Where to now for Labour?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by pxpx

What happens to Ardern when Little is replaced as leader after the election?

Who knows, probably depends on the how the next 6 months play out & how close the election is. Right now Labour are focused on getting as many votes as possible & as such (as most if not all political commentators are saying) bringing in Arden was a politically smart move.

[CCS]

Have any of these political commentators been able to articulate why it's a smart move?

[fixed_truth]

In short because the election is a popularity contest and Little (like English) comes across a bit dull.

Tim Watkin had a good summary.

Because this is Ardern's true political attractiveness - and value to Labour: She is known. She has a personal brand that no other Labour MP has; not even her leader. She has those two most valuable, (almost) untrainable political virtues - likeability and authenticity.

[CCS]

I'm glad you acknowledge that Ardern doesn't have much going for her other than flashing a smile. But how is that only just a thing now? Having lost in her electorate for the last 3 elections, how is it now that being gifted an easy-win electorate is supposed to make the rest of the country - not just the Mt Albert voters - think that Labour is now worth spending a vote on?

[fixed_truth]

I think you're undervaluing trust and relatability in the political context. Me, I don't really care for personality, I'm all about policy. But a political reality is that a lot of people place a high priority on whether they feel a politician comes across as someone that reflects them and their values. Another political reality that annoys me is that a lot of people vote for a leader they like rather than a party.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

Because I know Lolspeeds style, that was in reference to when I said "That's not what I said. Stop making things up" which was itself a response to lolspeeds unfounded complaint of me talking bullshit.

So rather than being a complaint about semantics, it's a complaint about Lolspeeds inherent intellectual dishonesty and continual attempts to make up things and try to attribute them to other people.

But I don't expect the Dumb Loser crowd to understand what I've just explained.

lolz, okay Trump.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

I'm glad you acknowledge that Ardern doesn't have much going for her other than flashing a smile.

Remind us again what National has going for them? lolololz

(That's actually an own goal, we're all getting fucked, I laugh in lieu of crying.)

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I think you're undervaluing trust and relatability in the political context. Me, I don't really care for personality, I'm all about policy. But a political reality is that a lot of people place a high priority on whether they feel a politician comes across as someone that reflects them and their values. Another political reality that annoys me is that a lot of people vote for a leader they like rather than a party.

Has Jacinda only just become trustworthy and reliable since winning an electorate?

[fixed_truth]

I have no idea how long this has been in the pipeline and who made decisions about the timing of the transition. Maybe it was always the plan for it to happen before the election, maybe when Shearer let the party know he was leaving a decision was made to give her Mt Albert and then follow the momentum into it. Maybe it came about very recently. Who knows?

[CCS]

But what I'm getting at is that she wasn't Labour's great hope before, and now she is, without anything substantial happening. If she is amazing now, why wasn't she amazing before?

[Lightspeed]

She's been in the wings for awhile now. No real job/professional politician. I think she probably needed to get "professional politician" well and truly under her belt. But basically I just think she needed to get old. That's Chloe Swarbrick's biggest hurdle right now.

[Spoon1]

In all the media interactions I've seen of Ardern I've thought she came across competently. I have been thinking they should have her as leader for quite a while.

[CCS]

There goes Labour, tripping on that low bar again.

[pxpx]

Jacinda Ardern leapfrogs Andrew Little in latest preferred prime minister poll
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...new-poll-finds

That's pretty lolsy.

[CCS]

Awkwaaarrd!

If she keeps her nose clean during the election, she'll be able to depose Little when Labour loses.

[blynk]

That depends on what the unions think of her.
They are reason Labour got Little.

Its a bit of a shame they don't do it now. With Bill down a bit, now would be the time to do it, and even if they do lose (unless its by a equal or bigger margin), they could keep her on and work towards the next election

[Lightspeed]

Hahaha, people are making political decisions based on superficial appearances, hahaha, there's no way this is a problem, hahaha, we're not fucked at all, hahaha.

[Brutus]

They briefly touched on this on the radio this morning.
I don't understand how she can be preferred PM over Little yet Little is preferred labour leader?

Unless the polling for labour leader is including national supporters who think Little is more likely to lose.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

Dim-post? I think Danyl has just killed it. He's purged his twitter account of everything posted in the past 6 months and he's purged his blog from the Wayback Machine, so I presume he's doing something professionally political and was scared of getting bitten on the arse.

Looks more like he's just decided that the Internet sucks.

http://thespinoff.co.nz/media/17-04-...ation-monsoon/

[[Malks] Pixie]

That's a pretty well written and thoughtful piece, though the media theory geek in me wants to edit it and draw back to other theorists (in particular the "Postman’s hypothesis...was that the form of a communications medium determines the content." - which actually originally came from Marshall McLuhan).

[leadinjector]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Hahaha, people are making political decisions based on superficial appearances, hahaha, there's no way this is a problem, hahaha, we're not fucked at all, hahaha.

i think jacinda ardern wants to eat my soul, based only on her pictures ive seen.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

That's a pretty well written and thoughtful piece...

I won't deny that I have had similar thoughts over the years, and they seem to be escalating in frequency and amplitude. I'm starting to really fucking hate the Internet and what it has done to humanity. And it was supposed to be something good.

[CCS]

Labour leader Andrew Little has vowed to slash immigration by "tens of thousands" of new arrivals but won't be more specific about exact numbers.

Is that because he's trying to reconcile a slash in immigrants with Labour's desire to increase refugee numbers?

