This is a serious question. On the left there seems to be growing unease with Phil Goff's performance, highlighted by his handling of the Darren Hughes affair. This is not right-wing blogs fomenting happy mischief; this is commenters at The Standard calling for Goff's head; this is the Dim-Post's last five posts all condemining Labour and/or Goff is some shape of form; this is Lew from Kiwipolitico talking about the political consequences of Goff's indecisive leadership; this is Psycho Milt, the leftie contributor to No Minister saying:
Yeah, you'd think. Instead, said ass-clowns busy running the country into the ground are looking quids-in for a second term. It shouldn't just be Darren Hughes resigning, there should be wholesale ritual suicide in the Labour ranks - if you lot can't give National a hiding when they're performing this badly, there's not much point in you continuing to draw breath, let alone a salary.
Calling for Phil Goff to stand aside from the leadership is one thing. Finding a successor is another. So; who do you think has the credentials and ability to lead a credible opposition to John Key's government? A government needs a strong opposition to keep it accountable, but the current Labour opposition is struggling at a time that it should have the National-led government on the ropes.
Is a change of leader the only thing that will save Labour from a NSW-like annihilation in November? What say you?
22 comments:
Thankfully the Prime Minister has settled the election date and removed the topic from the f**kwits who would be trying to make hay from the disaster that is Phil and Dazza when the best show in town is watching dead men trying to walk. Trev the Muss is probably the best candidate to do that and he's got a broken femur.
ps my first choice was who cares but I tried to be objective.
"said ass-clowns busy running the country into the ground are looking quids-in for a second term"
Psych Milt's got a way with words - I'm surprised you chose to reproduce that particular passage Inv2 but in saying that, BIG UPS to you for not showcasing the idiotic 'Jonno the Clown' clip that every other Key-lovin' right-wing blogger has put up today. Signs of discretion from you. This is encouraging!
Gravedodger - a question for you @9:56 PM 'Judith takes her time...'
Please.
JK should offer Phil a plum job after the election if he hangs on in there until November...
You're damning me with faint praise Rob. Actually, I reckon it's a bit of a hard-case video, but by the time I go back from my service club meeting this morning and finally turned the computer on, too many other blogs had already posted it.
And why would I censor Milt's words? I thought that you would have agreed with his description of National, even though it might be a bit sailor-like in its earthiness. But when died-in-the-wool lefties like Milt, Lew, Dim-Post, Bomber, Matt et al are questioning Goff's leadership, then there must be cause for concern.
I think the next Labour leader ought be the hitherto unamed target of Dazza's lust. He can obviously lead!
Cadwallader
Who do I think should lead the Labour Party in the run-up to the 2011 election?
First - I want Goff to stay. He is a gift to national - and as such will do NZ a world of good simply by making Labour unelectable.
Then Mallard - why? He is such a oxygen starved moron - He will drive even more people to National with his John Key eats babies type comments.
A Goff quiting with King having to step up would also be very funny.
Perhaps now Tizzaed is back in the running - she could try for leader.
What about the distraught naked young boy running naked thru the suburbs of wellington at 4am - He was a youth MP was he not - perhaps they could offer his the chance to lead in order to get him to shut up?.
Robert Guyton @ 10 38, the oldest male resident of alzhiemers valley is more than a little confused or maybe that should read, a little more confused, not withstanding being a very happy chappy after his wonderful Crusaders did the biz in London.
Oh and since I know you worry to inordinate lengths as to my welfare, I am a little sleep deprived due to 4 1/4 finals on the subcontinent last nights rugby and another cricket game tomorrow night wont help.
Oh and who the hell is Judith?
As usual Robert Guyton avoids talking about the issue by trying to draw the conversation away from the post, a very common tactic of Roberts.
I think David Parker should become the leader.
'The issue' Iolian?
Inv2 bangs on endlessly about Goff but 'the issue' is in his head and that of others silly enough to swallow the tabloid talk.
I think the swiss ball should lead the party.
Is the issue in Robert Winter's head Rob?
http://robertwinter.blogspot.com/2011/03/labour-becalmed-and-dismasted.html
Or Chris Trotter's head?
