- Date published:
4:46 pm, December 12th, 2012 - 148 comments
Categories: david shearer, labour - Tags: david shearer
David Shearer was on fine form in this speech yesterday, rounding up the year with thanks to Parliament’s workers, greetings to the opposition “family”, a friendly dig at the Press Gallery, the year of “Partial Recall” and memory dot gone, and finally the serious business of holding the Nats to account on their appalling record. Good work.
No profound message Dr Terry, just a good political speech on a political blog.
If you want something more contentious, try this. I don’t think Shearer is going anywhere in February, so Lefties who don’t like him are going to have some thinking to do in the new year.
Sorry to drop that and run, as it were, but I won’t be back until late tonight…
“good political speech”
That’s very charitable of you. I saw a man reading the low-tech equivalent of an autocue to the wrong audience.
If he isn’t gone by February the left may still win the next election in spite of him.
If Shearer doesn’t go anywhere in February, that’s up to the Labour caucus. Their call.
But in the election, our votes can go wherever we want. That’s our call.
Being told that we “lefties” have to back him because (implied) we have no choice, is the best way to make sure voters do exercise their choice, to vote for somebody else. People tend to react that way to arrogance – and Labour have shown arrogance in spades.
(As for the clip, yes, we’ve already established that Shearer can make a prepared speech with Grant’s lines, and that dozens of people will see it. Now he just has to cope with unprepared answers to questions – the ones seen by millions).
+1 as usual.
Did you just +1 your own comment?
Thanks rOb, appreciate your comment.
Shearer is safe as houses. Cunliffe couldn’t must 4% let alone 40%. Shearer will be PM in 2 years time, and all those pseudo-lefties, the old comms, the ‘wreckers and haters’ as someone once called them, will just have to get over themselves.
Oh I think, if I can be so bold, that we are the realistist of this world. We wanta someone to put a stop to the Toryraiders enslaving the people subtle for their own ends, tpeeled pile are simply a commodity now, the bottom 99.9 percent are simply tools to used in furthering a very very extremely wealthy connected people who are increasingly modifying society and it’s rules to further their narrow ambitions.
bring on feb, bring on the organisational review, bring of the plan, bring on battle to reconnect to the electorate and the members, bring on a wide left block victory in 2014.
“Lefties who don’t like him are going to have some thinking to do in the new year.”
Or not. I’m sure many of them have already decided to vote Green.
Good riddance. But I suspect they will not move to the Greens, because all they know is how to spread anarchy and chaos. Even the Greens wouldn’t put up with them.
“Anarchy and chaos” equals supporting a different candidate for leader now does it?
Your stupidity is bringing the party into disrepute.
See if that comes back to haunt in 2014 like it did in 2011.
“Even the Greens wouldn’t put up with them.”
Like politicians care where the votes comes from, as long as they keep coming.
Dr Terry, I am neither for or against his team or any other team but your reaction is simply petty and beneath you. I appreciate you have been very vocal in your dislike of him but it saddens me you can’t see beyond the petty politics to congratulate him on what seemed to be a rousing and clever speech.
“Rousing” MPs is pointless and irrelevant. He needs to “rouse” the people who have deserted the left for the “no-vote” option, rather than mouth clever in-the-know witticisms to his fellow club members.
Some people just cannot “rouse”, I am afraid. Shearer is one laid back type, who falls into that category.
RedBlooded What is petty about asking “So?” You are reading things into it. I DO NOT DISLIKE SHEARER, please get that! I am politically speaking a critic, and do you disallow me my criticisms (of anybody)? What you mean by “saddened” is of course “maddened” – be up front about it! Please do not paternalise me. I certainly do note that you say “congratulate him on what SEEMED (nb) to be a rousing and clever speech. Perhaps it was. But are you not absolutely sure?
You mean to say he’s finally doing his job?????
Isn’t it ‘IN fine form’?
Never heard of someone being on fine form.
…may be he climbed onto the finely formed desk while he was stammering his way through?…yes, that must be it. He was on a fine form.
Dear Mr Shearer & co, tyrannical control of open discussion is most unbecoming in a democracy.
Did you have to pay Mr Anthony Robins for this post? ….no, let me rephrase that…How much did you have to pay Mr Anthony Robins for this post?
R0b deserves more respect than that accusation bl. It is ok for people on this site to disagree with each other politically.
It was a good end of year summary and without the background of the Cunliffe debacle I doubt this post would be seen as controversial.
So I’ll take as that. It didn’t need the contentious bit at 1.1 but, although being a Cunliffe supporter, I understand the frustration of the leadership question tainting everything.
No disrespect intended toward R0b, I usually seek out his posts because I find them insightful, and feel this one has another tone. My comment was reflecting the recent behaviour and “tone” of the Labour party, not on R0b
After being very put off by the revolting behaviour of NZLP: the first major political attack they make, being one on a member of their own party, who seems very talented and this occurring whilst there is a Government ripe for attack on so many fronts; the only difficulty is knowing where to start; I stopped reading the Standard for a few weeks.
Now I return and find everyone has turned into a space rocket (Colonial Viper) and one of the main posters isn’t posting anymore. Its looking like Draco might have vanished, today, too. And the reason given? NZLP pressure. This is completely unacceptable.
This is what my comment was about.
Ok. Why do you think Draco has gone?
What makes me think Draco has gone?
I looked for comments from Draco, noting there weren’t many and the last comment he/she made was yesterday morning.
Or what is the reason Draco (&co) have gone?
I don’t know why anyone has gone. I read some of the posts that I missed and the talk was that there has been political pressure on members of the Labour Party to not express opinions on blogs. Hopefully this is not the case because it is entirely unacceptable if it is so.
I’d be very surprised if Draco were a Labour party member.
That’s a point! 🙂
Hello mr draco are you out there?
(he might have gone to the outside like poor old CV)
It seems that rumours of his demise have been greatly exaggerated 😉
Better than saying he was ‘in fire’ I suppose. 😉
I hope that he maintains that fine form.
Must give credit where it’s due. Good speech encompassing a huge list of failures Nact have delivered, but no mention of the reign of terror Bennett has got going. It had Key shrinking into his seat as he realised the scope of his inept team of flakes.
