Nonsense

70 comments on “Nonsense ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tom Gould 1

   13 November 2012 at 12:42 pm

   When will David Shearer wake up to the fact that he has had 11 months to close the gap with Key as preferred PM. How long does he need? Heck, his predecessor had 3 years. And the one before him took 6 years to gain the country’s confidence. So 11 months is plenty long enough, surely.
   • gobsmacked 1.1

     13 November 2012 at 12:55 pm

     Actually Tom, if you look at the preferred PM ratings, you will see that Shearer has gone backwards:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election

     Of course Key is losing support. After a year of miserable failure, how could he not? If the Labour leader had spent the last year in a coma, Key would have lost support. The Labour leader might have gained.
     • the sprout 1.1.1

       13 November 2012 at 12:58 pm

       True.
     • Tom Gould 1.1.2

       13 November 2012 at 1:04 pm

       And the guy before the woman before had 3 years. However, the guy before that only had 13 months. So there is precedent. Besides, it’s the Labour way. Sit on your backside and moan, and when someone else doesn’t get it done, sack them and find someone else who can. Saves getting up off your backside, I guess?
       • Rhinocrates 1.1.2.1

         13 November 2012 at 3:08 pm

         That was then, this is now. Times change, media changes… and it’s not Shearer that’s the problem; that buffoon’s only a symptom. It is Labour that’s sick and it’s been four solid years of stagnation now, not eleven months. I can imagine them electing a sack of potatoes and saying, “Give it enough time…” followed by a sack of turnips, and saying “It’s been three terms now, but it’s just about to come into its own, any year now”, followed by a sock (give it a chance, at least it’s warm and fuzzy), then a washing machine (Ha! Look, it dealt to the sock and let National make as many suds!), then… ah, who cares…

         Sorry, history is bunk (attr. Henry Ford). New century, new mores, new media, new timescales.

         That’s the nature of the media environment now. I can’t say that I like it either, but I want a party of triumphant heroes, not martyrs.
2. gobsmacked 2

   13 November 2012 at 12:44 pm

   Again Tom, all noise, no sense.

   “The Labour way”? False.

   Who was the last Labour leader who was not given the chance to fight at least one election? Palmer. Over 20 years ago.

   It would be a very rare exception. But Shearer is an exceptionally poor leader.

   (NB this was a reply to Tom Gould’s second comment, which has now disappeared)
3. Bill 3

   13 November 2012 at 12:45 pm

   Hmm, the poll on that page which has apparently had between 2500 and 2550 votes as of now runs at 70% or respondents saying it would be a good idea to explore other options or emphatically saying it’s time for him to go.

   Absolute nonsense, of coourse 😉
4. Descendant Of Smith 4

   13 November 2012 at 1:01 pm

   From my observation there seems to be four schools of thought
   Yep for shearer
   Nah for shearer which also may or may not be for cunliffe
   Do not care who it is policies we want to know about
   Does not matter cause it is all screwed anyway

   None of those viewpoints should be dismissed as nonsense

   Dismissing them reflects the same arrogance national show to voters. You can acknowledge points of view without agreeing with them.

   I feel monthy python arguement clinic despair.
5. Colonial Viper 5

   13 November 2012 at 1:24 pm

   Whoever is guiding Shearer’s media strategy has no idea whatsoever.
   • Rhinocrates 5.1

     13 November 2012 at 3:26 pm

     They have an idea, one idea: Blairism.

     “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing”

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox

     Or in other terms, as was said of the Blimpish* “Bomber” Harris, they confuse “advice with interference, evidence with propaganda and criticism with sabotage” (an attitude that seems to be the basis for the Jackal’s thought).

     They think that acknowledging any other idea is losing. It’s a tragedy that the hedgehog’s one big thing is a fog.

     *Apologies to the cinematic Major General Sir Clive Wynne-Candy, who learned better.
     • Jackal 5.1.1

       13 November 2012 at 7:16 pm

       Not at all Rhinocrates… What I actually said was that criticism can be damaging and commentators should be aware that they could have a detrimental affect on the broader aspects of what they believe in. This is true of both right and left political commentary.

