”.
Craig: Phil was asked a set of direct questions about what happens when helen decides to step down. It wasn’t dopey or indiscrete. If he hadn’t answered, then he’d have had the same stories from the same useless journo’s – but the spin would have been about being ‘evasive’ and rumours of a coup.
So he answered the question directly, empasising that it would be after Helen decided to step down.
The subsequent ‘journalism’ with a few exceptions, was probably some of the most piss poor stuff I’ve ever seen. It just shows how unworthy a lot of the journo’s are of the label. They should rename themselves to sensationalists.
But just have a look at the interview. It is in the post above.
Steve
It may well be one quality of a successful politician to be able to deny reality. Probably not of an effective one though.
And certainly not the mark of a good leader imho.
Very few, if any. 5 new leaders? – pshwaah, hardly newsworthy.
ak: You and my point might like to get in the same room at some point. Change of leadership: News. Speculative (and usually unsourced) story: Not. I’m hardly shocked by the notion that Clark doesn’t intend to die in office, and Goff fancies himself as potential leadership material.
As I’ve said, it’s hardly substantive news. But a ‘beat up’ — stupid answer to a stupid question that drew an entirely predictable reaction. Sorry, folks, but I can’t wind myself up to the required level of outrage either the left or the right seem to require.
I guess the one thing we should be thankful for is that Oliver Driver remained fully clothed throughout. That would have been nasty.
IrishBill, I didn’t know you were a god here, I will get down on my knees and kiss you hand accordingly.
AncientGeek, what other ten times this topic has been raised by the media. One part of HC reign, is the absence of leadership whispers, she has, in that regard, run a very tight ship. Play the ball, not the man. My age, young or old is no concern of yours. Your seemingly to denigrate the man speaks much on your account.
Iprent, inane comments/trolls depends on your point of view. If you get rid of everyone that disagrees with you, you end up mirroring many of the reasons why labour is at 20 odd percent in the polls, not listening to anyone.
[lprent: I don't get rid of people that disagree. I get rid of people because of bad behaviour (loosely defined as boorish behaviour). Have a look at Policy, and look around at the relatively polite dissent level here.
The comments area is for discussion and debate. That requires an ability to listen, to think, to consider, and then write. Expat did not display those attributes this morning, ignored warnings, and found out that I dispense summary justice.
You are right that it depends on your point of view. But on this site - that is my point of view. I prefer to read reasonably intelligent (or at the very least amusing) comments, and I don't care too much about from what political viewpoint. I hate spam, and the first 4 comments I saw from expat this morning could have been written by a machine.]
Iprent – I do belive you have been:
a) retrospectively placing comments/warnings into posts on this thread in a way that places you in a slightly more favourable light.
b) disengeneous about your motives as your recollection of events is quite different from mine, as events occured.
You seem to have spent a great deal of time trying to patch up your unbiaised moderation credibility. Whys that?
[lprent: Don't be daft. I just see the messages differently to you - in a similar order to the right-side bar. I scan comments every couple of hours while I'm working (usually during a compile). I read the comments from most recent to oldest across all threads, back to the time I last left off. I can see a page of messages at a time, and can select to see any particular user. If you figure out the implications of that it means that
a: I see people dropping comments across threads and can see when they do it.
b: Can see what is effectively the same comment appearing in different threads.
c: Because I'm reading backwards and across threads, I don't see comment threads. That means I concentrate on each message individually to judge it on its own merits.
d: It effectively makes it really hard to troll on this system because I see what individual users or IP's are doing.
e. Also I can update my comments as I get more info, and do so.
Also I don't know who you are? expat? If so you're still banned for a week]