Hope Shearer stays away from bbq’s at Hootens and gets together with the Green family instead to plan the removal of this most useless Govt. over the break. The Greens can teach him plenty and make him see he’s been getting some poor advice he couldn’t recognise due to his inexperience.
edit: Every New Zealander should have to watch this so they can appreciate just how poor nice Mr Key has “served” the country.
Personally I think every NZer should routinely watch Question Time so they can see just what a useless smartarse John Key is.
A five year old smartarse.
(apologies to all five year olds …)
I agree ScottG, Watching Key performing I am often left wondering just what he is on. His narcissism is getting worse .His team ? all giggling and nodding whilst the country suffers . . Key has no proper control over what must be the most dysfunctional government ever ,
Key was first out of the House. Nearly running!!!!
Peters mentioned that “Ronald McDonald” had gone early, or was not present anymore, when he started his speech. No doubt, whom he meant there!
I won’t even bother responding.
Because you know I’m right.
Smiley-face right back at ya!!
Anthony, do you really think it is a good idea to post an average speech to promote Shearer? I suspect this kind of post has the opposite effect to the one you seem to hope to achieve. The fact that sometimes, with extensive coaching and rote learning his lines, Shearer can raise his game from an F to a C, does not inspire confidence.
I remember when Goff was routinely performing abysmally, sometime before the last election campaign and the eternal optimist, Bomber wrote an enthusiastic post and linked to a speech that was a dramatic improvement. Except Goff had only moved from abysmal to merely bad with a couple of good sentences. It only served to highlight that we were doomed to another term of National – not the stirring, cheering effect I think Bomber was hoping to generate.
Good on you if you want to promote Shearer, but wait until he does something worth cheering before you start the ticker tape parade.
Goff was often very good in the House. Ripped into Key in debates, fiery and fluent.
It made no difference whatsoever to the election result.
That’s true gobsmacked. But don’t you think that had more to do with the electoral cycle rather than who the main combatants were? The next cycle is going to be far more challenging for the Nats.
Goff actually gave some very impassioned speeches in the House, especially when speaking about the struggles of low income people. I don’t see such passion and concern for the strugglers from Shearer.
Shearer can do passion and concern for strugglers. If you’d heard his speech at the Auckland Labour list conference before 2011, there’d be no question where his heart is. And that was after he’d volunteered to go below all other MPs on the list to ensure (ethnic/gender) diversity requirements were met.
I thought the dig at the media was unwarranted. He had a very sympathetic run from them for many months and was given many opportunities to build his image. But he wasted them.
A good speech espousing Labour Party principles.
I think that was the best speech I have seen Shearer give he only stumbled and bumbled to many times to count, but he was funny maybe he should go on Letterman it might help us all forget that he is condoning a culture of bulling and restriction of an Mp and members freedom of speech. Clare Curren thought it was awfully funny, I wonder what CV thought.
Merry Christmas CV hope you feel you are able to return soon.
Oh I am sure our friend in arms will be if not soon sometime when the axe is blunt by all the chopping.
Pretty good speech from the next PM. Told you he could be good.
MVH – Are we to presume that you are talking about John Key (next PM)?
Good to see you are acting in solidarity with the rest of us in support of CV.
Does this mean you are becoming a leftie?
Nope, but don’t worry, he is still the wolf (trying strenuously to manoeuver himself into a woollen one-piece) that you know and love.
Wolf??? More like sick poodle.
Ugh, a Hooton comment. I wonder who paid for that one, but in any case I still feel like I need a bath.
Or I suppose I should giggle at a halfwit trying to be witty.
Ah, a dilemma: is it insignificant… or is it insignificant?
It was a very ordinary speech, read out word for word in an almost competent manner. He even looked like he understood a couple of the jokes in it. Not all of them, but a couple.
Give him a biscuit.
As for this: “Lefties who don’t like him are going to have some thinking to do in the new year.”
Yeah, should they vote Green or not bother (again)?
yes, it’s almost like there are now parties other than lab and nat that people can vote for. amazing
Good speech. Notably churlish comments from the ever more bitter sounding Cunliffites.
…Oh? U a cunliffite then are you?
“…Oh? U a cunliffite then are you?”
Actually, yeah, I was, during the leadership election. But he didn’t win, so I got over that, and now I just wish he and his supporters would show a bit of loyalty instead of trying to turn back time. You lost, it sucked, move on.
Yep, move on to supporting a Party that speaks your language, and leave the Party that refuses to quit drinking the slightly watered down kool-aid.
Despite the passion of many to have a pre ’80’s Labour, it seems brick wall and head would be more productive. They want you to vote Green if you are a real lefty, so let Labour fall to 20%, thats all they deserve for playing the Nat-lite game. Greens end up with 20% and more weight to bring about change. Teach them a lesson with your vote I say.
I think people have to be realistic. Yes, I’d like to see everything nationalised, right down to the supermarkets and corner stores, all schools taken over by the state and the only religion permitted the worship of the Dear Leader (me) but IT AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN. The battle is not to recreate some (largely fictitious) pre-Lapsarian Aotearoan socialist paradise. It is to stop the further encroachments of pernicious rightwing ideology. And if winning that war means making some unpleasant compromises and accepting ideological taint, so be it.
While most people get that MMP allows radical fringe parties to prosper (at least until they get into power where they seem to self-destruct), and that silver+bronze beats gold, but people don’t seem to have absorbed the lesson that – under MMP – you have to carry the centre. Pre-MMP, a leftwing party could survive because it was the only effective repository for non-rightwing votes. Labour could look forwards to getting their core votes (so plenty of policies to keep them happy) and the anti-National vote (which didn’t need to be pampered so much) – and vice versa. First Past The Post necessitates a core vote strategy. Get the core vote out, and if the rest of the electorate is pissed off enough with the other lot, you win.
MMP is trickier because the centre votes matter. Winning by one vote in one constituency doesn’t matter if you lose by ten thousand in another. You’ve got to drag as many people to your side as possible, and that means looking to the middle class more. Which is not ‘selling out’ as a) lots of working class people aspire to be middle class, and b) the middle class are workers as well. Funny how people get all passionate about 99% vs 1% but then ignore the concerns and needs of half of that 99%.