       Advice is usually not made public btw, and whether it’s merely interference in order to sabotage is entirely dependent on the amount of propaganda being expressed. I thought most of the articles on David Shearer were reasonably balanced, the comments however not so much.

       You might have noticed that I have acknowledge lots of other ideas, some of which I agree with and some that I don’t. You might not be aware that both jackals and foxes are animals that come from the Canidae family; they are therefore inherently not Hedghogs.

       Please don’t try to draw me into such a silly debate again Rhinocrates… I find your pontificating rather boring.
     • Rogue Trooper 5.1.2

       14 November 2012 at 10:43 am

       yet, sometimes i really enjoy and value Rhinocrates commentary
6. ak 6

   13 November 2012 at 1:27 pm

   At last eh? A good clear decisive sound-bite, no hint of umming and erring – along with the Pagani purge, great progress. (told you he reads the ole Stan’ 😉 )
7. Dr Terry 7

   13 November 2012 at 1:34 pm

   Please refer my comment (pertaining to the Herald report) under another Heading: “At Conference, vote for a member’s democracy”.
8. Tim 8

   13 November 2012 at 2:16 pm

   OK David (Shearer)…….anything you say. After all yu da boss and we jiss gonna lay down and take another round. Ooooooooh yea Kimu savee! We knows you the sage…the experinsed UN man. Why yea…. me umm gonna vote for yo ma man! Strum us a tune will ya – why yea – we be with ya!

   (Yea right!)
   • King Kong 8.1

     13 November 2012 at 3:18 pm

     I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but even I find mimicking the language of a deferential negro slave quite racist.
     • Murray Olsen 8.1.1

       13 November 2012 at 6:06 pm

       I thought he was mimicking Key having a bro chat with King’s College First XV.
       • David H 8.1.1.1

         13 November 2012 at 8:21 pm

         🙂
       • Bob 8.1.1.2

         14 November 2012 at 5:55 am

         More like David Cunliffe rallying for votes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvenqcfX1j8
         Imagine how often this would be played if he became the new Labour leader!

         The comments that have been left don’t paint a happy picture of him either.
         • fatty 8.1.1.2.1

           15 November 2012 at 1:04 am

           oh dear…Bob, you got sucked in. All those comments are from right wingers who are scared of him. The video was talked about on radio live, whaleoil and kiwiblog. Labour voters have made it quite clear what they think of Cunliffe, and they don’t reflect most of those comments.
           Its becoming painfully obvious that the torries are shitting themselves at the thought of Cunliffe running Labour…Better luck next time Bob.
           • Bob 8.1.1.2.1.1

             16 November 2012 at 12:48 am

             Haha, you crack me up fatty, great satire “All those comments are from right wingers who are scared of him”, brilliant. Couldn’t be that the sight of a condescending ‘rich prick’ trying to talk down another ‘rich prick’ while, as King Kong would put it “mimicking the language of a deferential negro slave” is not really becoming from the potential future leader of a major NZ political party. Nah, that can’t be right, must be a right wing conspiracy cos they’re scared aye bro.

             “Labour voters have made it quite clear what they think of Cunliffe”, quite right, Labour went from having a 60 vote Party majority in the New Lynn electorate in 2008, to a 749 vote majority to National in 2011.
             • Colonial Viper …

               16 November 2012 at 1:39 am

               Cunliffe increased by over one quarter his personal majority from 4025 to 5190. In a year that the party vote tide went out against Labour in a very big way.
               • Bob …

                 16 November 2012 at 2:16 am

                 Or you could say he regained some of the 4,000 vote majority he lost (8000, down to 4000) from 2005-2008.
                 Lies, damn lies and statistics.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   16 November 2012 at 2:40 am

                   And Cunliffe successfully did so in a year that the tide went out on Labour in almost every other general electorate contest.
             • felix …

               16 November 2012 at 6:59 am

               WTF are you talking about, Bob?

