Labour Leadership

So the media is picking up on Phil Goff as the next leader, anyone know enough of the candidates to suggest an alternative?

Goff, while being a career politician like Clark doesnt seem to have the intelligence, public speaking and leadership to match. I'm not saying he isnt any of these things, just not as good.

I dont see him at the helm putting Labour on a trajectory to compete in 3 years time?

Phil Goff is as intelligent as Clark.

He has a very pleasant speaking manner.

He's dominant in the house.

He'd be a very good replacement.

Goffs skills are about at the level Helen's were before she had decent media training and softened her sometimes gruff demeanour.

He definitely has the skills imo. Watching him in action the house will show you that.

Not really many other options that I can think of.

Because he bought you some new LAVs?

Do you think he's going to be able to break the tie to Helen and be his own man? She'll clearly be there for advice, but he needs to forge his own path.

Cunliffe is another option, but Goff has the experience over him. Goff PM/Cunliffe Deputy would be a good team.

I figured out what he reminds me of:

A primary school principal

This is true, and yes I think he will be able to. Don't forget they watched National totally fuck themselves up for a few years with their leadership problems, so hopefully the new leader wont be hamstrung by the party hierarchy.

He didn't buy them.

Burton was the MinDef, and Cabinet signed off. If anything, it was Helen's call that we got so many

*cries* Helen loved the army

Another option for labour would be pick a fresh face, as Goff while well liked has been around a long time. The question is, does Labour have their own John Key, ie: A young, charismatic politician who can reinvent the Labour party if need be. Similar to how Key spent a lot of time softening Nationals image to make it appeal more to women etc.

Goff is apparently the choice of people OUTSIDE the party Andrew (like me).
The base of the party really really doesn't like him (too authoritarian, too "right wing". So he may not end up there at all.

With Maharey now gone, it'll be Goff v Parker v Cunliffe I reckon.

Gonna throw a name out there for the sake of discussion...


Chris Carter.


I could see him and Goff teaming up.

I thought Goff was married already

This I would really really like. A combo of economic modernism/pragmatism with social liberalism? Sign me the fuck up
I remember sitting on a plane to Wanganui with Carter when the Civil Union bill was going through Parliament - the Herald had some insanely stupid bint of a beauty queen on the front page saying "what good does this do me as a straight woman wanting to get married one day?" (seriously, WTF?) and when he got off the plane he walked up to a waiting assistant with the paper and laughingly said "look at this stupid bitch".

Someone had to say it.

What ever happened to John Tamihere? He's a legend!

Phil Goff is to right wing, to closely associated with Rogernomics and thus is not popular within the wider party. In addition, his political "generation" means he is seen as one of yesterday's men. He might be picked as a caretaker, but I think given Helen Clark sees David Cunliffe as her protege, and she still has massive support in the party, that is who will get the nod.

yeah, I think it a likely successor, but I agree that goff is too right wing.

Will be interesting too see who gets picked.

Oh and here are two names out there for deputy leader now Cullen has stepped down as well:

Shane Jones - good for Maori, come with huge credentials. being a Maori, if he gets the nod expect a concerted smear campaign from the racist right to try and discredit him. Him and Cunliffe might be a bit blokey for some tastes though, so here is one from left field who I think appeals to a broad spectrum of Labour supporters: Maryann Street. She is widely respected, and connects with gay community. However she almost completely unknown outside the party. But then, she has time now to learn the ropes.

Been in all of 3 years. Sorry, but you have to pay your dues.

goff will just be a caretaker

What's everybodys opinion on Annette King?

I agree

he is extremely right-wing

the changes he made to the Legal Aid system were to the right of Act policy

the general public would not know too much about these changes (or care) but they are an indicator of his thinking

still, he is the most confident, experienced and capable politician in the Labour party - there was no other real cohice for leader

a no-brainer really

she is missing a certain likeability factor

he rubbished claims that he would move labour to the right. He said that the party made collective decisions.

This is what Phil Goff's secretary told me a couple of years ago



so, that doesn't sound too right-wing. Sure, it's right of, for example, Lenin. But isn't everyone nowadays

You have a pretty odd view of extreme then!
He is certainly pro-free trade, pro-deregulation and a bit of a hardliner on law and order (for Labour) but he's still on the left of the current Govt.

by which I mean, NEW Govt...

This relates to something i have been thinking about lately. I believe to a significant degree the reason people left labour (as opposed to went to national) is that they sent a *very* clear message last time about which direction they wanted and it was ignored.

Instead of staying centrist labour moved more left. People voted and now we have something possibly more right than people would want but less right than left.

I know that's not written well but you'll either understand or not.

Goff might have a better chance of gaining credibility simply by not being perceived as as much of a lefty Compare to the smug cullen.

that all SOUNDS suitably left-wing - lovely - but political parties do not always practise what they preach

I believe that Phil Goff's personal politics are right wing - but these views are tempered somewhat by the left-wing influence of others in his party

I'd disagree with that Bob - I reckon most NZ'ers couldn't give a shit (or explain the difference between them) for left or right and the underlying philosophies the two represent

people do distrust concepts such as nannny state and PC - but again I doubt many could explain what side these come from nor what the underlying concepts of both are

people simply wanted "change" or felt disenfranchised by the pathetic displays by all parties and decided not to vote at all

well, in the three areas you identified, he is very right-wing

"bit of a hardliner on law and order" I think is an understatement

Goff's changes to legal aid were something even Act members would think twice about

I like Phil Goff, he is right wing enough for me to vote for Labour

So he'll steal votes off National

News flash: no point stealing votes off the Greens, as the left doesn't have enough.

another safe pair of hands until cunliffe steps up to the plate

During the last Labour Government Goff and King were two of Roger Douglas's most loyal lieutenants. Voting him back into caucus in 1989 against the wishes of the Lange faction that Clark and Cullen were a part of. Lange resigned a month later.