Also, bluntly, the middle class / centre is far more radical than you seem to think. Middle classes are, after all, overwhelmingly, the (adult) people who support the Greens. They are educated, concerned and willing to make sacrifices (perhaps because they can afford to). They also have different concerns to the working class – mortgages, pensions and so on. National is canny enough to play to those concerns, trumping more idealistic concerns. Labour can appeal to the idealism, but the message will be far more effective if it addresses their material concerns as well.
As an aside, could I point out this is not ‘neo-liberalism’ and throwing that term at any policy you disagree with is lazy and dishonest (not thinking about you in particular, but the way it is bandied about here). neo-liberalism is far more rightwing and far more frightening than anything the Labour Party is offering. Even National don’t openly preach it – because (important bit) – they know it would alienate the middle classes voters they will be relying on in 2014.
That is not what most of the left wants – most of us want an economic, social and political democracy, not a corporate state.
Centre right revisionists always come out with this sort of crap as a way of justifying their subservience to the ruling class.
Actually, old chap, I was one of 94 people in Palmerston North who voted for Mana. Are they centre right revisionists … ?
I don’t see marching left offering much for Labour in the short or medium term, as explained above and else where. Accept that a majority is almost going to be an impossibility under MMP. Labour should seek lock in the near left and centre, a political position that actually reflects the wishes, needs and desires of the NZ working class. Let the Greens or whoever deliver the further left vote. There is no point in squabbling over them. The election will be decided – as always – by who can capture the middleground. This can be done through policy that will appeal to their wallets, or by articulating a vision that will appeal to their hearts and minds, or a bit of both.
You are welcome to maintain your stance on the moral high ground. Just get used to John Key smirking from the government side of the chamber.
Nationalize the essential services , for instance the power companies .water and the greenbelts.
<i>…making some unpleasant compromises…, so be it.
Lurgee, what unpleasant compromises are you making. I mean in the real world, not in your head. Are you doing without necessary medical or dental treatment, eating a nutritionally inadequate diet, wearing the uniform of poverty and getting treated as a lesser being…..what?
The strategy you recommend has failed for two elections in a row, as more and more see no point in voting.
“what unpleasant compromises are you making”
What does that have to do with anything, or is ad hominem the only strategy you have? My comment refers to how we can stop the advance of neo-con ideology. Do you honestly think a majority of the NZ population will vote for a profoundly leftwing platform? Given that for many of those people, it will involve voting against their interests and aspirations?
These compromises with middle-classes and their aspirations and with the MSM, have been going on for around 3 decades. It happened under FPtP, and it’s continuing under MMP. It doesn’t need to be that way.
Compromise on compromise is increasing inequalities, and continually dragging left wing parties rightwards. For nearly 3 decades, I’ve lived on false hopes that such compromises can lead the way to more equality in income, jobs etc. It ain’t happening.
The global context has changed since the GFC. Now is the time for political parties to stand up for the foundational principles of the labour/left movement.
Your solution is permanent opposition? Great. That’ll help.
The Financial Crisis has actually strengthened the right, not the left. It has been used to attack the state and anger is being diverted into nationalism and xenophobia. A clear win for the neo-cons. Now you’re tacitly saying we should abandon political power to them as well.
You’re playing into their hands.
Reality check. Criticism of Shearer ≠ support for Cunliffe.
“Reality check. Criticism of Shearer ≠ support for Cunliffe.”
73% overlap among Standard regulars. Absolutely scientifically valid statistic I just made up.
You are missing the point. Shearer attracts negative criticism because Shearer is manifestly inadequate, not because Cunliffe is a better candidate.
[ yup, a newly discovered species, observed in Dunedin and central Wellington. ]
Lurgee – it might be more relevant **getting people out to vote** .. irrespective of direction.
I was appalled at how empty the polling stations were where I live during the last election.
That should be a *multi-partisan* priority and an Electoral Commission campaign before the next vote.
Assuming it was “good”, I agree with OTV and others. So what if it was “good”? It impresses only a couple of dozen MPs, not millions of voters. So, you want me to vote for you? I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that.
FV: “Give him a biscuit.”
Indeed. Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss not calamitously fucking up for once when he has a prepared script is no achievement at all. Are standards really so low? “Good” is not good enough.
The alternative explanation to Shearer being a pompous self-deluding fuckwit out of his depth is that he’s a crude robot – so does DAVE 9000 pass the Turing Test or is it just reciting a programmed recitation of scripted platitudes? Frankly, HAL is more eloquent, has more of a focus on his mission and has better skills at chess.
And meanwhile the caucus troughers still attack the party.
So Merry Christmas CV too. I wish it could be better.
He can’t win, can he? He does a good job – worth a couple of soundbites on the news, I’d have thought – and it is totally irrelevant. But ff he’d fucked up the speech monstrously, you’d be howling for him to step down immediately. It wouldn’t matter then that it was only a few MPs watching.
Of course a speech at the fag end of the year isn’t very important. Nothing Shearer does – assuming he doesn’t eat a child live on TV or something – is really important just now. The same goes for Key. Shearer is the leader of the opposition and – if you can tear yourself away from your monitor screen for a moment – it is summer out there. Off season politics is a pursuit enjoyed only by a few saddos like us. Nothing will be watched by millions – though it’s worth noting that when Shearer does put himself in the news by visiting the site of the Auckland tornado, he’s accused of ‘Ambulance chasing’ by the same bunch who would – undoubtedly – have denounced him for doing nothing if he hadn’t gone.
It’s like the scene in Citizen Kane where they look at the two alternative front pages. One reads KANE ELECTED. The other, FRAUD AT POLLS. Only in your version, the both read, SHEARER IS A COCK, regardless of what he says or does.
You are focussing on the smallest and most easily addressed criticism of Shearer: that he is not a good public speaker. The greater concern is that he appears to be the ‘face’ of a group who are pulling the Labour Party to the right, at a time when the people who rely on Labour to represent them are being mercilessly screwed. What is more, they are resorting to low tactics to keep this aim on track, and trumpeting inclusiveness while trying desperately to undermine it.
