Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Labour Party’

A Study in Party Stability

2 October 2014 2 comments

.

In terms of long-term stability, one party above stands above all others, with the exception of personality-driven groups such as NZ First and United Future. That party is the Greens.

If the Labour Party wants to look elsewhere for solutions to their problems, they need only walk down the coridor at Parliament and knock on the doors to Metiria Turei and Russell Norman.

The Greens’ record speaks for itself…

.

2008

.

2008 - Labour - Clarke - Cullen - Greens - Fitzsimons - Norman

(L-R) Helen Clarke – Michael Cullen – Jeanette Fitzsimons (retired 2009) – Russell Norman

.

2009

.

(L-R) Phil Goff - Anette King - Metiria Turei - Russell Norman

(L-R) Phil Goff – Annette King – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman

.

2011.

2011 - Labour - Shearer - Robertson - Greens - Turei - Norman

(L-R) David Shearer – Grant Robertson – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman

.

2013.

 

(L-R) David Cunliffe - David Parker - Metiria Turei - Russell Norman

(L-R) David Cunliffe – David Parker – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman

.

2014.

 

(L-R) ? - ? - Metiria Turei - Russell Norman

(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman

.

2017 .

(L-R) ? - ? - Metiria Turei - Russell Norman

(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman

.

In the meantime, Labour’s ritual post-election  self-flagellation and purging of their leadership damages their standing in the public’s eye even further. The words I’ve been hearing in the last 48 hours are “clowns”, idiots”, and a few others that are unmentionable around kids.

If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their  leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.

The only thing that Labour is proving by it’s actions is that it cannot cope with defeat; cannot build positively; and most important – will not support it’s elected leader when he needs it the most. Not exactly an inspiring message to send to voters, eh?

Remind me why the public would think that this is a team worth supporting?!

No one benefits from this circus.

Except of course, Cameron Slater, David Farrar, Simon Lusk, and their parasitic mates. For them, despite Nicky Hager’s expose, this has been a dream-come-true. For the apostles of Dirty Politics, Christmas has come early.

Gift-wrapped and presented by the Labour Party caucus and hierarchy.

 

.


 

References

Radio NZ:  Cunliffe resigns as leader of Labour

NZ Herald: Timeline: Labour’s years of leadership pain

 .

.

= fs =

Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe (v2)

25 September 2014 2 comments

.

Frank Macskasy - letters to the editor - Frankly Speaking

.

 

FROM: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
DATE: Thu, Sep 25, 2014
TO: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
SUBJECT: Letter to the editor

.

The editor
Sunday Star Times

.

Has it ever occurred to the Labour caucus that replacing your Leaders after every electoral loss is counterproductive? I offer three reasons for this assertion;

1. How do you test your Leader in the fires of adversity, if you keep replacing him (or her) after each electoral loss? If your Leader is proven in victory – but unknowable in defeat – are you not missing a vital measure of the man (or woman)?

2. Replacing your Leader after each defeat sends a curious message to the public. It suggests that you’ve made a mistake with your Leadership selection. In which case, if/when you choose a new Leader to replace Cunliffe – is that a mistake as well? If you have no faith in your Leader, even in dire adversity, why should we – the voting public?

3. It takes years for a Leader to become known and familiar to the public. Years to gain their trust. If you keep rotating your Leadership, you are in effect putting an Unknown Quantity before the public who will never get a chance to assess the man (or woman).

It took three terms for the public to get to know Helen Clark. After which she led three consecutive Labour-led governments.

For god sakes, learn from history.

Or be consigned to it.

-Frank Macskasy

 

[address & phone number supplied]

Text taken from blogpost: No More. The Left Falls.

.

 


 

.

david cunliffe stood up on the issue of domestic violence

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe

25 September 2014 4 comments

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

 

.

 

FROM: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
DATE: Thu, Sep 25, 2014
TO: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor

.

The editor
NZ Herald

.
If Labour keeps changing it’s Leader after every defeat, then I put the following questions to them;

1. How will a Labour Leader gain experience, if they’re dumped every couple of years?

2. How can the public be expected to get to know a Labour Leader, and develop trust in that person, if their presence is fleeting and disappear before we get to know him/her?