People can change in 19 years, politicians can change in a day. But what motivates internally is usually pretty static through life.

I wouldn't say Goff is right wing, I think too many of you only believe in the outdated left-right model rather than the biaxial which better describes the modern political climate. I would put Goff as a left wing libertarian rather than right wing, and as some of you have pointed out his change of direction could allow Labour to make up ground in the centre as the traditional lefties aren't about to start voting National.

what will happen is labour move too much the centre is that more and more people will vote green. For the past two elections I've given my vote to the left of labour, to keep labour honest...

If the Alliance was still around I think they would pick up a lot of voters if Labour move towards centrist policies but I'm not so sure the Greens would do so to the same degree. They might pick up a small amount but I don't think they'd make a huge dent in Labour's vote as they are still seen as a vote for the environment and most voters would not perceive voting for them to be a message for Labour to move more to the left.

Define centrist though all of you?
Labour has done a pretty good job of becoming a Third Way party (neil's quote from Goff's secretary is probably quoted from a Third Way academic article!) and I'm not sure they're going to move off of that anytime soon. They are a very different Labour party from what was seen in the 1st-through-3rd Labour Govts (the 4th was the first drastic step in an immature Third Way movement)

I've moved from progressive to greens, because the alliance or progressives are currently a wasted vote...

The greens, imo, are far from ideal, but there isn't really another option..

Alliance *is* still around. They barely placed.


Intellectuals put a lot of emphasis on left/right positioning by parties but to be honest, most NZers vote pragmatically. The variance of political leanings is beyond the comprehension of most voters.

Ah reckon.

Even if voters don't place too much weight on "left" and "right" in the abstract, academic sense, there's a bunch of policies they associate with one end of the political spectrum (and its associated parties), and a bunch of policies/parties they associate with the other end

In other words, "left" and "right" becomes convenient shorthand for policy groupings

Maybe amongst the older voters but these days I can't help but wonder...

The media go on about "left" and "right" often enough that people can't help but associate one with one party and so forth but I wonder if the more entrenched political views, the cloth capped lefties and the conservative tories are a thing of the past and nowadays people are just going to vote for who gives them the most tax cuts, or the most benefits or whatever.

For all the political discussion that goes on amongst two informed voters, I'd wager that there are 10 who wouldn't have a clue, and the numbers are growing ever more wider.

How else do you explain National getting in this time round?

(NR need not reply to that final comment)

Sorry for dragging this thread off topic but a few peoples comments have made me wonder just how out of touch the more "informed" people are, in reality, with the common person.

I agree with ya Dalai - though I'd suggest this has always been the case

except that in the past voters tended to follow traditional paths (ie family votes labour...) than today where people will pick and choose one party over the other based on their perceived view of whom will benefit most both themselves and the country

Well that's me to a tee. I come from a strong Nat affiliated family. My parents are self employed and are firmly rooted in the early 1980's when it comes to political views and many family political discussions have ended in shouting and name calling heh.

fair comment, and I wouldn't really know. If you look at my close friends, they aren't exactly average NZers...

And in my experience, that's a good thing for you and your close friends.


Not a bad idea though to keep an eye on what Mr Average NZer (Fred the Farmer?) is up to however.


ps. What happens when the intelligentsia and the common people grow too far apart? The Terror?

ever noticed how angry 'normal' peope get when you discuss politics or debate with them over politics.... happens to me all the time

Yeah me too, ala my earlier comments and more. I put it down to they believing that you are being condescending by trying to right any misbeliefs they have about anything so get their backs up. From my experience, they'll probably half right.

Most people have a high degree of ownership about their views. If you challenge their ideas then you are challenging them.

I have the opposite problem - i would rather understand peoples points of view (and perhaps have to adjust my own views) however when i ask questions i find it hard to get a proper answer.

this is the problem I have and it frustrates me as much as peoples reactions to me actually spending time researching things and thus having an opinion I am prepared to defend/argue that I can back up with information not just some 'instinct'

thus the traditional rule for polite dinnertime conversation "avoid religion and politics"

why religion and politics you might ask?

because you are likely to get into the territory of, not just abstract and detached discussion about ideas, but deeply held (sometimes passionately held) convictions and beliefs.

once something becomes a personal "belief" it is more likely the person holding the belief will emotionally identify with it.

what we "believe" in, to a large extent, shapes our whole world-view -so don't be surprised if people react badly when their beliefs are challenged!

too true blue

the thought has occurred to me that Clark and Cullen might be doing a Putin

Watching Palin from the edge of Russia with binoculars ?

taking a back seat while things turn sour on the home front and waiting for an opportunity to resume business where they left off

a national government has been the most left wing government we've had in the last 30-40 years or so...