The speech, after all, is just a speech, and addresses none of the larger problems. It does not make up for Shearer’s accepting the fabricated grounds upon which Cunliffe was silenced, and the lobbying to prevent Labour members from commenting unfavourably on blogs. Not to mention the courting and promoting of people who do not appear to hold a single value that one would normally associate with a Labour Party.
I agree that there is a damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he doesn’t element to some people’s criticisms, but this is expressive of the frustration generated by the above problems.
Merry Christmas CV. I hope we will see you again in the New Year, with whatever name you choose to sail under.
Nice one Olsviper, I can put my metaphorical pen now. You have said what I was going to say only so much better.
I find it disappointing that r0b (and others) are ignoring the underhand, below the belt tactics adopted (and continue to be adopted) by the ABC supporters. They have done infinitely more damage to the Party – and people’s perception of it – than all the criticism leveled at Labour on this site and elsewhere. Most of us don’t hate Shearer… we wish him well and would like to see him succeed. But the ABC club et al are deliberately misrepresenting our critiques and concerns in such a way, they are driving a deep chasm between the so-called Shearer and Cunliffe camps. I have nothing but contempt for them.
I agree with others. The speech was indeed a beltway speech – for the beltway, by the beltway and with only the beltway in mind. Sad, when it should have been about the loss of jobs, loss of dignity and hope, and the loss of any sort of Xmas for the many, many thousands of NZers who have been left in the ditch of despair by this government.
Ooops: it should be put my metaphorical pen down now
Thanks Anne 🙂 I also think the speech was a beltway one, which to be fair, may well be the convention for the last speech of the year. But since Shearer’s oratory is not my central concern about the Labour Party, it did not change my mind about anything.
Nice speak, a few bumbles and frowns, certainly written by grant Robertson.
At 6.30 mark of the clip shearer even mentioned going into the BBQ season….I laughter then.
oh in two years he might might just might be ok at public speaking and taking it to key or his Joyce but I swear if we lost this time around its game over for the left in any strength…the Tories and the lite right of labour will dismantle the last bastion, the last cornerstones of our once good and fair society.
Thanks to rob for a nice post and clip.
My bad…way too tired this week to even spell or type correctly…
I missed it. Did anyone video it?
The left of the LP are it cornerstone. We safeguard the party against any pseudo trickster Tory infiltrators who are the real ‘raiders’.
I hope I know where our true great leader will take us, the people, in the decades to come, given his chance at the blood red chalice of power.
Why does Hipkins look so nervous through the speech?
Given the state of the Labour Party the best thing Shearer could do is call a membership vote in February, he is the leader because of the good grace of his clique, he needs to prove to the broader public that he is the genuine leader of Labour. I suspect that Hipkins is nervous for the same reason that the rest of us are going to be shitting ourselves in 2014 when he goes head to head with Key.
If he wins a fair membership vote I can feel comfortable about getting behind him in 2014 and help get rid of this incredibly damaging and incompetent government, if he doesn’t call a membership vote then sadly I will struggle to support this bunch and I know a number of Labour people who feel the same way. If Labour people feel this way then it is doubtful that the swing voters will come back across.
I watched Hopkins but I got some deranged worship of the little leader…bit disturbing really.
Interesting how someone has run a ribbon across Grant Robertson’s mouth.
Pretty average recital of a heavily rehearsed speech, clearly written by Robertson.
If that’s a great Shearer performance and something we’re supposed to hang some hope on – then we really are fucked.
Good speech by Shearer. Better than I expected. Pity the general public won’t see it.
At least Shearer has a decent speech/joke writer. The content was very good stuff. The delivery is still getting mangled, but he was in the best form I’ve ever seen him, relaxed, happy and confident.
It doesn’t resolve any of his problems with off the cuff speaking, or absolve him of all the shit he’s turning a blind eye to in his party though.
I particularly liked the part where he thanked National for fucking up all year and making the Opposition’s job easier. Reminding everyone how much you owe to the other guy fucking up worse than you is not the smartest political move.
Imagine how good a year Labour could have had if there weren’t persistent questions about Shearer’s leadership and the caucus didn’t leak their dirty laundry to the media at every opportunity.
That’s it – Key and National have handed their own humiliation to the opposition on a silver platter repeatedly and every time, the pointy-haired boss has said, “Not now, I’ve got my real enemies to deal with – the Labour Party” and each time, Key and Crosby-Textor have said, “Cool, thanks dude!”
You are VERY funny!! “Not now, I’ve got my real enemies to deal with – the Labour Party”
LOL LOL LOL!
“he thanked National for fucking up all year and making the Opposition’s job easier.”
And yet still miles behind in the polls and incapable of making something stick to teflon jon.
Perhaps Mr Shearer should have thanked his lucky stars he’s still got the well paid job he’s totally shit at.
OK, watching it. I used to be a cleaner, so it’s nice to be mentioned – but not patronised. Robertson or some hack must have noticed that his wastepaper bin was emptied regularly. Didn’t do it with good grace I have to say – scrubbing toilets doesn’t instil respect. Dried executive shit looks just like anyone else’s.
Can’t he talk for one second without looking at his notes?
Is this “good”?
No. The hack who wrote it is adequate. The reader is “not utterly shit”.
OK, now watching more…
“It’s been a year of opportunity for the opposition.”
Oh yes… but why’d ya drop it, butterfingers? Why’d ya decide that the real enemy is your own party?
Yep, thank the government, because the supposed main opposition party has done sweet fuck all. Example: Parata is the most egregiously incompetent and vile minister and your supposed education spokesperson is Mahuta. Now tell me, would a potato do a better job of opposing her? Or a sock? Perhaps an avocado? Maybe even belly-button lint? How about earwax?
“Happy new year, please have a restful and safe holiday blah wibble, I am a teapot.”
This is “fine form”? Really? REALLY?!
No, that’s not fine form. That’s a heavily rehearsed speech done merely adequately at a few points, telling a few dozen MPs what they want to hear so that they can tell themselves that they matter. It says NOTHING AT ALL about what “Labour (TM)” stands for.