3. How will a Labour Leader learn to handle victory, when s/he first won’t be allowed to understand defeat? Humility is learned in failure, not success.

4. If the Leader is changed after each defeat, that suggests the Labour Party wasn’t confident with their initial choice. The public cannot be expected to take Labour leadership appointments seriously knowing that their tenure is most likely temporary.

The Greens have leaderships that are stable and long-term, irrespective of electoral success or failure. That is because the Party has faith and confidence in their leadership choices.

The Labour Party might consider this before it dispatches Mr Cunliffe.

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

.

 

Fastest growing poverty

 

 

.

.

= fs =

An open message to Kelvin Davis…

6 August 2014 4 comments

.

Kelvin David - facebook - Mana Internet Party- Kim Dotcom

.

Kelvin is now supported by the likes of National Party apparatchik, David Farrar, and quasi-fascist muck-raker, Cameron Slater.

That alone should give Kelvin, Stuart, et al in the Labour Party pause for thought.

To Kelvin; his colleagues; and his cheerleaders, I share this insight, for free;

Why is Key so popular?

One of the reasons is that he has demonstrated a willingness and ability to work with other political parties, from neo-lib-nutcases in ACT to political prostitute Dunne, to the Maori Party.

In doing so, he has cobbled together a coalition that has lasted nearly six – six! – years.

In every campaign, neither Key nor a single other National candidate has ever slagged off one of their potential coalition allies. Not once.

What the public sees is a group of political parties working together. They may campaign on their own policies and platforms and do “deals” – but they never slag off in public.

Because Key understands the mood of the public; that people want to see our elected representatives working together, for the “good of the country”.

Now, we can disagree that National’s policies are for the “good of the country”. God knows I’ve written enough about National’s appalling governance that has left this country in a social and economic mess.

But – the public still perceives Key as being able to work with other parties. Key demonstrates collegiality every time he’s in the media.

Contrast that to the infighting between the parties on the Left.

The public are not seeing Labour going hard out to win the election; they’re seeing Labour going hard out to win votes, at any cost.

Believe me, there is a big, big difference.

That, my fellow New Zealanders, is why Labour is low in the polls.

If Labour cannot demonstrate, to the public, that it can work collegially with potential coalition allies now, prior to 20 September – then how on Earth can Labour expect the public to believe it can work with other parties, post-election?

Saying that you can “work with other parties” and then trying to destroy them at every opportunity sends only one message to the public; you’re more interested in your own success than anything else.

Not exactly a hopeful message, is it?

 

.


 

.

References

Facebook: Kelvin Davis

Previous related blogposts

The secret of National’s success – revealed

.


 

.

Team key - me myself  and me

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

 

‘Tricky’ media…

25 June 2014 4 comments

.

NZ Herald - if you think, the bolsheviks win

.

In case anyone finds it hard to believe that some in  the msm (mainstream media) are politically partisan, the screen-shot below – of a recent NZ Herald story – should help  dispel such doubts;

.

NZ Herald - Key on Liu-Labour link - More to come - David Cunliffe

.

Notice the two disparate images.

On the left, Key’s image portrays him as smiling and obviously confident and relaxed.His authority is not under threat.

The image on the right, depicting David Cunliffe, shows him scowling; mouth open in mid-retort; obviously in a defensive and angry position. His leadership authority is shown to be in question in that image.  (Hence the old expression, “if you become angry, you have lost the argument“.)

It is a subtle piece of visual propaganda; one is calm, poised, confident. The other is emotional, upset, obviously responding to an attack.

So this is supposedly  an example of an impartial, non-partisan media?

And journos wonder why a large sector of  society view them with disdain and suspicion?

If the Reader’s Digest  Most Trusted Professions for 2013 is any indication, journalists need to work on their integrity;

1. Paramedics
2. Firefighters
3. Rescue volunteers
4. Nurses
5. Pilots
6. Doctors
7. Pharmacists
8. Veterinarians
9. Police
10. Armed Forces personnel
11. Scientists
12. Teachers
13. Childcare workers
14. Dentists
15. Farmers
16. Bus/train/tram drivers
17. Flight attendants
18. Architects
19. Chefs
20. Electricians
21. Miners
22. Computer technicians
23. Postal workers
24. Hairdressers
25. Builders
26. Plumbers
27. Mechanics
28. Accountants
29. Truck drivers
30. Waiters
31. Bankers
32. Charity collectors
33. Shop assistants
34. Clergy (all religions)
35. Cleaners
36. Personal trainers
37. Lawyers
38. Taxi drivers
39. Financial planners
40. CEOs
41. Call centre staff
42. Airport baggage handlers
43. Journalists
44. Real estate agents
45. Insurance salespeople
46. Politicians
47. Sex workers
48. Car salespeople
49. Door-to-door salespeople
50. Telemarketers

Lumped in with politicians, car salespeople, etc, is not a desirable place, one would think.