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-mandate-for-cynicism.html
Or Russell Brown's head?
http://publicaddress.net/limping-onwards/
I could go on, as the list of left-leaning critics is growing by the moment. None of the above can be considered as cheeleaders for the right; they are all died-in-the-wool lefties, who are deeply concerned for Labour's survival.
Oh; just got word that you can add Tim Watkins from Pundit to the list. I don't know if you have heard him on the radio at all, but he definitely ain't a rightie!
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/why-phil-goff-is-safe-and-from-whom
Here's some of what Watkins says:
The hope of protecting either Hughes or the complainant was a forlorn one. It was going to come out sooner or later, and the public response would have been the same, regardless of when. The complainant made a choice when speaking to police, and as young as he is, that choice was always going to bring with it a bucket load of public attention at some stage. As for Hughes, surely it would have been better for him to be open and confess to the complaint, rather than be seen as the secretive one. His reputation would have been better protected by an honest and early statement, rather than a delay. There's no reason that Goff had to release the news.
Would it have interfered with the police investigation? Of course not. Open justice is a cornerstone of our system. The police often undertake their work in the full glare of media attention; this would have been challenging, but hardly beyond the pale. The rest is spin.
Loyalty? I suspect this tripped him up, well-intended as it may have been. As I've written, I think Hughes would have been better served by going public anyway. But the perception is that he chose friendship over stewardship. Surely the greater good is not a single career, but the health and integrity of his century-old party and the chance to enact after the next election the policies that party represents. Isn't that always a leader's first duty?
Is it all in their heads too Robert, or do just not want to admit that Phil Goff has blundered in spectacular fashion?
'Blundered spectacularly'?
Hardly.
Mis-handled the situation, yes, just as Key did with Richard Worth, but 'spectacular'? No. In your head it's clearly a spectacular event though Inv2.
I can hear your squawking about it from here.Squawk squawk!.
Squawk as much as you like, I'm unmoved but I do find it very hypocritical of you (plus boring but, as you say, you choose the subject matter here (Goff, Winston or Hone,Hone, Winston or Goff - endless variety.)
aahh so now we see for certain, with out a doubt, the unprincipled double standards of Robert Guyton and his "do as i say, not as i do" hypocritical attitude.
Robert bleets on all the time about john key (but that is okay because he is allowed) but he attacks Inv2 for talking about Phil Goof (saying that Inv2 has an obesession with him).
He accuses John Key of bad errors of judgement etc, but when the shoe is on the other foot and Phil Goof is making the mistakes it is okay, just a poor judgement, rather than a major blunder - which it is.
He criticises Key as being useless etc, but when Goff is found to be useless it is a media beat up.
It is clear to everyone (left, right, centre) that Goff has made a total hash of the whole thing. He has shown himself to be totally useless and yet here is Robert Guyton not only defending him, but trying to sway the discussion away from the topic because he knows that the what is being said is true.
In typical Robert Guyton style, he first tryies to tell others what they should or shouldnt bog about, then accuses them of things, then tries to change the subjet, then acts like nothing is wrong.
Talk about BLIND to reality.
The saddest thing is when you see someone (in this case Robert Guyton) trying to defend the indefensible.
Robert, time for a reality check...Goff stuffed up, Goff looks like a poor leader.
TOday, this post is about Goff. Try sticking to subject rather than continuing to talk about your fettish subject - John Key - because the only one looking silly right now is you.
Rob; this post is not about my thoughts. You have frequently directed me to Robert Winter's blog; here's how he concludes his piece today:
The vessel is also dismasted. Mr Goff is, as everyone agrees, a decent, extraordinarily hard-working, intelligent person. He would be a far better Prime Minister than Mr Key. But the Hughes issue has, I think, cut the last halyards, and the mast has drooped finally. Mr Goff was always linked to the Right of the party, and memories of the 1980s are still alive. He would have overcome this baggage easily if he had made strong headway as leader, but that hasn't been the case. It's not wholly his fault. National have maintained a grip on the polls despite multiple failings and problems. His team has not scrubbed up as positively as they might. But, at root, Mr Goff's Labour Party languishes as a source of ideas and inspiration, and as a rallying point for the opposition to encroaching neo-liberalism. It has the appearance of going through the motions, as if this election is already deemed lost, and the Party is waiting for the change of leadership and thinking that follows an unsuccessful election. And that is what fuels the irreversible questioning of Mr Goff - the likelihood of losing this election, and the need for a new leadership and new, bold policies.