Late in 2011, Phil Goff almost convinced me that, if it were 1935, I should vote Labour. In 2011 that made no sense. This makes less sense and is less relevant. Congratulations Grant Robertson (because you or one of your Mini-Mes wrote this), you’re a dullard.
What a load of shit. Mediocre writing with nothing new to add, mediocre rehearsed delivery. No vision, just trite bullshit. So what if it embarrasses Key? Reality does that by default, moron. Do better!
This is not a government in waiting.
Why do you exist? What of you stand for? What is the purpose of the Labour Party (TM) today? Tell us.
Who are you?
…the sound of a dripping tap in a far off room was the only thing to be heard….
‘Yep, thank the government, because the supposed main opposition party has done sweet fuck all. Example: Parata is the most egregiously incompetent and vile minister and your supposed education spokesperson is Mahuta. Now tell me, would a potato do a better job of opposing her? Or a sock? Perhaps an avocado? Maybe even belly-button lint? How about earwax?’
Her total absence on all thing education-Parata related is ridiculous. I seen a link a while back, I think someone had posted it here, in which she was defending criticism that she’s received in regards to her not clearly articulating to the public Labour’s stance on education, and for not challenging the government’s education policies enough. Now, those are more than fair criticisms considering that it’s highly likely you’re not even going to know who Nanaia Mahuta is unless you take more than passing interest in politics. I’ve even had conversations with friends of mine who actually do follow politics, and they didn’t know who she was when I’d first mentioned her. So, how are you expecting to convey your party’s vision for education in this country, if no-one knows who your education spokesperson is? Is there another Labour MP out there doing this woman’s job for her? No, not that I can see. Then, I ask, why is she even there?
I find it rather odd that Cunliffe chose her as a running mate, eh. She’s clearly incompetent.
“tell us. Who are you?” And who put you there? Why?
Sorry I’m getting back to this late. A mix of comments above, thanks to some who have already made points that I would have made. I’ll pick up one thread here because it comes up a couple of times.
I wrote: “Lefties who don’t like [Shearer] are going to have some thinking to do in the new year”.
Gobsmacked (similar to others) replied: “Being told that we “lefties” have to back him because (implied) we have no choice, is the best way to make sure voters do exercise their choice, to vote for somebody else.”
I was writing in a hurry, and easily misunderstood. I certainly didn’t mean that lefties have no choice! Vote Labour, Green, Mana, anything on the Left, it’s all good with me. (I’m much more aligned to a broad set of policies and principles than I am to any particular party.) Of Course we have choice.
But I also think that (certainly if Shearer is confirmed as leader in February as I believe he will be) it is time to stop ripping in to the man with quite so much vigour and bile. Don’t like him, don’t vote for him, fine. But don’t tear him down. There will be no change of government without a strong Labour Party.
We don’t have to “tear him down” and most of us don’t want to. It’s Shearer et al doing the tearing down, of what little is left of what Labour used to stand for. We are just watching helplessly from the sidelines, talking amongst ourselves, wishing there was something we could do to stop it.
It’s Shearer et al doing the tearing down, of what little is left of what Labour used to stand for.
I guess I’ll have to disagree with you there. The roof beneficiary speech was very poor, but since then I think Shearer’s values have been solid (though the delivery is variable). His conference speech may not be radical enough for some, but it seems to me to be well in line with what Labour used to (and still does) stand for.
‘His conference speech may not be radical enough for some, but it seems to me to be well in line with what Labour used to (and still does) stand for.’
Ah, where to start here. There’s a lot of options available, but, I’ll give just one critique of that statement, and I’m sure others will add to it in due course.
If he’s ‘well in line’ with what Labour ‘used to stand for,’ then where has been outlining that he wants to counter National’s residualist welfare policies by instilling a socially democratic, comprehensive welfare system based around full employment?
Whereas neoliberalism adopts an analysis that explains both the causes of, and solutions to, the problem of poverty as residing with the individual failings of the poor, the social democratic perspective locates the causes of poverty and unemployment in the wider structural forces that influence social order. The policy implications that flow on from this see the social democratic perspective offer a radically divergent vision of the proper purpose, and extent of state involvement in the provision of welfare. Labour is not a social democratic party. It hasn’t embraced the values of social democracy for nearly thirty years.
From the social democratic perspective, there is a rejection of the view that markets operate best when left to their own devices. This is based on the belief that unfettered market capitalism creates vast wealth disparities and, therefore, poverty and social inequality. In contrast to neoliberalism, theories of social democracy do not blame the poor for their poverty, instead viewing it as being shaped by social influences. This view locates the causes of poverty and inequality in the wider social structures of society, largely attributing them to the two fundamental flaws of capitalism outlined by Keynes as, ‘its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.’ It follows from structural explanations of poverty that the state should play a significant role in tackling social problems, and the key goal of social policy in this regard is the redistribution of wealth and resources with the aim of achieving an egalitarian society.
Rather than posit welfare needs as personal responsibilities and individualise social problems, social democracy deems poverty and unemployment as problems that individuals should not be left solve on their own accord. Here, the responsibility for doing so is shared across all social groups and facilitated via state mechanisms. This shifting of risk from the individual to the whole of society is central to the social democratic welfare state. The emphasis it places on the structures of society and the ways in which those structures create and sustain inequality and poverty creates a system wherein markets are regulated to protect individuals from poverty, and welfare programmes are based on risk-sharing between high- and low-risk social categories. This solidarity binds together the fates of the lower and the middle classes, the poor and the rich, the young and the old, and the sick and the healthy, through a welfare system in which there is a collective responsibility to help disadvantaged members of society.
This is achieved through state regulation of the market, and the redistribution of income and wealth from the affluent to those in need via progressive taxation and generous welfare payments. Next to its fundamental mission to protect and care, the social democratic welfare state is underpinned by an employment-based strategy to combat unemployment, poverty, and inequality in which the state commits to policies of full employment and job creation. Such an approach to social investment rests on policies to boost human capital stock through training and education schemes to help the unemployed improve their vocational skills and increase their employability, and flow on policies serving to make efficient use of the ensuing gains in human capital. Here, the state utilises active labour market policies as a tool to promote employment via employment subsidies, either in the public or private sector, in order to directly create jobs for the unemployed. This strategy takes the unemployed as they are and attempts to shape jobs to fit their specific capabilities.