This will be a dirty election as the Right (National and ACT) with their media allies (NZ Herald, NBR, and rantback radio hosts) pull out the stops to destroy a resurgent Left. Those who hold power will not give it up easily.

.

Rich people paying rich people to tell the news

 

.


 

References

NZ Herald:  Key on Liu-Labour link: More to come

Reader’s Digest: New Zealand’s Most Trusted Professions 2013


 

.

john key is scared of your vote

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 June 2014.

 

.

.

= fs =

Labour’s collapse in the polls – why?

24 June 2014 5 comments

.

Red Arrow Down

.

In recent months, successive polls have not favoured the Labour Party and the Left Bloc.

A TV3 Reid Research Poll in mid/late May gave a  shock result for Labour;

National:  50.3% (+ 4.4%)

Labour: 29.5% (- 1.7%)

Greens: 10.2% (- 1%)

NZ First: 5.6% (+ 0.7%)

A Roy Morgan poll in late May/early June – one of the more accurate of polls – fared no better;

National: 52.5%  (+ 7%)

Labour:  29% (- 1.5%)

Greens:  9% (- 4.5%)

NZ First:  4.5% (- 1.5%)

A mid-June Herald Digipoll presented similar results;

National: 50.4% (- 0.4%)

Labour:  30.5% (+ 1%)

Greens:  10.7% (- 2.4%)

NZ First:  3.6% (n/c)

The most recent stats,  from a June  Fairfax/Ipsos poll, was even worse;

National: 56.5 (+ 8.9%)

Labour:  23.2% (-6.3%)

Greens:  11.9% (- 0.8%)

NZ First:  3.2% (- 0.5%)

Though National’s 56.5% is in pure la-la land (they scored only 47.31% in the 2011 General Election), the overall pattern seems fairly clear; National is rising, whilst the Labour-Green bloc is falling, and – on face value – close to collapse. (I also do not believe that NZ First will not cross the 5% threshold.)

I put National’s rise and the Left’s fall down to three significant factors;

1. National’s May 15 Budget which took a lurch to the left with extra social spending; removing tariffs (temporarily) on building materials; and the promise of a budget ‘surplus‘.

It was a typical electioneering budget, increasing spending on social areas that had been  been previously starved of funding in recent years. Even the so-called “surplus” was questioned by the Opposition.

2. Increasing economic activity, predicated mainly on three factors;

3. Infighting between Labour and it’s potential coalition partners.

On 7 June, I blogged on the issue of Labour’s unprovoked and negative attacks on it’s potential allies. I wrote;

Going by recent public comments made by Labour MPs and candidates, it seems that the Labour Party is either planning to sit this election out – or some of it’s higher-ranking public individuals are out of control.

How else to explain recent statements made in the mainstream and social media by Labour people, attacking others on the Left?
[...]

Being “principled” and attacking potential allies will result in looking weak and fractured, in the eyes of the public.

Being “principled” and attacking potential allies smacks of dis-unity. Dis-unity, in the eyes of the public, is not a Government-in-waiting. It is Labour unable to set aside self-interest and party-politics for the good of the nation.

If the public perceive that Labour is more interested in attacking it’s own potential allies – and here is the nub of the problem – then why should people vote for such a fractious party that appears unable to work alongside said potential allies?

National – polling in high 40s and low 50s – cultivates potential allies.

Labour – polling in high 20s and low 30s – undermines, attacks, and marginalises it’s own potential allies.

[...]

How many times have we heard the public say, “why can’t they work together for the good of the country?”.

Well, National’s strategists have understood and implemented this very simple truism; the public do not like seeing squabbling politicians. The public want political parties to work together, collegially to solve pressing problems.