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

I won't deny that I have had similar thoughts over the years, and they seem to be escalating in frequency and amplitude. I'm starting to really fucking hate the Internet and what it has done to humanity. And it was supposed to be something good.

Yep, though I'm not one to speak - I was super late to social media (which I still don't really get - but that should be obvious), still not even on FB. I would note though that it's not what the internet has done to us, it's what we've done to the internet.

[Ab]

that's the saddest bit

[[Malks] Pixie]

Indeed - but it's also the thing which is most interesting, which is what makes it so sad.

[Heyzoos]

Originally Posted by Ab

And it was supposed to be something good.

This may be the most naive thing I've ever read from you on this evil Internet thing that you created. A pencil is neither good nor bad.

I'm equally naive perhaps, in that whilst I don't ever expect technology improve our species, I do believe we will grow up one day and figure out how we should use it.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Heyzoos

A pencil is neither good nor bad.

Hey the 70s called and they want their antiquated ideas about technology back!

Originally Posted by Heyzoos

...figure out how we should use it.

Perhaps pondering on this will give you the answer to why the statement above is so naive.

[ZoSo]

Opinion: Which immigrants will Labour ban?
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politi...abour-ban.html

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Heyzoos

This may be the most naive thing I've ever read from you on this evil Internet thing that you created. A pencil is neither good nor bad.

I'm equally naive perhaps, in that whilst I don't ever expect technology improve our species, I do believe we will grow up one day and figure out how we should use it.

The Internet was supposed to help researchers at universities share data and processor time. The damn fools never thought ahead and asked "hey what if this shit becomes ubiquitous and we connect every stupid person in the world to all the others all at once?"

[Ab]

Keith Ng pulls no punches:

Immigration has traction as an issue because Labour made it an issue. And Winston can climb out further than he usually does because Labour has already climbed half way.

Labour seems to think that it can open a can of worms, and when the worms start crawling out, it’s not their fault – it’s the worms’. Maybe this would be true if Labour had painstakingly avoided fuelling xenophobia in their discussion of immigration. But they haven’t. They’ve done the exact opposite.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27...igration-push/

[Lightspeed]

This is Labour failing to play at National's game. What works for the right doesn't work for the left.

I think fear of Winston is hyped up and irrational. Winston's gonna Winston regardless of what Labour or anyone else does. The substance of Ng's article is problems with Labour's approach to engaging with the public on the issue of immigration, which is problematic with or without Winston. He's practically used Winston as click-bait.

[fixed_truth]

Immigration is actually quite a difficult subject to have a conversation about. From all the various data sets I think we can safely say that we have record immigration and that our housing and infrastructure is strained by this. But does this mean it’s actually an infrastructure issue? What factors need to arise for immigration to be legitimately considered an “issue”?
I agree with LS that Labour are doing what National have successfully done for years i.e. focused on an overblown issue because it has popular appeal. Though in this game it’s only failing if there’s no political gain aye JK?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

From all the various data sets I think we can safely say that we have record immigration

Data plz

[Lightspeed]

I'm not sure what ft is specifically referring to, but it's in the news a bit, e.g.:
New figures confirm trend of record migration to NZ

[Ab]

"Net migration" is not the same thing as "immigration".

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

But does this mean it’s actually an infrastructure issue? What factors need to arise for immigration to be legitimately considered an “issue”?

It's both. It's immigration and housing supply. As for the immigration part, Phil Twyford might have you believe that it's just rich chinkies buying up our homes but it's not as politically convenient as that. It's immigrants of any colour. It's New Zealand ex-pats returning home. It's New Zealanders from around the country moving to Auckland for work. It's the ageing population staying in their houses that they've paid off instead of bloody well dying so that younger Aucklanders can have a crack.

It's baby boomers who enjoy seeing their property portfolio increase in value. It's 'investors'. It's money launderers. It's council not releasing enough land. It's lack of qualified builders. It's etc etc.

I don't have figures to prove it, but I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that housing supply has not increased at the same rate as population growth in Auckland.

I suspect it's an issue that's been building over the years and the breaking point is happening now. I don't think it's due to the policies of any particular party, I think that both central and local government just haven't been keeping an eye on it. Maybe because they thought the other group was responsible. Maybe they thought there were no votes in it. Maybe they thought that Auckland gonna Auckland.

[fixed_truth]

^I reckon that's all pretty spot on.

Originally Posted by CCS

I suspect it's an issue that's been building over the years and the breaking point is happening now. I don't think it's due to the policies of any particular party, I think that both central and local government just haven't been keeping an eye on it. Maybe because they thought the other group was responsible. Maybe they thought there were no votes in it. Maybe they thought that Auckland gonna Auckland.

Imo though I do think a lot of the inaction is due to National being tethered to it's low tax, minimal Govt. intervention free market ideology.

[Ab]

What the fuck does the government have to do with housing in Auckland? Seriously, we keep coming back to this with every discussion. I know that National is the Great Satan and John K-- I mean, Bill English -- is Hitler 2.0 so they have to be to blame for everything, but jesus.

If there aren't enough houses in Auckland for the number of people in Auckland that means one of two entities shoulders most of the blame:

1. the construction industry for not building houses fast enough

2. council for not freeing up land/relaxing zoning laws to allow the construction industry to build houses

Note: NEITHER OF THESE ENTITIES IS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

[ZoSo]

You really have to admire Twyford's ability to flip the narrative and the revisionists being totally oblivious to the stranglehold the left has had on local government in auckland and how they denied freeing up land for decades.
Try telling that to a wellingtonian labour apologist or green supporting auckland millennial. Those facts just don't exist.