Remuneration for public employment for adult workers should be set at the national minimum wage, and since the jobs available would reflect the available skill sets of those seeking employment, there would be no means test for participation. The movement toward full employment would resolve the first of Keynes’s two fundamental flaws of capitalism, and upon actualisation, the second, inequality, would also be drastically reduced as a result of the achievement of full employment. Moreover, due to the high levels of provision offered by the social democratic welfare state, its economic sustainability hinges on the number and productivity of taxpayers within its jurisdiction. This is because paid employment generates the tax revenue required to fund its welfare system and labour market policy measures Therefore, as it can only provide a high degree of comprehensive welfare services while there are comparatively few in need of it, and this requires full employment that, if not provided by private enterprise, must be provided by the state via state funding of public employment programmes.
The New Zealand Labour Party used to hold these kind of values. However, you’re a fucking dreamer if you’re going to claim that they still do now in 2012. This is because Labour’s welfare discourse is largely shaped by the neoliberalist ‘third way,’ and not social democracy.
My three cents…third way is a transional system put in place to adapt right neo liberal policy to a social democratic methodology. The market and economic system is way to fragile a system to withstand upheaval or substantial shocks ideological or external forces enviro earthquakes or credit crunches.
We can go back a pure left system, obviously theTory ideology is failing dramatically world wide so where to NEXT?
A hybrid transitional third way framework of policies 15 years old and then when the time is right we devolope a new economic system, some green brown red even blue combined thing….money must still flow.
SouthDeezViper… that truly speaks to me …. thanks.
Full employment, a robust welfare system and progressive taxation should be a fundamental pledge of anyone who calls themselves a Labour Party member.
To win the next election the LP leadership must consistently and persuasively argue for these goals, and must strongly encourage debate in order to develop equitable social and economic policies to achieve them.
We will not win the next election by sniping, sneering or mocking the current government. Nor will personal jibes directed at a generally well-liked PM persuade people to respect our values or share our principles.
Labour MPs and Party members must seriously ask themselves whether the current LP leaders have the charisma, intelligence, good humour and wisdom to truly get the message across to the 70% of NZers that don’t support us, and also whether they have sufficient humility, strength and will to mend the increasing level of divisiveness apparent among the 30% that are still, just… hanging in there with the LP.
A long and thoughtful reply SDV.
I agree that Shearer / Labour are not as bold on welfare as you and I would wish (I do not understand why the last Labour government didn’t reverse the cuts of 1991 while it had the chance). There was little in Shearer’s speech about it, just “I want a fair society where everyone gets a chance. Where we look after those who need it, but where everyone has a responsibility to do their bit too. Rights and responsibilities – a society based on that simple social contract.” I want to see a stronger statement, I want to see the 1991 cuts reversed, but there is certainly nothing in what Shearer said that I disagree with.
The Labour Party of old created a welfare state because it needed creating. That could only be done once, any subsequent Labour Party is going to look weaker in comparison. The question now is what we do with an existing Welfare state, and I would certainly be looking to the next Labour government to strengthen it. We have to acknowledge, however, that it isn’t a popular electoral issue. I think that Labour can manage that (perhaps even change our collective attitude again), but it is more likely to be successful in office than in opposition. So I’m not surprised that Shearer’s speech did not focus on welfare.
But look at what it did cover. Taking control of the economy, jobs, training, education, investment in NZ, housing, fairness. It’s a solidly Labour speech. I for one would rather support what is good than tear down what is not perfect (and get ourselves 3 more years of Nats). Then when we’re in government, we can work for the change that is needed…
I enjoyed your article SDV, you managed to get a lot of good stuff into a relatively few words.
You raised the point that “neoliberalism adopts an analysis that explains both the causes of, and solutions to, the problem of poverty as residing with the individual failings of the poor” , National/Paula Bennett (and I guess governments since 1984) have pushed this narrative to the point that many middle class New Zealanders believe that this is fact. People in the centre have really been persuaded by National, that people on welfare are there because they are lazy. David Shearer tried to go down a similar path with the roof painter which is probably where he really lost most of his member support. Because as SDV states (paraphrase), you simply cant get a job if no jobs exist. There probably are a few welfare cheats, but in dollar terms its probably pretty minor, anyway they are dealt with in the system. But what National/Paula Bennett have done is disgusting and repugnant, and it has changed the collective attitude of Kiwi’s from an egalitarian one to an “us” and “them”, it has really stigmatised people on welfare.
rOB states that “We have to acknowledge, however, that it isn’t a popular electoral issue. I think that Labour can manage that (perhaps even change our collective attitude again), but it is more likely to be successful in office than in opposition. So I’m not surprised that Shearer’s speech did not focus on welfare ”
From my point of view, this is where Shearer/Labour strategy is wrong and is probably why they don’t make any headway into National in the poles despite National being absolutely hopeless. LABOUR NEED TO GO INTO ATTACK RE WELFARE. Instead of trying to replicate National with the cheating roof painter, find the unemployed guy in my rugby team who spent 2 years looking for a job…talk about his story, no fu%$en jobs. But rOB , to do this when in office doesn’t build a robust government. Labour need to be communicating a powerful narrative around jobs and welfare now, they need to be changing the “collective attitude again” now. Jobs fix a lot of problems.
But this is when we get into the heart of the problem for Labour, this is the reason why we can’t shift National in the Poles. Because David Shearer has not got what it takes to be clear and persuasive in conveying his message. To collectively change peoples attitudes, our Leader needs to have supreme communication skills. Unfortunately John Key has got it. I watched Metiria Turei this morning on TV3, she’s got it. I watched Campbell Live tonight, it had Fonterra CEO Theo Spierings whose second language is English, he’s got it. These people instil confidence when they speak. They are clear and they make a connection.
David Shearer can do prepared speeches but because of his communication shortcomings he will always struggle to persuade people to change their attitudes. That is the problem with Shearer.