That is why Key keeps repeating his mantra,

“We’ve shown we can deliver strong and stable government and can work with other parties for the good of the country blah blah blah..”

That is why National is high up in the polls.

That is why Labour is floundering and losing support. And respect.

Not only do I not resile from the above comments I wrote on 7 June, but I reassert that recent polling has more than proven my point.

We on the Left can do very little about National’s fudging of Budget figures, nor economic  growth created by demands from an earthquake-ravaged city; a housing bubble; and Chinese consumption.

We can, however, get our own house in order when it comes to inter-party relationships.

If Labour wants to portray itself as a credible government-in-waiting, it must demonstrate that it is capable of working across all sectors in society.

If they cannot work collegially with other Left-leaning parties – then why on Earth should the public believe that Labour could  work with other sector-groups? The ‘signals’ that various Labour MPs (Hipkins, Nash, Goff, Shane Jones, Davis, et al) are sending is one of fractious in-fighting; of “greedy little little children grabbing all the toys in the cot, and not prepared to share and play together”.

This is not a political party demonstrating readiness to be a government. It is a party showing  desperation to grab votes at any expense.

Unless Labour is looking forward to sitting on the Opposition benches for the next ten years, it must change it’s internal culture. We talk about the “Police culture” needing change – I submit that Labour itself needs to look deep within itself and understand why the public are not responding to their policies and messages.

Why is  the public turned off  from Labour?

How does the public view Labour’s bitter attacks on the Greens and Mana-Internet?

What  does the public want?

Ask those three questions at the next focus groups, Ms Coatsworth, and you may start to understand why it is that Labour is not connecting with voters.

.


 

References

TV3 Reid Research: 3 News Reid Research Poll

Roy Morgan: National (52.5%) surges to election winning lead while Labour/ Greens (38%) slump to lowest

NZ Herald: National flies high as new party nibbles into Greens

Fairfax media: Ipsos June 2014 Poll – The Party Vote

Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011

NZ Herald: Budget 2014 – Bigger surplus unveiled, doctor visits for kids

Interest.co.nz: Government to temporarily remove duties and tariffs on building materials

Dominion Post: Wellington rape centre forced to cut hours

Fairfax media: Rape crisis line forced to cut staff

Fairfax media:  Budget 2014: Surplus real, says English

NBR: Auckland house prices continue their relentless rise

NZ Herald: Big resurgence in NZ house-building

Stats NZ: Dairy product exports grow for 20 years

Stats NZ: Logs to China drive our forestry export growth

Daily Blog:  The secret of National’s success – revealed

Previous related blogposts

Letter to the Editor: playing politics with rape victims, National-style

Budget 2014 – How has National exposed itself in Election Year?

 

 

.


 

.

 

Why I am a Leftie

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 June 2014.

.

.

= fs =

Letter to the Editor: The National House of Cards (v.2)

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

.

FROM:   "f.macskasy" 
SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor
DATE:    Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:52:49 +1200
TO:     "NZ Herald" <letters@herald.co.nz>

 

.

The editor
NZ Herald

.

So let me get this straight; the Nats have "found" an eleven
year old letter, purportedly from David Cunliffe, relating
to Donghua Liu's legitimate application to the Immigration
Service. 

Locating a letter from eleven years ago, from a government
department?

I had no idea our bureaucracy was so incredibly
super-efficient.

It also appears that John Key and Bill English seem to have
differing stories when they  got hold of this mysterious
"letter". Key says he  "can't exactly recall, I think it was
a few weeks ago."

But English says he did not know anything about it.

So what is the story? When did they "get hold" of this
letter? Who gave it to them? And how on earth could it have
been "found" after eleven years?

Methinks there is more to this issue, and the dodgy
shenanigans being played out by senior National ministers in
an apparent dirty tricks campaign, is the real story.

It is high time for Key and English to come clean. What are
they up to?


-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

 

.


 

References

Radio NZ: PM and deputy at odds over Cunliffe letter

Radio NZ Interview: Deputy PM says Cunliffe’s credibility shot

NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour link – More to come

The Daily Blog: The Trap Is Sprung – Why David Cunliffe Must Not Resign

 


 

.

Skipping voting is not rebellion its surrender

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 926 other followers