We've blogged at some length and some frequency about the various attacks that Labour MP's, especially Trevor Mallard, Pete Hodgson and latterly Chris Hipkins have been making on John Key and National. The attack dogs are well and truly off the leash, even though they are having all sorts of trouble getting a bite in.
But it begs the question; where is Phil Goff in all of this? And what of his erstwhile deputy, Annette King? Should their silence be construed as support for the attack lines that Labour is currently running? Or is their lack of comment of input because they have lost control of their caucus, and because someone else is running the agenda?
And we had to laugh yesterday when leadership aspirant David Parker was speaking in the General Debate, lambasting National for its lack of rejuvenation. Had Parker glanced to his right, his eyes would have fallen on the benches occupied by Goff (Class of '81) and of King and Mallard (Class of '84). Parker's observation more than anything typifies Labour's fatal flaw; they are great at finding solutions for everyone else, but the ignore their own failings. We suspect that the celebration of the 30th anniversary of Phil Goff's election to Parliament will not be a happy one.
9 comments:
King will stay silent until she knows whether she faces an embarrassing court appearance as a key witness to events going on in her household. She will also be facing many questions about why she chose not to advise her leader about what went on in her house and about Police involvement for several days. She will also face questions about her role in arguing against any public disclosure. Given all of this silence from her in Parliament and elsewhere is a very good option.
Goff is trying to appear Prime Minister material by staying above the fray....
Why the snively interest in Phil? I thought you disliked him and his policies? It'd be terrific if you instead held the people you support to account instead of attacking the opposition. It's what you preach. There's a good christian...
"There's a good christian..."
Piss poor and uncalled for attack on someone. Typical leftie.
It was a compliment.
And there is no 'typical' leftie.
The left are not clones. They are critical thinkers.
There may be a 'typical rightie' But then, that would be a piss poor and uncalled for attack.
Kyle Chapman would not be a typical rightie would he?
1) Hates diversity
2) Found a supernatural God to be on his side
3) Isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.
Hmmm. maybe not typical, but fairly indicative...
Note the strong desire of the left to distract attention away from subject of post
"And there is no 'typical' leftie. "
Umm yes there is http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2624/3778478964_64e0332683.jpg
That link was broken. I bet it would have been a classic! Here's an interesting quiz that may shed some light on the Chris Hipkins questions, and the different realities that different people have.
www.skepticmoney.com/the-ultimate-easter-quiz-jesus-gets-nailed/
it's a pity you can't drug test people before releasing their comments KS.
Goff should have stamped his expectations on his MP's from day one. He either:
1/ did so but they ignored him.
2/ they are doing his work along the same grubby lines that Clark and Cullen did.
The National Party celebrates 75 years as a political party today - a most notable achievement. It's therefore more than a little sobering to think that Phil Goff has been in Parliament for 40% of that time!
Post a Comment