               Weird how right wingers get so upset over a white man pronouncing a few maori words correctly.

               And no, nobody said anything about a conspiracy. You guys are all quite capable of being idiots off your own bats.
             • fatty …

               16 November 2012 at 2:26 pm

               -Couldn’t be that the sight of a condescending ‘rich prick’ trying to talk down another ‘rich prick’-

               Why do you assume that the left considers all rich people to be ‘rich pricks’? You are wrong. A rich prick is a person who is rich and doesn’t care for those that suffer from the same system they benefit from. Its simplistic thinking, and stems from the assumption that our economic system is natural, and that the left are jealous. Or, to be more precise, your thinking probably stems from kiwiblog and whaleoil.
               I’m guessing that Noam Chomsky is fuckin loaded…do you consider him a rich prick too? There are a few rich prick in the Labour Party, no doubt about that, but in most people’s eyes, Cunliffe is not one of them.
9. Craig Glen Eden 9

   13 November 2012 at 3:09 pm

   Ive thought about this for a while, they tried to paint Shearer as a a nice moderate caring type but to think you could lead the Party after being a MP for less than a term he must have one huge ego or be seriously deluded!
   • Blue 9.1

     13 November 2012 at 3:59 pm

     I’m going with arrogant and deluded. I’m beginning to think that the ABC club have created more of a monster than they know.

     Shearer seems to be putting it over quite clearly that he has no intention of stepping down and will have to be dragged out kicking and screaming.

     It seems one of the many political instincts he lacks is knowing when it’s time to go. That doesn’t bode well for the future. If the worst happens and he’s entrenched as Labour leader going into the election and Labour loses, he might very well ignore the convention of falling on his sword after a defeat and actually try to lead the party even after that.

     That would give the ABC club a bit of a shock…
   • leftriteleft 9.2

     13 November 2012 at 6:47 pm

     CGE: You might need to read this:

     http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/john-key

     As you can see, it’s about the wanker who is f**king this country, as we argue who’s got the mettle to be Leader of Labour.
     • karol 9.2.1

       13 November 2012 at 6:54 pm

       With a photo of “Kiwi of the Week” Fred Evans along side Key. Could the contrast be more stark?
     • Luke 9.2.2

       13 November 2012 at 8:53 pm

       Well said, that ‘wanker’ is becoming smarmier by the day. His sarcasm and arrogance in parliament is intolerable. HE is really becoming quite obnoxious. What is more concerning is he is getting away with it, but I am not sure if it is the ineffectual leader we have, or all this bickering… Whatever happens, we need to take an affirmative decision after the conference and stick with it, or we will be self destructing into oblivion.
10. karol 10

    13 November 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Bryce Edwards has done a round-up  of the calls for and against Shearer.  But first this comment by Edwards….?
     

    The Standard blog – which is normally slavishly pro-Labour and its leadership – is suddenly publishing incredibly frank and fierce calls for Shearer to go.

    Edwards sums up, thus:

    Labour’s problems relate to its confused identity and ideology. Shearer perhaps epitomises this, but he is hardly alone. The rest of the Labour caucus also have problems projecting a vision of how a Labour government would differ significantly from a National one. So, if Shearer was replaced by Cunliffe or Robertson, would Labour really be seen as a credible alternative to the current government? While there is a fair perception that David Shearer is unable to manage his caucus and that he has failed to look like a prime minister, could Robertson or Cunliffe really come up with or promote any compelling policies or sell Labour as something different to National?

     

    A similar point is made by Lynn Prentice on The Standard in his post, Shuffle the caucus deck. 

    As Edwards reports, it seems Richard Long has come out in favour of Shearer.  With endorsements like that….? 
    • Rhinocrates 10.1

      13 November 2012 at 3:47 pm

      As Edwards reports, it seems Richard Long has come out in favour of Shearer. With endorsements like that….?

