Don’t mourn, organise.

Written By: - Date published: 11:48 am, November 10th, 2008 - 70 comments
Categories: activism - Tags:

In 1984 I watched the incoming Labour government move on a set of policies they had no mandate for and I also watched the Left flounder to resist them. Given it was only three years since we had mobilised so strongly against the Springbok tour that failure to act was unacceptable.

In 1990 when we got the neo-con National government and its subsequent incarnations I watched many good leftwing campaigners pack up their bags and leave or start fighting amongst themselves. This was also unacceptable.

One of the great things we’ve seen over the last few years is an organised grassroots Left becoming established. A lot of it has been focused toward the election but now is the time we need it most.

I’ve been told there will be Left organising events around the country over the next few months and there have been murmurings of a thousand-day campaign. I’d like to see that come together. Not just to oust National and ACT in the next election but to help push New Zealand’s political discourse and its political parties leftward. To do that we need unity and we need to focus on winning. Not blaming each other for losing. It took the right nine years to cooperate and win. The Left will do it faster because we are collectivist by nature and are fighting for much more than just increasing the bottom line.

As the wobblies say – Don’t mourn. Organise.

70 comments on “Don’t mourn, organise. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. NX 1
    10 November 2008 at 12:06 pm

    The Left will do it faster because we are collectivist by nature

    So are the Borg…….

  2. higherstandard 2
    10 November 2008 at 12:07 pm

    IB

    The public has spoken they don’t want NZ’s political parties to move left, nor do they want them to move to the right, apart from the mood for change this was an overwhelming endorsement of “centrist” politics as the Greens and ACT between them only just got over 10%.

    I’d also like to know what you’re going to be protesting about (I can understand from a union perspective going after the “90 day no fault bill”) and when will Andrew Little be taking up Mike Williams position ?

    IrishBill: I think you may have confused me for someone else. Take a week off to reconsider your sources.

  3. Tim 3
    10 November 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Bill, I don’t wish to argue about ideologies, but it would seem to me that the election result is saying NZ wants to be in the middle, not too far left and not too far right. I reckon it was Key’s moderate approach that won over a lot of the swing vote. Political parties on the left of the spectrum might do well to give that some consideration. If Key can keep this National led government firmly in the centre he will be tough to beat next election, especially by parties that don’t make any adjustment toward the middle. Think of it like a game of squash – John Key has control of the T (for now).

  4. Bill 4
    10 November 2008 at 12:09 pm

    I think I’ve said what I want to for now here http://www.thestandard.org.nz/what-will-happen-with-the-specials/ (8:19 and 9:47)

    While I agree with your sentiments Irish, I just can’t see where the comment “One of the great things we’ve seen over the last few years is an organised grassroots Left becoming established.” is warranted.

    Maybe it’s just me, but with a few exceptions, most of what passed for ordinary expression was through top down organisational structures…I’m thinking here of the unions etc.

    Anyway. I’ve said all this over at the link above and signposted ways to organise which avoid infighting and all the other terrible shit that seems to come as part and parcel of left organising.

    I just want to get on with contributing to the laying of solid foundations that don’t crumble under the weight of unnecessary and patently avoidable factionalism.

    BTW Thanks for the post. Was starting to wonder if this debate was off the cards at the mo.

  5. IrishBill 5
    10 November 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Tim – I don’t speak for the Labour party. I speak from the Left. Although I would point out that it was only by moving to the centre-left (and running a four year attack campaign) that National finally won.

  6. fiona 6
    10 November 2008 at 12:16 pm

    I am interested at the lack of discussion here about who should be the new leader of Labour Party – the main political party of the left. On midday report it just said that the decision could be made very quickly. Goff seems to be the main contender, but given the decisive vote for change on Saturday, would he appeal to the electorate in 2011?

  7. Tane 7
    10 November 2008 at 12:18 pm

    fiona, personally I’m not particularly worried about that. It’ll probably be Goff – make it clean and get on with it.

    My interest now is in helping to build a broadbased grassroots movement ready to defend the planks of social democracy that National wants to remove, and to build a viable platform to return the Left to power in 2011.