With respect rob, ‘Shearer’s values have been solid’ for about 3 months – since a massive backlash from the left who found the values expressed in the roof painter speech repugnant.
Meanwhile the values of Shearer’s henchmen, of bullying and suppressing the voice and participation of genuinely concerned members, have continued to be allowed by Shearer.
Neither of us know what Shearer felt about the contradictory advice he was getting at that time, but the fact that Pagani is gone and there hasn’t been any repetition of such framing suggests to me that that incident was an abberation.
“Neither of us know what Shearer felt about the contradictory advice he was getting”
‘cept we kind of do, from the fact that he said it.
Unless you think he’s some sort of robot who just reads whatever is put in front of him, of course.
if Shearer is really the man of substance he’s purported to be, one would have thought he wouldn’t say such things if he didn’t believe them.
the alternative is that he’s just a puppet who says whatever he’s told – until someone tells him to sing a different tune
Good point rob, if we shearer post feb as leader, then the labour team should havpursue support as we need to focus, after that point, on one objective – taking down the Tories.
We have an election to win, and win well with a clear and strong mandate from the people to stop the rorte of our society by the Tory machine.
I live and breathe south d and see daily the misery caused by the Tory and other light blue policies. These are the forgotten multitude
Focus and unify against the real enemy of the state.
<i>…taking down the tories…</i>
The problem as I see it, is that we now have two National parties. In order to “take down the tories” we must either take down both parties (prohibitively difficult) or take back the Labour Party. This may also be impossible, probably is, but it has to be the first priority, because otherwise the second task is meaningless.
There is also no longer any time to lose. With the climate, food, oil and corporate crises now upon us, a large, ever-increasing number of our people, are surplus to the excessive requirements of not just the elite, but of a very bloated and now disporportionately powerful upper middle class. In my opinion both major parties are prepared to sacrifice us to the continuing luxury and excess of the most fortunate. There is no way of avoiding this without substantially reducing the power and wealth of the top 25 percent. Pretending otherwise is no longer plausible because we’ve had thirty years to witness the lie. Third-way tinkering around the edges, throws my tribe under the bus just as efficiently, just less honestly.
R0b: “There will be no change of government without a strong Labour Party.”
There will be no strong Labour Party without effective leadership, that listens to the members rather than treating them with fear and suspicion.
Agreed. And Conference took giant steps to make sure that members are listened to – a process that was initiated by the current leadership.
…which then panicked when it realised that the members wanted more direct control over the leadership, and went to pieces so fast David Cunliffe got hit by the shrapnel.
One thing I do agree on: after February, whatever the outcome, it’s time to destroy the National Party.
Rob you ignore the truth and actuasl events at conference, Shearers lot opposed the 60-40 vote. Just because you allow a review does not make you a reformer!
He then made out that Cunliffe was trying to topple him in order to punish him Cunliffe is clearly Labours best performer so you are working in the Party and Countries best interest by trying to kill of your best beformer? Then you breach his right as an MP and human right to freedom of speech how is that showing Leadership and uniting the party? Then we have LABOUR MPs trying to shut down leadership discussions on social media. Which is out right bullying. I will not be bullied by any of these idiots Fenton, Curren, Mallard, Robinson they can get stuffed.
Shearer has allowed leaks to the media and has done nothing because it serves his interest Shearer has willingly tarred him self with the same brush, I have no respect for him, he clearly does not have the skills to run or lead the party, hell he cant even get a decent electorate office in his own electorate Shearer is yesterdays man with yesterdays team backing him.
If Shearer does not go I suspect alot of members will.
Just because you allow a review does not make you a reformer!
You allow a review, on the most contentious issue you make your case, you lose, you accept the result and get on with it. There are many other changes, including an improved and binding policy process. I say again, the party has taken giant steps forward in listening to the members.
He then made out that Cunliffe was trying to topple him
Which, indeed, he was. Sorry, but those who refuse to believe it are in a state of serious denial.
Then we have LABOUR MPs trying
A (one) Labour MP, as far as I can tell. If that move gets any traction, then we have cause to concern. But I don’t think it will.
“…you resent the result and get on with attacking the people who supported it.” FIFY
Several hundred people supported it OTV, if they have been “attacked” then I guess I missed it. Three deep breaths maybe?
this is not about Cunliffe – whether or not he challenged Shearer’s leadership, or deserved demotion to the back banches – nor is it about the one? MP that has used blackmail tactics – it’s about 2 serious issues
are LP members confident in the LP leadership’s ability to adequately reflect their social values
how likely are non-Labour voters to be won over by Labour’s ideas for fixing NZ’s problems and the leadership’s ability to implement those ideas
Sorry r0b, but that A (one) Labour MP is just the most blatant example. There are other more subtle ways of getting at people and it’s been reported that it is happening.
i can attest to that
rOb: “He then made out that Cunliffe was trying to topple him
Which, indeed, he was. Sorry, but those who refuse to believe it are in a state of serious denial.”
I take issue with this. Cunliffe was faced with a repeated question as to whether he would still support the leader in February. If he had replied with an unequivocal “yes,” he would have been committing himself months in advance, whatever happened in the meantime. If he had said “no” he would have been effectively calling a leadership vote there and then, thus undermining the purpose of the conference. We do not know whether Cunliffe meant to challenge the leadership in February. He may have chosen to use the leverage that greater membership participation gave him to influence policy, for example.
The members are driving the change Rob not Shearer and Shearers supporters did everything to stop members getting more say.
” Which, indeed, he was. Sorry, but those who refuse to believe it are in a state of serious denial”
Those who want the likes of you to believe that a Leadership chalenge was happening at conference to justify a hit on Cunliffe have shown no proof of this allegation. Just because the line is repeated does not make it factual.
“One Labour MP as far as I can tell”
No Rob poor try you are working hard on your spin but not good enough. I have commented a number of times of my own personal eperience of bullying behaviour been dished out by Shearers crew. Its time you adressed your own personal denial.
If you want to be part of Shearers fan club turning a blind eye to the culture that they are using of leaking, bulling and public defamation fine but dont expect a strong Labour Party in 2014 because it wont be.
one moderately ok speech doesn’t a leader in waiting make!