We will turn out round the election in our masses to leaflet and to badger. We will continue to press upwards for dynamism and some boldness in policy development (and publicity). We will bake the scones and have the kitchen meetings. We will do so because it is our party too, ands we ought to win. The onus is on our parliamentary caucus to provide us with that national leadership that we deserve.
MPs are not going to say this publicly. They cannot go into an election having announced an openness to losing. But they watch the polls and the leadership's performance, and the impact of events such as Mr Hughes has impelled, and ponder and consider and chat informally.
If Labour Party members like Robert (whose views I respect) are thinking that way Rob, how do you think that those MP's in marginal seats or in the lower reaches of Labour's list are feeling? After all, their jobs and their livelihoods are on the line if Labour performs poorly. Is it any wonder that a mood for change is developing?
Rob; you might also be interested in what Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn is saying. He's another whose opinion you have previously commended to my readers and me; he writes:
Phil Goff has no virtù, and without it he cannot possibly win the upcoming election. The question now is whether anyone else in Labour does, and wants to make a go of it.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/03/phil-goff-has-no-virtu.html
I think you will find Robert realises he is wrong.
He will reappear soon giving some story about why he has gone silent for a while today...something like "some people turned up", or "I had other things to do" or "I was doing something with ym plants" or some other line.
I do always find it interesting that when Robert thinks he is winning an argument, he is always quick to respond...and yet when he is clearly being shown up, he has "other things" to do which draw him away from commenting.
Inv2, I think that you have clearly displayed today that the Goff is being torn to pieces by those of right AND left leaning.
But Robert, blinded by his left bias, is failing to see this because it means his dream (my nightmare) of a Labour/Green/Nz First/Hone Harawira/New Left-wing coalition is destroyed.
I am sure he will come back and say that we are all wrong and that he is right.
Sad.
@ Iolian - Rob won't be at all happy, but DPF at Kiwiblog has just helpfully summarised the response from the left - and it's not pretty!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/03/the_left_on_goff.html
Monday 28th March
Keeping stock four posts 31 comments (six from the wh I mean shining wit from Riverton).
Robert Guyton two posts no comments
I see a definite trend here.
It would appear that Robert Guyton is showing double standards over at his blog!!
He comes over here, posts commments that are totally irrelvant to the orignal post, then, if deleted, he cries about free speech and "stifling debate".
And yet, I post something over at his blog and he deletes my comment!!
Shame on Robert "free speech" Guyton!
I love the way you have shown him to be incredibly isolated in his support of Phil Goof!
Good work inv2
Iolian - don't be a ning.
Inv2 - here's something to mull over - my position on the situation that Goff finds himself the centre of, is that Key was in a similar position and was just as lacking in his handling as Goff has been. Just as lacking. The rest, gravedodger's claims, Lolian's peepings etc. are all noise. Your own clamour over the details of this case and the citations you provide are all fun and games, but I don't buy it. Expecting that I'll automatically agree with I/S, Robert Winter, Chris Trotter etc. makes me laugh! You'd love to typecast me as a dyed in the wool lefty, but when I don't sing from the same song sheet as them, you go all wobbly! The bottom line for me is that this is not a 'spectacularly' anything. Goff's mistakes are much like Key's and I don't recall you making the cacophony over Key's poor handling of the Worth affair, the way you are doing now. I know, it's hard for you not to be able to pigeon hole one of your commenters, but there you are, life's complex.
@ Rob; the reason that I didn't make a "cacophany" over Key's handling of the Worth issue was that Key dealt with it quickly, efficiently, and some would say ruthlessly. He lost confidence in Worth due to the latter's alleged extra-curricular activities, and he made it plain to him that Worth did not enjoy the leader's confidence. Worth was pragmatic enough to accept the inevitable, and fell on his sword. Here's what we said on 5/7/09:
We maintain our belief that there is no need for John Key to further explain his decision to sack Worth. In six months in office as a Minister, Worth committed a series of gaffes. His behaviour towards Choudary and the Korean woman was the last straw. But we disagree with the leader writer's statement "But justice requires that we be told". Telling the full story may sell a few more newspapers, but it is not essential to justice.
Nothing has changed that would alter our view.
Post a Comment