      He long has, and he’s advised Shearer against restructuring his front bench. Likewise Hooters claims that he’s the best Labour leader and goes bugfuck over Cunliffe. Indeed, with endorsements like that…

      (It always amuses me that Hooters tries to market himself as an independent shaper of opinion to his Nat clients on left-wing blogs by writing such transparently disingenuous crap).
    • hrrumph 10.2

      14 November 2012 at 4:05 pm

      Also Fran O’Sullivan, DPF, and and…

      Also their was a massive profile on a ‘leading Labour’ figure in today’s Herald…um, no it wasn’t a Steve Maharey add, it was famous for…I don’t actually know…Josie Pagani! The Labour who gets more coverage in the Listener and Herald than Richard Prebble (only slightly) and whose ideas seem to be somewhat to the right of his.

      Why on earth does she get any publicity? How is she a commentator? Why don’t they ask any of the other myriad of falled Labour MPs….?
11. bomber 11

    13 November 2012 at 3:34 pm

    This is Shearer’s last stand – http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/shearers-last-stand.html
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 11.1

      13 November 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Whore.
      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1

        13 November 2012 at 7:06 pm

        It’s not entirely clear who you are referring to here. Or both?
12. Sam 12

    13 November 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Seriously? This post is one sentence long and is a link to and a quote from a Herald article?

    At least Farrar has the ability to write something in between his swathes of copy-pastas from internet news sites. No wonder nobody reads this blog anymore.
    • the sprout 12.1

      13 November 2012 at 6:36 pm

      😆
13. Matthew Whitehead 13

    13 November 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Funny, I think the bloggers feel the same way about Shearer. 😉
14. millsy 14

    13 November 2012 at 8:18 pm

    Remember: David Cunliffe said in 2008 that he had private health insurance, and before the 2011 he said that he would continue with public service layoffs.

    Suggest you think about that before fantasising about a cloth capped Cunliffe in the PoA picket lines rousing up the workers.
15. starlight 15

    13 November 2012 at 8:50 pm

    I was surprised at Andrew Little’s reply to a reporter today about blogs, “The blogs dont get to vote in the labour party,so we dont pay much consideration to it ”
    Clayton Cosgrove also said “Blogs,who cares about blogs”
    The attitude is shocking, are us, as voters, surplus to their requirements because they have the
    ability to work without the ‘people’ factor being involved or having an opinion about policy
    or personalities that we vote for,it’s as if we, the voter,the supporter,the long time champion
    the labour party should have no say or opinion ,in their eyes.
    Instead of welcoming the internet age,the blog sites,modern media,the current
    labour stalwarts cast aside the opportunity to connect to the average person and answer
    their queries about what bothers them,with inclusion in mind,this is the disconnect that
    many are feeling.
    I for one will pay the next ‘shearer says’ blog with the attention it deserves.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      13 November 2012 at 8:53 pm

      I was surprised at Andrew Little’s reply to a reporter today about blogs, “The blogs dont get to vote in the labour party,so we dont pay much consideration to it ”

      Revealing, considering that the only people who get votes which count in Labour at the moment is caucus.
    • karol 15.2

      13 November 2012 at 8:58 pm

      Andrew Little’s reply to a reporter today about blogs, “The blogs dont get to vote in the labour party,so we dont pay much consideration to it ”Clayton Cosgrove also said “Blogs,who cares about blogs”

      Yes.  Unbelievably dismissive!  So I’m not a Labour Party member, but my party vote is up for the getting if a party shows they are democratic and working for the people, inclusive, etc.  I am still not seeing anything to encourage me back to voting for the Labour Party.

      Those two have definitely gone way down in my estimation.  Guys, get a clue!  Everything you say via the media has an impact, one way or another. 
      • anthony bull 15.2.1

        14 November 2012 at 12:04 pm

        they are correct – the few hundred people who read political blogs are already hardcore left or right leaning and what they read on the blog only serves to reinforce their voting lean – what is discussed or published on the blog has no impact on voting numbers whatsoever.

        MSM sites have several orders of magnitude more influence on voting.
    • Blue 15.3

      13 November 2012 at 9:40 pm

      Are you really surprised that the people who elected David Shearer as their leader are arrogant, stupid and really enjoy shooting themselves in the foot?