And Rob, to have a strong opposition /Government in waiting, you first need a leader who is, A: Inspiring, and B: Trustworthy. At the moment the Earwax has the edge over Shearer. And the crowd that are behind, and lying to him are just doing him a disservice, and the sooner he MAN’S up about it, and stops acting like the School Bully, then maybe, just maybe, he will start to get some traction.
So my message to him is Get some decent advice and listen to and act on it, Fire the so called advisors you has now, Have a ‘real’ not a claytons reshuffle of Caucus. AND Step hard on dissenters (you really missed with cunliffe) you should have censured Jones. And whats with the Brain Fart over Tamahere? We NEED talent. Not blowhards who are full of their own self importence.
Yes, I must admit, the speech by Shearer on the last day of Parliament this year was reasonably good.
But it was not written by him anyway, of that I am quite sure. Also are such speeches just stuff written to touch our “hearts”. Whether any action meeting the words spoken will follow is usually another story.
Shearer can do fairly well when reading from written notes, and that is what he mostly does. It is similar to the well prepared, written down questions he tends to ask. That means Shearer can speak when well prepared and given time to do so without interruption and distraction.
But sadly politics and the rest of real life of a politician are not made up of pre drafted speech notes. There are and will be many times that are challenging, and where swift, smart and convincing answers must be given during impromptu interviews, where challengers must be dealt with in a mature, strong, convincing and non vicious manner, which a good leader is able to.
I fear and continue to fear that Shearer will not be up to being a strong leader.
Other speeches were also good, like those by Parker and Robertson.
Shearer followed a vicious attack by Key, who held a speech of his style, which was very aggressive, smartly worded and again an attempt to make jokes of the opposition. So just as well Shearer did fairly well. It had to be!
And for the first time Ardern mentioned something in the house, which should have been raised a long, long time ago! She was highly critical of the new welfare reforms before the Select Committee at present (Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill). She criticised the out-sourcing that is planned for medical assessments and other “services”.
Then she did state that the top “assessor” of MSD goes around saying that state support (benefit payment/s) is like a “drug”. Clearly she meant the Principal Health Advisor of MSD and WINZ, Dr David Bratt, who has in numerous presentations to GP conferences and the likes compared benefit dependence to drug dependence.
So finally the message appears to have reached Ardern! MSD are using a highly biased PHA, who oversees all the Regional Health Advisors (who advise again case managers), and who goes around trying to influence GPs, and who has been TRAINING designated doctors the Ministry use, to make the decisions they expect!
That bit of Ardern’s speech made my day!
My expectation is that in the new year she digs deeper into that and challenges Bennett full front on this! Bratt has to go, he is unfit to hold that position for any longer!
So then his minders should adapt the whole setup the campaign to recognise his strengths which are his backstory, a team approach , his compassion, and his negotiation skills proven by his long work history.
Reshuffle the caucus and let the heavy hitters out to play as our proxies.
It should be team labour vs frontman showman key….and it’s not show person either.
It was a well written speech, and Shearer is improving in his delivery of such speeches.
However, it was a speech that was very beltway- seemed to be full of cosy in-jokes. And there wasn’t any passion in the delivery. It had the tone of an after-dinner speech at a businessmen’s club: one where everyone but me has had a drink and gets the jokes that don’t make me laugh.
Nevertheless, Shearer did make some very good points about the woeful record of Key’s government, and it was interesting to see Key slumped in his seat.
Bah Humbug, The best speech Shearer could give us is that he is standing down and let
the membership democraticly elected leader take over,or give us a christmas present by
saying that he will ‘allow’ a vote in February.
What,is he afraid of ? loosing.
While shearer and labour caucus members are holidaying in far flung lands, with full
bellies,plenty of chardonay,there are many,many families that wont have a christmas,
children that wont have presents,because their parents can’t afford christmas.
Children are poor,because their parents are poor,end of.
He can read a speech. No-one doubts that.
However his constant failure to articulate himself when being questioned clearly shows he does not believe in what he purports to stand for. Helen rarely got tripped up because she always fell back to her principles and provided answers on what she beleived in. Shearer panics and has to think about what he should be saying and during that thought process fucks up and says something incomprehensible.
I will give it to you r0b, you are the most loyal party man I have come across. You support the red team no matter what they say or who is in charge.
…his constant failure to articulate himself when being questioned clearly shows he does not believe in what he purports to stand for. Helen rarely got tripped up because she always fell back to her principles and provided answers on what she believed in. Shearer panics and has to think about what he should be saying and during that thought process fucks up and says something incomprehensible.
You don’t know me at all Enough. I’m happy to criticise Labour when I think they get it wrong, in both posts:
[Update: Hmm – direct links to comments don’t seem to be working – lprent???]
That’s just a few examples I can find easily. I’ve also done plenty of cheering for the Green team, in some areas their policy and their focus has been better than Labour’s. I’m a supporter of the political Left, Enough, much more than of any particular party.
“Shearer on fine form”: This is satire isn’t it?. Well done!
“Shearer on fine form”
Maybe it alludes to the “fine form”(sarc.) of this NactUF disaster?
Great political strategy to leave all his attacks on Nact’s ballsups to the last speech of the year. I wonder who came up with that one?
On a slightly different note, I always love the fawning adoration and sycophancy that comes out of every pore of those sitting around the leader of either Nactional or Labour whenever they speak.
Great political strategy to leave all his attacks on Nact’s ballsups to the last speech of the year. I wonder who came up with that one?
Yip…at 9.05 minutes Shearer claims “its been a year of opportunity for the opposition”. I doubt anyone in NZ who follows politics would argue against that…so then, as you have pointed out Murray Olsen, why did this speech take 12 months to occur? And why was Shearers speech at the LPC labeled by Shearer himself as an ‘opportunity’…does Shearer understand what a political opportunity is?..obviously not
No surprise that National went up in the latest Roy Morgan poll.
The Shearer train-wreck that has been happening for the past 12 months has been good for a laugh, its a shame that the outcome is John Key. Time to get Shearer back on the road with his banjo.
Read ALL the last speeches in Parliament for this year, on 12 Dec. 2012: