Though it is a little frustrating when people from the right or left proclaim with such feeling that they would never vote for this party or that party. Do people actually follow politics or are they more like politicial hooligans cheering on there team no matter what through good or bad. The problem for individuals or groups who behave like this is that they will be taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other – as they are seen as guaranteed votes.

Come 2011 this nact government is toast. After the hard times people will get out to vote again because they will have something to actually vote for, or more likely, against. And it will be for their lives, not fuzzy ‘helengrad nanny state’ smear campaigns. So nact slogans that fooled people this time wont work, if anything people will want more nanny state not less.

It’s of little relevance what happens in labour leadership ranks they have learned gung ho the hard way and they have recent good management experience. But the nacts will shit their nest again just you wait.

These nacts will panic again. Those 57 will be flakes, all of them. Just like last time.

so here we are now, ENTERTAIN US! ha ha ha

I would rather date Rodney Hideous they EVER go against moral standards and vote Nat!

L

I said that those people are likely stars, who will likely be leadership material in five years’ time. Yes, I do think each of them possesses star quality, and whether they fulfill their potential will be determined by how well they perform as Cabinet ministers. They are each intellectually very smart, have developed a keen political sense, and are highly regarded in their caucus. Brownlee, on the other hand, is one of the smartest political operators in the House and I think will be an outstanding Minister, but will never be Leader.

As for personal popularity, I’d challenge you to name a single Labour MP who might be leadership potential in the next five years, who has a bigger electorate majority than any of them. Don’t hold back, now.

Love seeing how you righties can’t take a joke. You filled Kiwiblog and Whale Oil with some vile stuff in the past few years and now you can’t take a simple ironic post like this? Wow, it really is going to be a long three years.

In other news, Will predicts Judith Tizard will launch a coup against Phil Goff this evening, from her position outside of Parliament.

This coalition is the shakiest yet. With his self-important costcutterfeuhrer role prince rawhide the short will be spending nights sitting in that chair dreaming, he’s already taken to wearing winston’s pinstripe suit; a populist rawhide? ha ha in his dreams and in dreamland epsom…

Yes bill english of course wants the prime ministers job. After all he’s the only one experienced enough who can keep this dodgey right wing government together. They’ll all be gone by lunchtime 2011…

ha ha like the nirvana song, it smells like key splitup: “so here we are now, entertain us!!”

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/60139

That’s settled then.

There is a big range of opinion in the party from me to the people that Tane is likely to be talking to. But the one thing that most of the long term activists believe in is that you have to work together to achieve common goals. Faction fighting is inherently useless, and where we see it we’ll actively oppose anyone using the techniques of division. The biggest division these days is generational between the people who grew up politically under FPP, and the more recent generations who actually understand MMP.

There is far more faction fighting inside of the Nat’s these days. It is quite apparent from the outside to someone who has seen it all before, and the hastily applied wallpaper doesn’t fully conceal the fights inside.

I’m not suggesting part of the Labour Party would undermine Goff. That wouldn’t look good externally, and harm chances further in the future. I call it the “Hillary Plan”.

I think the next ‘ideological’ battle for Labour is right on top of us – does it follow a ‘centre’ line to match Nationals new appearance, or go ‘left’ as a point of difference?
If you ask 100 Labour members which is the better strategy of the next three years, iIm willing to bet you that the result will be as close to 50:50 as makes no difference. Goff has to navigate that – I personally don’t like his chances, just as you don’t like Key’s in similar circumstances.

Of course, both Labour and National always have had genuine aspirants. Bolger had Graham and Shipley, but only Shipley was bold enough to make a move. Lange had Moore and Douglas, and Moore eventually got there. Clark had Maharey and Goff, but she enforced discipline so tight, kept Maharey so close and kept Goff so busy overseas, that neither had a chance.

Leadership changes just don’t happen when a PM is clearly winning elections. As long as Key continues to win decisively, his leadership is safe. If there was going to be a genuine contender in five or six years, if Key’s ability to win a third election looks vulnerable, then of course there would be contenders.

The only question for now is the what if Key fell under a truck scenario, which is amusing speculation for some but not very likely. I think that person would most likely be Judith Collins. Other contenders have been talked about–Power, since he entered Parliament–but his name hasn’t been mentioned in a long time. Others may emerge depending on how they perform as Ministers–Coleman and Heatley could be sleepers over the next five or six years, as could Joyce.

Conversely there seems to be a real paucity of potential leaders within Labour. If Goff sticks through to the 2011 election, then he’s obviously toast. Leaders generally don’t survive losing elections. The only apparent aspirant in caucus now is Cunliffe. The obvious sleeper is Andrew Little, of course. But apart from them? Pretty slim pickings over the next three years, I would have thought.

There appears to be only one angry post from Monty – most of the frothing as usual is emanating from your fine self.