      Let’s say for a moment that you are high up in a political party, and there’s this blog where many of your party members and activists, the people who form your LECs, put up your hoardings, doorknock, make phone calls, get the vote out on election day, tell everyone they know about said political party and what it is doing etc. hang out, and where thousands of politically aware people come to find out about your party and what it’s doing (especially when the MSM ignores you).

      Do you:

      (a) Treat this as a valuable resource to keep in touch with the grassroots of the party and politically informed voters; or
      (b) Ignore, denigrate and offend these people, tell them their opinions are worthless and you don’t give a shit about them.

      Blogs don’t vote, Andrew Little, but both the bloggers and the people reading them do. And guess what? Many of those people will get a vote if the party’s rules are reformed and the membership gets a say in who you sad sacks elect as leader.
16. Saarbo 16

    13 November 2012 at 8:52 pm

    This just shows how f$#@#n dumb Shearer is, he is possibly the dumbest politician since Bob Clarkson. Saying this just before the Conference…he has no political sense at all. The ABC brigade better be ready this weekend, because members are unhappy that they have selected the dumbest arsehole as leader and have basically handed National the election in 2014…good work! Fu$#@n dick heads.
17. kiwicommie 17

    13 November 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Labour needs to take electorates from National (especially in Christchurch) and the Greens are great for the party vote; the only problem is that Labour isn’t telling us what it will do once it returns to power. I don’t think I would be wrong to say that most New Zealanders don’t know what Labour even represents any more, beyond a different name and workers rights. That will pose a problem in upper middle class households and above, which might vote Green but might not trust Shearer having a union background.
18. Luke 18

    13 November 2012 at 9:17 pm

    I am one of the people who have been on the ‘get rid of Shearer’s bandwagon, but you know what? Just like his mate and former leader, Mr Goff. David Shearer is a hell of a nice guy, and I think his flaw, if anything is that he is too nice and too trusting. Simply put, I think Mr. Shearer’s people are doing a shit job promoting him, advising him etc. Let us look at Ms. Clark, she was elected leader in 1993, and didn’t beomce prime minister until 1999. Hard work and perseverance paid off. I think Mr Shearer needs a couple of full time advisers that can master him in the art of media, and public speaking. A little coaching can go a long way. I would love to see David give Bryan Edwards a call, or someone just as media savvy. I like Mr Shearer, and I think he can engage people who are not into politics, we just have to give him a chance, and I am talking 2-3 years not a meagre 12 months. I am happy to eat my words and stand by my leader, if and only if he gets some better people behind him!
    • Saarbo 18.1

      13 November 2012 at 9:22 pm

      No way, he is too Dumb. Simple as that. He must go if Labour is to have any future.
    • Colonial Viper 18.2

      13 November 2012 at 9:31 pm

      I think Mr Shearer needs a couple of full time advisers that can master him in the art of media, and public speaking. A little coaching can go a long way. I would love to see David give Bryan Edwards a call

      Ummmmm. Perhaps you should read the following mate.

      fellow media trainer Bill Ralston joked about Shearer, ‘He should have had some media training.’ But it was a joke. Media training would have made not an iota of difference to Shearer’s fortunes. He would have proved untrainable.

      That sounds harsh, but it is not intended to be. Shearer is simply miscast as the leader of a political party in opposition. To change his image, he would have to change his personality and that, in human terms, could only be a change for the worse. Shearer is genetically challenged as a Leader of the Opposition. The killer instinct and the showbiz gene are both missing. He can be reasonable but he can’t project.

      http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2012/04/on-david-shearer-and-wisdom-before-and-after-the-event/
    • gobsmacked 18.3

      13 November 2012 at 9:31 pm

      Luke

      I think your points are valid, but – too late. Remember: David Shearer became leader after a high-profile media contest, in which he showed that he was nowhere near ready.

      Fortunately, it didn’t matter much, because it was December, and politics shut down for a couple of months in summer.

      So Shearer did … nothing. There was an obvious problem, and he waited half a year (!) before going to Ian Fraser for media training. That simply beggars belief. It indicates a lack of self-awareness and poor judgement. Or picking the wrong advisers – which is the same thing.

      He had a chance to hit the ground running, and he wasted it. I have no idea why.
19. Luke 19

    13 November 2012 at 9:48 pm

    I wonder if this time next week anything will happen. The caucus are cowardly and will not take any action because they know they will implode. Shearer, as you all put is not the man for the job, then who the hell is? Because if you remember Cunliffe’s lack of loyalty during the Goff debate with Key.. Remember the numbers. Who needs enemies when you have Cunliffe in your corner… And you think he will be a better leader. Well it clearly indicates that he has Key’s and perhaps Clark’s traits, slippery as a fish. Then there is Grant Robertson, another one of those people that when the leader turns their back, Robertson is either getting ready to stick the knife in or heading for the hills. I truly believe that if Shearer is to go, we will have this same discussion in a year. It is funny, because I cannot see any credible alternative, well I can but she does not want the job!
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      13 November 2012 at 9:55 pm

      Because if you remember Cunliffe’s lack of loyalty during the Goff debate with Key..

      Oh FUCK OFF. How do you figure blaming Cunliffe for Goff not remembering the numbers under intense debate pressure???
      • Luke 19.1.1

        13 November 2012 at 10:04 pm

        Hmmm, from what I recall the numbers came out later, but his finance team were vague on the details… Oh and by the way, don’t swear at me or other people, You have no respect for anyone, you shouldn’t abuse people who have different points of view from you, not cool, you are a bully!
        • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1

          13 November 2012 at 10:13 pm

          I’m sorry, I meant to say that, IMO, it is quite unreasonable to blame Cunliffe for Goff being unable to recall numbers associated with the PREFU, while Goff was under the extreme stress of a live debate situation.

          Can you please explain why you would choose to blame Cunliffe for this incident.
        • starlight 19.1.1.2

          13 November 2012 at 10:18 pm

          When you think about it if Goff went into such a crucial debate,then he should have been schooled up on everything himself, it’s called responsibility,he was doing ok too,i thought,
          he did hold his ground,it’s a shame ‘show us the money’ is not used now against key and co.
    • fatty 19.2

      13 November 2012 at 10:15 pm

      “Because if you remember Cunliffe’s lack of loyalty during the Goff debate with Key.. Remember the numbers. Who needs enemies when you have Cunliffe in your corner”

      What do you mean?…it was a debate live on TV and Goff messed up – How the hell is that Cunliffe’s fault?
      All Goff had to do was shoot down Key by saying he would reverse the tax cuts to the rich that weren’t working, then reverse the conversation into an argument about Key trickle up policies. You can’t blame Cunliffe for that. Jeeze. You must be having a laugh
    • Saarbo 19.3

      14 November 2012 at 6:39 am

      No you are wrong Luke, any Leader worth his/her salt should have the high level numbers sussed before he/she goes into a major debate. If Goff went into this debate without the numbers then he was not up to the job. Cunliffe has been made a scape goat for Goff’s ineptness. 
20. Luke 20

    13 November 2012 at 10:25 pm

    He was the fiance person, right…  It was apparent that he did not inform Goff or brief him on the numbers, before or after the debate.  Remember they asked Goff to provide numbers?, and he eventually got back to the media, but it took a while and it gave the impression that therte was no conhesion in the party.  Moreover, it was asked on the Radio New Zealand Politics Weekly podcast ealier this year, much of what Cunliffe denied.  I have spoken to a couple of people who all thought the same thing.  It is well known that he is not trusted in ABC’s circles, he is percieved as a man on the outer, all for himself.  These are not my words, this is what is percieved by many people.  Anyway… I heard what you had to say and I am still going to stick by Shearer, and if they do replace him, I hope they do it quick and effectively. 
    • fatty 20.1

      13 November 2012 at 10:38 pm

      “Remember they asked Goff to provide numbers?, and he eventually got back to the media, but it took a while and it gave the impression that therte was no conhesion in the party?”