    It’s a dangerous thing to be too reliant on the Labour Party organisation, and in any case they can’t do it on their own.

  8. Inventory2 8
    10 November 2008 at 12:20 pm

    IrishBill said “One of the great things we’ve seen over the last few years is an organised grassroots Left becoming established. ”

    Worked a charm on Saturday eh IB 😉

  9. illuminatedtiger 9
    10 November 2008 at 12:20 pm

    It’s all about perceptions though. We honestly don’t know what Key is about to go and do but judging from what we know of National in the past as well as the leaked tapes, policies and vague discussion documents we can make some predictions – and then it doesn’t look good. I honestly don’t trust John Key and believe him to be anything but centre-left. Heck even the label of centrist seems highly suspect to me. Couple this together with ACT and we could be heading into some very dark times in less than 100 days.

  10. coge 10
    10 November 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Fiona, Goff would make a suitable leader but only in a caretaker role. Cunliffe is fresher, & may be a better longer term choice.

    Irish, some of us would say it was an eight year attack campaign. Took a while for it to warm up.

  11. IrishBill 11
    10 November 2008 at 12:25 pm

    IV2, while I’m not happy about the result I think that another term of Labour would have guaranteed at least two terms of National next time around. What I have seen is the broad left coming together and organising. It’s still nascent but it’s a start.

  12. Evidence-Based Practice 12
    10 November 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Not quite on message for this thread but did anyone else notice that the new MP for New Plymouth is the brother of Audrey Young of the NZ Herald? Both children of former Nat MP Venn Young.

    But if Jane Clifton can comment in several media on the Party her partner will likely be a cabinet minister in, it seems such familial links are not relevant?. I would be interested in what people think about this.

  13. fiona 13
    10 November 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Tane, it’s not a case of being too reliant on the Labour Party, but the last 9 years show that they are a pretty important part of the equation. Who leads the Labour Party at the next election is important to the left’s electoral chances.

  14. Tane 14
    10 November 2008 at 12:33 pm

    fiona, agreed. I just think there’s not a lot I can do about who’s elected leader, and not much anyone else can do really. I think the best thing we can do now is organise.

  15. Lampie 15
    10 November 2008 at 12:33 pm

    I’m sure supporters and members have already stated that the campaign started on Sunday 9th November 2008. (perhaps I should renew my membership)

    I see other media around the world share my view on the stupid logic behind this “change for change sake”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10542186

  16. MikeG 16
    10 November 2008 at 12:35 pm

    One issue that you could start on is the Herceptin issue. (I know that lprent doesn’t like people saying what topics should be blogged on here, but I’m trying to be constructive!) Point 4 of Nationals 10 point plan is “Instruct by Christmas that breast cancer drug Herceptin be available for 12-month course”.

    What qualifications do the incoming government have to ‘instruct’ the funding of a drug? Isn’t this politicising a process that has been deliberately made independent? If Herception is funded, what will miss out on funding?

    [lprent: I don’t mind people suggesting topics. It is telling posters what to do that annoys me. There is a fine line, but it essentially comes down to if it can be perceived as an order.]

  17. IrishBill 17
    10 November 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Fiona, Helen was a leader that dragged the party around. But she was one out of the box. What is more important is political direction of the frontbench and the party machine and that there is a strong Left outside of parliament to keep the pressure on.

  18. Kerry 18
    10 November 2008 at 12:48 pm

    oh well…..it had to happen…NZ decided to vote dumb!

    The Nats will be a one term affair. Why? cause stupid people could only keep it together for a few months till it all falls apart.

    Sit back and watch 9 years of progress destroyed.

  19. Phil 19
    10 November 2008 at 12:51 pm

    It’ll probably be Goff – make it clean and get on with it.

    Find a lamp, make a wish, and you just might have it your way, Tane.

    Helen’s rule of the party was very tight, and a lot of Labour politico’s have been forced to shelve their own ambitions for a long time now. I’d be willing to bet even money that we see a Labour party transition much more akin to the painful National struggles through 1999-2006 to find a leader.

  20. Chess Player 20
    10 November 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Lampie,

    It should be recognised that change is a good thing, because without change there can be no growth.

    Talking to workmates this morning, I hear that it was ‘just time for a change’ and so that’s what they voted for. Fair enough.

    As I posted in another blog called National Spinners, Labour could have addressed this themselves and presented a fresh team for this election, thereby presenting a ‘change option’ of their own. That however would require vision, and the parking of egos…

    From my perspective watching the political ‘circus’ of the last 9 years, when you’ve had nothing but clowns on display for ages, you get impatient and start calling for the tigers. You don’t know what will happen, but you know it will be entertaining…

  21. Killinginthenameof 21
    10 November 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Something I would like to see is an expansion of the Pharmac model. Choices over what drugs to fund are way way to important to be left too politicians, who can have their hands forced by hugely emotive campaigns. Something I would like to see is a move towards something similar in terms of law and order policy. There is just too much misinformation, emotion and misunderstanding for something this important to be left up to easily to manipulate MP’s. It only takes one media beat up to force their hand.

    I’m not sure how this would work, but I’m thinking something along the lines of an law and order committee who write policy based upon expert advice and research, which the minister is the obliged to sign off on except under exceptional circumstances.

    I dunno, just a thought!

  22. illuminatedtiger 22
    10 November 2008 at 1:18 pm

    I would be very interested in seeing what political parties (if any) received donations from pharmaceutical companies or lobbies. Anyway that could be found out?

  23. leftrightout 23
    10 November 2008 at 1:32 pm

    The left will need a bit of time to come to terms with this loss especially with Helen standing down, im still having a hard time with the idea that when she’s interviewed she’ll be ‘former Prime Minister Helen Clark’. Filling her place will be an interesting challenge for the Labour Party.

    We’ll probably tear ourselves to pieces and play the blame game for the next couple of months, but thats to be expected and only natural given the result. Once thats over we can start again, rebuild, and do ourselves proud in 2011.

  24. Santi 24
    10 November 2008 at 1:33 pm

    “oh well ..it had to happen NZ decided to vote dumb!”

    That statement from Kerry shows the incredible arrogance of the Left, of those who claim to know better, and who would like to run your life entirely.

    NZ has said an emphatic no to the Kerrys of this world, which of course he/she finds difficult, if not impossible, to accept.

  25. Quoth the Raven 25
    10 November 2008 at 1:35 pm

    HS – You just had a very centrist government. A National.Act governemnt is not centre. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I wish you guys would make HS’s ban permanent.

  26. higherstandard 26
    10 November 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Feck if you ban me for a week for that comment I give up – I ban myself from this site forever.

    Bye bye.

    edit QTR ……. DIDDIMS

    [Tane: HS, it’s part of a pattern of behaviour. You’ve been warned in the past. You are more than welcome back in a week.]

  27. Daveski 27
    10 November 2008 at 1:37 pm

    IB I think you have overlooked some of the intriguing issues that have come out of this election.

    1. The potential for the Greens to cannibalise Labour’s vote – rather than unifying the Left, this could divide it.
    2. The fact that Helen “centred” and balanced Labour. I suspect Goff will cause some angst and may even amplify point 1. A complete change of leadership within Labour means Labour risks become inwards focussed rather than focused on fighting the new govt.
    3. The fact that Key appears to have centred National creating much greater competition for the centre than Labour has had over recent elections.
    4. The Maori Party playing a lot smarter which potentially drags votes away from the left.
    5. NZF votes – unknown

    BTW FWIIW, unless I’ve missed something, the banning of HS is well OTT particularly given he has shown himself to be prepared to engage in debate rather than troll/gloat/inflame. I’m not sure his “you” is singular (damn English – could be third person plural). Even if it was, the treatment does seem harsh.

  28. rave 28
    10 November 2008 at 1:43 pm

    This idea that the ‘middle’ can be satisfying is just more ‘shit sandwich’ to use Bomber Bradbury’s term.

    This is a polarising election, just look at the electoral map. The economic crisis will polarise it further so sitting in the middle will become uncomfortable if not dangerous.

    The two options to deal with the crisis are:
    (a) the bankers who can only survive now by sucking off our wages and nature.
    (b) the workers who can only survive by keeping hold of their wages and nature.

    The bankers have won for now, but they will piss off the workers with attacks on their jobs, incomes, savings, ACC, work rights, environment etc.

    So in the next 3 years the working class will become much more aware of their collective class interests and get better organised.

    So yeah, don’t mourn (who’s dead) organise!

  29. Santi 29
    10 November 2008 at 1:52 pm

    “So in the next 3 years the working class will become much more aware of their collective class interests and get better organised.”

    Lenin himself couldn’t have said it any better. Long live the party of the workers.

    [lprent: Santi – can’t you ever say anything that would be vaguely interesting to OTHER people apart from yourself. If you don’t then I’ll ban your arse again as a graffitti troll]

  30. Vote Geek 30
    10 November 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Heh, I posted this in the wrong thread. Hope you don’t mind me moving it over here:

    As an American and a New Zealander (this was my first time voting in here) I spot a similarity in what has happened to the Labour / Left here to what happened to the Democratic Party in the States in 2000 to 2004. After being demolished by the Republicans the Democratic Party was in ruins and there was talk of there being a permanent Republican majority in the states.

    The Democrats were lucky to have Howard Dean. After he lost the presidential nomination he stepped up and worked grass roots side of the party’s process to get elected the chairman of the party. He aligned strongly with grass roots blogs and recognized the importance of online organizational tools. This had the two-fold result of creating a surge of small donors and giving people that had a small interest in politics ways to easily get involved. Although New Zealand electoral laws, attitudes and government are different there are a lot of ideas that can be taken from the Democratic Party’s rebuilding. Labour should start working on creating more buy-in from left leaning people that don’t identify with a party. Within the bounds of New Zealand electoral law we should look in to building our own dailykos.com sights. Finally the Labour Party should push to recruiting members and grooming young MPs so that there is a deep reserve of leadership to take up the mantle when the time comes.

  31. Seti 31
    10 November 2008 at 2:25 pm

    [Tane: Deleted. Take your sexist bile to Kiwiblog.]

  32. Lampie 32
    10 November 2008 at 2:50 pm

    “It should be recognised that change is a good thing, because without change there can be no growth”

    You change for a REASON (a valid one i.e. I think National has more positive policies or something), not just because you just do. Growth is a change, so is going backwards.

  33. Lampie 33
    10 November 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Singer writes that New Zealand voted for change for change’s sake and that the voting public “just got bored”.

    Herald

  34. Bill 34
    10 November 2008 at 3:03 pm

    Rave.

    Joe Hill. (1879 – 1915) His epithet or (some say) last words. http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/joehillandtheiww.html for a wee bit info if you want it.

  35. Jasper 35
    10 November 2008 at 3:03 pm

    Santi – NZ didn’t vote emphatically as you say.

    Only 50.6% of voters in the country voted Nact. The other 49.4% voted otherways the left.

    If you look at the 6.06% of votes that were wasted on petty parties (RAM, B&B etc) you could easily draw a long bow and say if people were smarter, then labour could well have led again.

    MMP does work, lowering the threshold to 2.5% would be much better. I’d also like to see the requirement to have 500 party members replaced with a system where you stand as an electorate MP rather than a party.

    Keep MMP – where the party vote is concerened, but STV when it comes to the electorate vote.

    IF STV was in play for the electorate vote, Dunne could well be out of Ohariu, and Parliament, instead of Greens electorate voting Hughes rather than Chauvel/Greens.

  36. fiona 36
    10 November 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Vote Gee, couldn’t agree more. This loss could be good for Labour if it helps it rebuild at the grassroots level. The Labour Party needs to genuinely reach out to recruit and engage people. The caucus really seems to run the show at the moment with the Party being there to door knock on election day and run raffles and attend fundraising dinners. Should the Party leadership decision, for example, be one solely for the caucus?

  37. Felix 37
    10 November 2008 at 3:37 pm

    I don’t agree with much that hs says and I know he can be a bit of a “polite troll” at times, but seriously, why was he banned?

    I’m certainly not trying to tell you what to do on your blog but I just can’t see what he wrote to deserve it. Could someone explain what I’ve missed?

  38. IrishBill 38
    10 November 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Felix, HS has developed a habit of snidely referring to standard posters by the names attributed to them by Cameron Slater. He’s been warned for exactly the same behaviour before and as he continued with it I decided he needed time to reflect.

  39. Billy 39
    10 November 2008 at 3:46 pm

    I agree with Felix. There was nothing in that comment.

  40. Tane 40
    10 November 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Felix, it was IB’s decision and I stand by it. HS has been going around trying to ‘out’ the posters in his comments (incorrectly, I might add) for the last week or two in contravention of policy. He’s been warned several times and had his comments deleted, yet he persists. If he wants to peddle Whale’s National Party research unit smears he can do it elsewhere.

  41. Billy 41
    10 November 2008 at 3:51 pm

    IB,

    I thinnk you’ve read too much into the comment. I think he was talking about the Labour Party Presidency and nothing else.

  42. Nige 42
    10 November 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Jasper: “If you look at the 6.06% of votes that were wasted on petty parties (RAM, B&B etc) you could easily draw a long bow and say if people were smarter, then labour could well have led again.”

    I think you mean if left leaning voters were smarter. You only have to look at what happened to Hide in Epsom to see how intelligent right leaning voters are.

    What many of you miss when you say that New Zealand only “just” voted for a right wing government is that scores of motivated people have already voted with their feet, moving overseas for a life where hard work is valued and rewarded. I don’t get to see a lot of my friends and family much as they have all moved overseas, most of my class from university are working abroad and many never plan to return. I had been considering joining them, but I think I’ll stick around for at least three more years.

    And before anyone says “the world is voting left”, America and Australia’s idea of a left wing government is one that supports public health funding and a basic welfare system (something I support too by the way).

    I hope Goff gets in too, he will bring much needed balance and a fresh wisdom to the Labor party.

  43. Steve Pierson 43
    10 November 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Billy, you just don’t get the reference.

  44. Billy 44
    10 November 2008 at 3:55 pm

    I suppose that’s possible, SP. I am famously dim. But there does seem to be a fair amount of blame being laid at Williams’ door and people do seem to be speculating about his position in exactly the way it looked to me that HS was.

  45. IrishBill 45
    10 November 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Billy, HS was trolling (albeit subtly) in a manner he’d been warned about and he was banned. End of story.

  46. Felix 46
    10 November 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Thanks for explaining, I don’t really keep up with Slater’s delusions so I missed what he was referring to.

  47. rave 47
    10 November 2008 at 4:34 pm

    Bill, yeah I know about Joe Hill, just wondered if someone here had died recently.

    If anything deserves to die it is the Labourite bureaucracy in the unions and the Party that prevents workers from organising into a force that could stop National in a lunchtime.

    So yeah, long live Joe Hill and lets organise.

  48. Robinsod 48
    10 November 2008 at 5:01 pm

    rave – how many sites have you ever organised?

  49. Lew 49
    10 November 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Evidence-Based Practice: An interesting question. I don’t see a problem – if anything I think it’ll bring close enough scrutiny upon Audrey that she’ll be particularly scrupulous in her writing and research. Some of the more cynical wags on here might aver that having her brother in parliament might make her work more neutral.

    L

  50. rave 50
    10 November 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Robinsod:

    Ive worked on sites where the officials have stopped effective organising by limiting discussion and sticking rigidly to the industrial law. Ive supported many other struggles similarly sold out. If you are implying that workers need organisers to organise I don’t disagree. But those organisers should be accountable to the rank and file.
    Like Joe Hill I am for rank and file democratic control of the unions.
    I would have thought you were for that too.

  51. Robinsod 51
    10 November 2008 at 7:41 pm

    rave – I’m totally for rank and file democracy. It’s just I’ve watched a few negotiations and they seem to be quite democratic so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

  52. rave 52
    10 November 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Robinsod:

    Well that’s good. My experience goes back quite a few years beyond the ECA years to the time when officials basically ran the unions with little input from members. Things were looking up with unions under the ERA but there is still a way to go to get rank and file control. The upcoming attacks on the ERA will likely provoke some big fights so I look forward to some strong rank and file participation and leadership emerging.

  53. r0b 53
    10 November 2008 at 9:59 pm

    Feck if you ban me for a week for that comment I give up – I ban myself from this site forever.

    Prediction – we’ll see more than one rightie find an excuse to throw their toys out of the cot and disappear. Running dishonest attack lines for a year was easy and made them feel macho. Sticking around to defend this new government might be a bit too much like hard work…

  54. Felix 54
    10 November 2008 at 10:40 pm

    r0b, yep.

    I saw monkey boy “make his excuses and leave” the other day too. (Mind you, he does that all the time.)

    But yeah, there’ll be a few more. Notice all the new ones showing up since the election? What do you make of that?

  55. r0b 55
    10 November 2008 at 11:33 pm

    But yeah, there’ll be a few more. Notice all the new ones showing up since the election? What do you make of that?

    In truth Felix I hadn’t noticed, I’m not reading much, I’m a bit busy in the real world dealing with a backlog of stuff built up while I was working on our campaign. But if new ones have come on board I guess it’s just a spike in political interest generally caused by the election?

  56. Dean 56
    10 November 2008 at 11:45 pm

    r0b:

    “Prediction – we’ll see more than one rightie find an excuse to throw their toys out of the cot and disappear. Running dishonest attack lines for a year was easy and made them feel macho. Sticking around to defend this new government might be a bit too much like hard work ”

    The irony here is quite delicious. You still have the blinkers on I see.

    Perhaps if you’d tried to motivate for a more positive campaign instead of defending Williams crossing the ditch at the taxpayers expense to dig up a fizzer of a neutron bomb you wouldn’t find the taste of those lemons quite so sour right now.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see, and you sir are one of them.But maybe the H Fee attack will work in 3 years from now – I certainly hope you think so.

  57. r0b 57
    10 November 2008 at 11:54 pm

    Ahh Dean, I’m glad that Helen and her family don’t have to put up with your particularly noxious attentions any more.

    instead of defending Williams crossing the ditch

    Don’t recall defending that – seemed like a silly idea to me.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see

    And none so vile as those that smear family members for their own amusement. Eh Dean.

  58. Dean 58
    11 November 2008 at 12:52 am

    “And none so vile as those that smear family members for their own amusement. Eh Dean.”

    According to you it’s A-OK as long as it involves someone else you might consider political. Your hypocrisy – as per usual – knows no bounds, and that lofty moral compass you pretend to live by is in complete disarray.

    Dishonest attack lines – it’s all you had. Shame the party is over now though. Never mind, you might come up with something more substantial next time.

  59. Vinsin 59
    11 November 2008 at 2:12 am

    Dean, i can find no record of Rob saying it’s ok so long as it involves someone else political. I believe he was merely drawing your attention to the fact that National are not squeaky clean considering they went to dig up dirt on Helen’s hubby. Is this an excuse? No. Is it an answer? No, what it happens to be is a simple fact of politics.
    If anyone runs for public office, they’re going to come under personal scrutiny, and why not they’re being trusted with the country – not the keys to your car.

    ‘Dishonest attack lines.’ Yeah i don’t see any hypocrisy in your statement either. I wonder do you read what you write? I think if you did you might not look like such a blundering Reginald Williamson.

    Not telling you how to live your life, just giving you a few suggestions.

  60. r0b 60
    11 November 2008 at 2:17 am

    According to you it’s A-OK as long as it involves someone else you might consider political.

    Lord knows what you’re talking about Dean, I don’t.

    Dishonest attack lines – it’s all you had.

    9 Years of excellent, responsible and compassionate government is what we had Dean, and yes it is a shame that that is over.

  61. r0b 61
    11 November 2008 at 2:24 am

    Ahh Vinsin – another night owl. Re Dean…

    I believe he was merely drawing your attention to the fact that National are not squeaky clean considering they went to dig up dirt on Helen’s hubby.

    I was partly making that connection, but more specifically reminding Dean of one of his spectacularly shameful comments some time ago. As above, one of the few silver linings in Helen’s resignation is that she and her family won’t have to put up with the likes of Dean and the KiwiBlog bottom feeders any more.

  62. Felix 62
    11 November 2008 at 7:35 am

    r0b,
    “But if new ones have come on board I guess it’s just a spike in political interest generally caused by the election?”

    Maybe so. I get the feeling that a few of them are familiars using new names so they won’t have to defend their support of Key’s pre-election positions when he changes them.

    And Vinsin,
    Yes Dean is well known to be a bit of a Thomas Eddingsworth.

  63. r0b 63
    11 November 2008 at 8:09 am

    Maybe so. I get the feeling that a few of them are familiars using new names so they won’t have to defend their support of Key’s pre-election positions when he changes them.

    Ahhh – doh! I saw such a comment on one of the newspaper comment / blog pages yesterday. A Key fanboi saying that he wouldn’t mind if Key broke his “promises” as they were “practically made under duress”. Hmmmm.

  64. lprent 64
    11 November 2008 at 8:21 am

    A Key fanboi saying that he wouldn’t mind if Key broke his “promises’ as they were “practically made under duress’. Hmmmm.

    That is idiotic. A lesson in how to create a long-term pissed off electorate. The only reason that Labour was out of office for so long in the 90’s was because of the broken promises of the 1980’s. The same happened to National after their pitiful performance at keeping to what they campaigned on in the 1990’s. It was only the relative weakness of Labour that allowed the Nat’s to stay in power in 1993. In 1996 protest voting on all sides went to NZF and lead to the disastrous coalition.

    Key is likely to have enough of a problem because of the difference between what people perceived they were promising, and what they actually said (taxcuts for instance).

  65. Felix 65
    11 November 2008 at 8:46 am

    Ha ha, duress, that’s a good one! The unfairness of having to appear electable to get elected.

  66. Killinginthenameof 66
    11 November 2008 at 9:53 am

    “fiona
    Tane, it’s not a case of being too reliant on the Labour Party, but the last 9 years show that they are a pretty important part of the equation. Who leads the Labour Party at the next election is important to the left’s electoral chances.”

    Good to see it looks like its going to be Goff, while I don’t know much about him, he comes across as someone who wont take crap from anyone, not in an asshole way, in a fair way. Just what Labour needs, as so some extent it the last year and a bit (when National realized another election was about to escape them) has been death by 1000 cuts for Labour.

    And yes re: Herceptin, funding that would be political interference on an unprecedented scale.

  67. Dean 67
    11 November 2008 at 10:31 am

    r0b:

    “Lord knows what you’re talking about Dean, I don’t.”

    You defended the dirt being dug on Brash and his affair because the other party involved was a political target.

    Honestly r0b, do you actually have any standards that the Labour party don’t tell you to have?

  68. IrishBill 68
    11 November 2008 at 10:34 am

    Dean, it was a National party MP that announced Brash’s affair. The “dirt” that was dug on Brash concerned his dodgy spin campaign in 2005.

  69. Dean 69
    11 November 2008 at 10:37 am

    “Dean, it was a National party MP that announced Brash’s affair. The “dirt’ that was dug on Brash concerned his dodgy spin campaign in 2005.”

    And? r0b still defended it.

  70. r0b 70
    11 November 2008 at 11:13 am

    lprent: That is idiotic. A lesson in how to create a long-term pissed off electorate.

    Exactly. But have National learnt the lesson? Time will tell I guess. (PS – edit working in my version of Safari now I see – thanks!)

    Dean: And? r0b still defended it.

    I’d be interested if you could show me where Dean. I believe I said that Brash’s relationship with the deputy chair of the Business Round Table was “arguably politically relevant”, nothing more. Whereas your obsession with Helen Clark’s husband is simply vile.

    [lprent: Only did an update, and suggested a few buggy places to the author]