      Nah, it was not about cohesion in the party…it was about Goff floundering around in front of the cameras like a dying fish. My last post says how I think the situation could have been handled. Numbers then were irrelevant, Goff could have, and should have shot that down with ease. By the way, that ‘show me the money’ moment will happen again in 2014 if Shearer debating Key live before the election…except this time it will be way, way worse. On the other hand, Key would be shitting himself if he had to step up against Cunliffe, especially since the economy ain’t going nowhere in the next 2 years…Cunlife would own him, and Key’s preppy school-boy quips would be useless.

      “It is well known that he is not trusted in ABC’s circles”

      Cunliffe not trusted in ABC’s circles? For real?
    • Benghazi 20.2

      16 November 2012 at 3:40 pm

      Luke you don’t know what you are talking about. If Goff wanted a briefing from Cunliffe all he had to do was ask. He made a habit over three years of not asking Cunliffe. Cunliffe was kept on the outer. This was a pure power play by the right faction in caucus, headed by Annette King. Goff had had the numbers for a long time – he had the relevant economic briefing paper. The numbers were not new. Stop spinning the ABC nonsense.
21. Luke 21

    13 November 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Look at this transcipt, read and it clearly indicates that there were murmurs of Cunliffe not playing with a straight bat.  Seriously surprised that you did not hear this, or want to I guess…
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1112/S00025/cunliffe-on-the-nation.htm
    • Colonial Viper 21.1

      13 November 2012 at 11:00 pm

      Oh Luke. You’re still blaming Cunliffe for Goff not being able to recall the precise numbers under the pressure of a live debate? AND you’re blaming Cunliffe for Goff not being able to improvise a rebutt to Key to push back on the PM?
    • fatty 21.2

      13 November 2012 at 11:08 pm

      I’ve got no idea what part I’m supposed to be reading, or if I should be reading between the lines, or what…
      You’ll have to be more specific in pointing out how Cunliffe is responsible for messing up a debate that he didn’t take part in.
      Is this the part you are referring to?

      “David: Well he did have the numbers, the numbers that he was specifically asked there were around the Capital Gains Tax taxflows, they were public from the middle of July. I’m not criticising Phil in any way for the bounce of the ball in that debate….He had the same team briefing him that were briefing me and working with me, I had my phone on and computer on all that day, I didn’t get any request for anything extra from his team.

      Sean: Okay so you’re essentially saying Phil Goff mucked that one up all on his own.

      David: I’m not criticising but I would very flatly reject any suggestion that I let Phil down or worse, that I was in any way disloyal, that is just not true, and you can imagine that it’s somewhat hurtful.”
22. bomber 22

    14 November 2012 at 8:09 am

    If Labour have finished mutilating The Standard… – http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/if-labour-have-finished-mutilating.html
    • lprent 22.1

      14 November 2012 at 11:02 am

      Bomber: I don’t know why you bother. It is going to turn up on the feed on the right of the screen on whatever cycle that is running on. But don’t spam it across posts or I will start trashing it.
23. lurgee 23

    14 November 2012 at 10:52 pm

    I’m willing to bet all the money in the world that if Cunliffe had won the Labour leadership, the party would be in exactly the same position and – apart from swapping names around – the same squabbles and arguments, backbitings and underminings would be taking place here. And National would still be looking forwards to a third term as the left eviscerates itself.

    Wasn’t it just a couple of months back that an upwards blip in the Roy Morgan numbers sent The Standard into paroxysms of delight at the prospect of a Red-Green coalition? And already, the baked meats of Shearer’s political wedding banquet are to furnish forth his political funeral table! Frailty, thy name is something or other!
    • Colonial Viper 23.1

      14 November 2012 at 10:59 pm

      I’m willing to bet all the money in the world that if Cunliffe had won the Labour leadership, the party would be in exactly the same position

      Perhaps, but with the slight difference that 5,000 hard core activists up and down the country would already be setting the ground work for burying Key under a 2014 landslide.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS