Labour’s Green problem

Labour’s new leader David Cunliffe has a propensity for changing to suit his audience.

If it’s a matter of style it might not matter, but when it’s substance it does as John Armstrong points out:

To show he is still boss, Key rode into town this week with all guns blazing.

For the first time outside the parliamentary chamber, he had Cunliffe very much in his sights.

The Prime Minister claimed he had information that Labour’s leader had privately told SkyCity’s management that although Labour’s official line was that the pokies-for-convention-centre deal was shonky, Labour would not accede to the wishes of the Greens and rip up SkyCity’s contract with the Crown.

Facing his first real test as leader, Cunliffe vigorously denied the charge before deliberately ducking and fudging to such an extent that confused reporters drew completely different conclusions about where Labour stands on the matter.

This is not a tactic that Cunliffe can resort to using too often.

Being a different person to different people is one thing, saying different things which sends messages which are mixed or worse, contradictory, is another.

Key will keep up the pressure. He knows Cunliffe is in a very difficult position.

On the one hand, there are those in Labour who would seek to nobble SkyCity as a matter of principle.

Others take the view that an international convention centre means jobs, and Labour’s supporters in lower socio-economic areas would take a dim view of the party kiboshing the project.

Moreover Labour cannot afford to be seen to be ripping up contractual obligations, thereby destroying its credibility with international investors and the moderate voters Cunliffe must win back from National to gain power.

Here lies Key’s wider strategy. Labour needs to show it can work with the Greens to convince people that a centre-left government is a workable proposition.

At the same time, Labour needs to create some distance between itself and the Greens to avoid accusations it is in their pocket.

Winning back votes to the left of Labour will do nothing to grow the left’s vote.

They’ve got to win votes from the centre and even right to grow the how left vote and that will be very difficult when moderates in the centre are at least as averse to the far left as they are to the far right.

Labour’s Green problem is its biggest potential coalition partner is also its biggest rival for far left votes and biggest liability in attracting votes from its right.

 

 

77 Responses to Labour’s Green problem

  1. robertguyton says:

    “The Prime Minister claimed he had information…”

    Ha ha ha ha ha!
    Good one, Ele.

    “Labour needs to show it can work with the Greens”

    Rest easy. They will and we will work with them, as the Government, starting at the coming election.

    Mr Key will be back on that horse, only he’ll be heading out of town.

    Like

  2. TraceyS says:

    Robert, have you not seen what happens to the small parties who concede their values just to get their hands of some of the power?

    Good luck to the Green Party.

    Like

  3. Roger says:

    Well put. There’s more to forming a government than some simple arithmetic when it’s a coalition from a pile of minorities none of whom remotely look like being the party holding a majority of votes.

    Like

  4. Dave Kennedy says:

    “…have you not seen what happens to the small parties who concede their values just to get their hands of some of the power?”

    Which is why we Greens have been very reluctant to go into a full coalition in the past. Our highest result in a poll was 17% and in 2002 National only received 20% of the vote. The Greens are no longer a minor party and our organisation and infrastructure is practically as strong as the two largest. Also when the Greens and Labour experience increases in the polls it generally isn’t at the expense of each other.

    It is National that is probably in the most desperate situation when it no longer has viable coalition partners and is even having to consider accepting Colin Craig’s Conservatives as a possibility (New Zealand’s version of the Tea Party). I have noticed the Greens, Labour (and even Winston) cooperating well in the house while National looks sadly isolated. I don’t see Act, United Future and the Maori Party leaping to their feet in support of National Ministers, instead there is a faint smell of corruption floating around the Government benches and a vindictive desperation in their answers.

    Like

  5. robertguyton says:

    “Small” party, Tracey?
    I don’t think so.
    3rd-biggest, you mean.
    And thank you for wishing the party good luck – we appreciate your well-wishes.
    Roger – the party with the majority of the vote? That could well be Labour, going by National’s downward trend and the kinds of trouble it’s in right now; Meridian, John Banks, Kim Dotcom’s “I have proof Key lied”, the Slater Affair, Tolley’s police ‘cock-up’, Parata’s total hashing of the Education portfolio, Peter “I’m Key’s man” Dunne and his tumble from grace – it goes on and on, lower and lower.

    Like

  6. robertguyton says:

    John Armstrong, Tracy Watkins, and Fran O’Sullivan all write today about National’s plunging polls and the growing likelihood that this will be the first two-term National government. They take different approaches – Armstrong: there’s nothing for Key to worry about, Watkins: there was a problem but the tide’s turning back, O’Sullivan: yeah, Key’s fucked.
    *’scuse language – comment borrowed from The Standard.
    Enjoy.

    Like

  7. TraceyS says:

    If you’re not a minor party, Dave, you are a major party with no electorate seats.

    Which ones are you hoping to win in the next election?

    Might one of your compromises be running some candidates who could actually win?

    Like

  8. Armchair Critic says:

    And risk splitting the electorate vote, so National win the seat? Sounds like a really poor strategy, Tracey S.

    Like

  9. TraceyS says:

    Then your party’s size and influence will always be limited. Good luck and happy coalitions AC.

    Like

  10. TraceyS says:

    And might I add that it deserves to be limited if the party refuses to put up candidates the electorates want for fear of “splitting the vote”.

    Like

  11. Gravedodger says:

    “They who the gods would destroy they first make mad”.

    Random question Dave K or Robert, since your new very best mate is joined at the hip to your Green Party, And the GP is vehemently opposed to the “free” national convention center due to the massively increased opportunities for the dumbarse poor to put all their benefit money into a poker machine.

    Does that oh so well intentioned, caring and compassionate policy extend to Lotto, Big Wednesday and scratchies???
    If not why not as the massive advertising with the promise of instant riches when Poker machines have a more favorable chance of winning than the other three ever have.
    Oh also I am unaware of any advertising for me to rush off to a casino to be the recipient of a Lamborghini, anothe beach house, and instand incredible wealth. LOL

    That is accepting the salient fact that to partake of the addiction feeding ogres at the Casino the target victims have to travel to the CBD, dress sufficiently well to gain admission, and retain enough coin to get home again when to drop their dollars into the state gambling option they only need to walk a couple of hundred meters or so in their trackies and flipflops and then walk home again.

    Should your wet dream come to pass it will be the best show in town, pity about the country, its business, and the citizens rich and poor.
    However since the ends justify the means and the unannounced suffering engendered is merely collateral damage we will not expect any caring about that.
    It has been well signalled by the harsh, appalling and very debilitating damage and suffering inflicted on some of the very poorest in the world by the disastrous biofuel debacle.

    ps from an earlier one liner attempted put down Robert, I have never denied Global Warming it has been occurring for millenia along with regular contra cooling, for that I am grateful.

    You see Robert I have been working around the “carbon cycle” since around the mid to late 1950s. It is all about Biology, Chemistry and Physics and has nothing to do with Tax, sinecures, funded university troughing and world government.
    The lates space images of the Antarctic Sea Ice seem to be a minor impediment to the whole charade and are replicated in the Arctic that your thieving prick fraudsters at the IPCC predicted would be “Ice Free” about now.

    Robert “denier” is just a pathetic ploy when reason has departed.

    Like

  12. jabba says:

    “Which is why we Greens have been very reluctant to go into a full coalition in the past”. .. say what?? the muppets had no choice man, when Labour knew they didn’t need the hillbillies they were gone by lunchtime .. TWICE

    Like

  13. jabba says:

    the Slater affair .. behind the times again bOb?

    Like

  14. jabba says:

    oh my god (OMG) .. you slag off Whaleoii, troll here and try at Keeping Stock and you read the sub Standard .. you are a confused man .. the pills bOb, take the pills

    Like

  15. Viv K says:

    John Key is making stuff up here and that is not a tactic he should resort to too often. David Cunliffe has said that a future Labour government would reserve the right to make changes to the gambling laws if they saw fit. The Greens want to repeal the legislation, Cunliffe has not said he would automatically do that. He isn’t saying different things to different people, that is just spin from you Ele and John Key. What is most definitely shonkey is Key’s plan to pass this legislation dependent on 1 vote from an MP who is due to appear in court on charges relating to donations he received from the company that stands to benefit from the legislation. That’s banana republic politics, shonkey and shameful.

    Like

  16. Viv K says:

    The Greens do put up candidates in most electorates, but perhaps because they understand MMP (which is the electoral system favoured by NZ voters) they concentrate on the Party vote.

    Like

  17. robertguyton says:

    “the dumbarse poor”, Gravedodger?

    The dumbarse poor?

    Really???

    Like

  18. robertguyton says:

    The climate scientists of the IPCC – “thieving prick fraudsters”, Gravedodger?

    Really???

    Like

  19. Viv K says:

    And might I add that I don’t recall AC ever claiming that the Greens were his\her party. I recall reading AC commenting along the lines of being a National voter, but not impressed with the current government for many reasons. Apologies AC if I’ve got that wrong. The Greens are my party though :-).

    Like

  20. jabba says:

    shonkey donkey johnkey .. come on Viv, you are starting to be infected by guytons childish personal attacks

    Like

  21. Gravedodger says:

    So Robert the glaciers havn’t cooperated, the Arctic sea ice, the Antarctic sea ice, sure a few hot days but plenty of brass monkey days where ive been, my little bro up to his nuts snow raking cows out of “safe ” country and we have been farminng it for over half a century, my Dad first went to the district in the 1920s wasn’t such a bad ski season either.

    Just keep saying the same stuff chances of being right get better with time, maybe.

    Facetious denigration will not work with me evidence does and you do not have much evidence.

    Spose you think the unique circumstances of the current NSW disaster are my fault too.

    Like

  22. robertguyton says:

    “I have never denied Global Warming it has been occurring for millenia”

    Can’t argue with that logic, GD.

    You make climate scientists look stupid. Why can’t they see it as you do????

    Like

  23. Armchair Critic says:

    My party, Tracey? I’ve voted National in the past, and as Viv K recalls below, I intend to vote national at the next election.
    That doesn’t prevent me from offering opinions on what the Green party should do. It’s my opinion that the resources they have available are best put toward maximising their share of the party vote and not trying win an electorate seat. Do you need this explained to you on further detail, can you work it out yourself, or are you just looking for an opportunity to say something to show how little you understand MMP and democracy?

    Like

  24. TraceyS says:

    There is no reason why they couldn’t go for the party vote and the electorate vote is there? They could do this by running excellent candidates who embody the attributes people want in their electorate representative. That doesn’t require greater resources necessarily. Just better candidates who are what people want. What’s undemocratic about that?

    And on democracy, it is not just about doing what it takes to win elections. At least that is my opinion. I’m sure the Green Party understand the importance of local representation or they would not bother running candidates in local body elections.

    Why then keep putting up electorate candidates who do not resonate enough with voters to ever succeed in receiving the majority of candidate votes? Maybe they cannot find anyone better.

    Like

  25. TraceyS says:

    PS. I’ve read some of your comments on Robert’s website and find it hard to accept they come from a National Party supporter.

    Maybe you don’t vote Green because of a deep dislike for helping Labour? You would not be alone I think.

    National doesn’t have such issues in this next election. People will know that a vote for National is a vote for National. There is some attraction in knowing what you are going to get. It’s known vs unknown.

    Maybe people in my area are generally a conservative bunch. I know which of the above they tend to prefer, however.

    Like

  26. TraceyS says:

    If ever Greens get 50% of the party vote and still no electorate MPs the people might start to wonder! The wondering will probably happen much earlier than that I’d expect. This is what I meant by a limit. If your party reached say 20% of the party vote (and no electorate MPs) people would be turned off. One day the party will have to win an electorate seat and to do this they will have to choose candidates that people actually want representing them. Can’t you see that will mean reining in some of the ridiculous policies?

    MMP just fixes up perceived “unfairness” in the numbers. But voters, too, are more than capable of voting to put unfairness straight. All they have to do is to bring both votes into line.

    Like

  27. Dave Kennedy says:

    Interestingly having electorate MPs doesn’t mean the constituents will be well served. In Southland we have had a whole series of important local issues; dying wetlands and Estuaries, major industries threatening closure, lignite mining about to take over our most arable farmland and many more. Our National MPs have been strangely absent regarding many of them and over the last few years most of our 14 Green MPs have been in our city working with key stakeholders and trying to work out solutions and provide support.

    It was Rod Donald who provided much support for our SBS to become an independent bank, Gareth Hughes who helped fight Solid Energy’s bizarre lignite schemes (we now have a $30 million lignite briquetting plant mothballed because of stupid decisions), David Clendon has provided support for local SMEs, Denise Roche and Jane Logie have looked at local issues relating to unlivable incomes, Eugenie Sage tramped the route of the proposed Fiordland monorail to judge first hand the consequences of the project and kayaked on our estuary to see the extent of the eutrophication, Russel Norman met with local farmers to see what would be the fairest way to manage the declining state of the Waituna wetland, Kevin Hague joined our anti-mining in National Parks march, Julie Anne Gentre has questioned the underfunding of Southland’s roads to pay for mad motorways….

    Here is what a local National supporting blogger said after an interview with one of our MPs: http://cqae.co.nz/2013/04/04/bugger-me-days/

    The Greens may not have any electorate MPs but I would say they are more effective in dealing with local issues than most.

    Like

  28. homepaddock says:

    All of the issues you mention happen to fit Green Party political views. Electorate MPs can’t pick and choose their issues. They and their staff must deal with and do their best to help every constituent who comes through their doors.

    List MPs, particularly from minor parties, are very unlikely to get anyone and everyone approaching them for help or with a gripe the way an electorate MP, or list MP from a governing party, does.

    That is one of MMP’s weaknesses – it enables some MPs to pick and choose their issues, and doesn’t require them to serve any and all constituents in the way electorate MPs have to.

    Like

  29. Dave Kennedy says:

    You make a good point point, Ele, but the Green MP mail boxes show that many people are not getting the support they wanted from their electorate MPs and some of the big local issues are not being attended too. You can’t say that the lack of funding for the upkeep of Southland’s roads would be a natural Green cause. Under this Government regional development and the protection of local jobs has not been high on the priority list. Even Cameron Slater has praised Green MPs for looking after individuals abandoned by their local representatives. http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/02/pimping-the-poor-ctd-labour-collude-with-herald/#axzz2irKWyYfn

    Like

  30. Gravedodger says:

    Perhaps Robert, you could explain with some elaboration on your 8 15 pm gem as to what actually changed the last great “Ice age” around 10 000 years ago and then the cold spell after the “Medieval warm period” that is still being debated as to its ending date.

    As we suffer adnauseum doomsday predictions that are fanciful as to disaster, the globe could well be entering a cooling period as indicated by pretty static warming figures for the last ten years.

    But then you have all the knowledge and I am a hillbilly, is that what you really believe Robert, dont hold back, sticks and stones and all that.

    It will be a small surprise to you that I have respect for your views but I do not think that Tax,, ridicule, denigration and cheapshot put downs allied to the propaganda based on disputed science that will not be truely settled until the passage of time allows a reasoned answer, as a legitimate basis for debate.
    Sheesh even the IPCC is reluctantly admitting its Computor Modelling is not delivering the desired answers, albeit with much obfuscation.

    Like

  31. TraceyS says:

    Dave, according to your account above, the last Green MP to actually achieve something of significance in your area was Rod Donald.

    Now I realise why Metiria Turei is never visible in her Dunedin office when I go past. She is down in Southland with most of the other 14 Green MPs.

    Here’s what the ODT reported of her feelings in regard to Dunedin recently:

    “Ms Turei felt strongly the Government was ignoring regional development. The 85 jobs being shifted from AgResearch’s Invermay facility, along with the job losses at Hillside, was a sign of the Government’s arrogance.”

    (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/268490/need-seen-development-mp)

    Blame the government – how very useful!

    Many people, including practical ones like me, realise that to make a real difference it takes a little bit more than finger-pointing, protesting, talking, tramping and kayaking….

    In a press release on the local body elections she said:

    “The results are a clear signal that New Zealanders want representatives at both local and central Government level who care about people and who care about the environment,” Ms Turei said.”

    (https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/green-sweep-best-ever-local-government-result-green-party)

    Clearly she regards central government representation at a local level as important. Why then not run electorate candidates that people want?

    Like

  32. Mr E says:

    What a crock Dave,
    Dying estuaries and wetlands? Where?
    Major industries threatening closure? Where?
    Lignite mining about to take over our most arable farmland? Where?

    Was Gareth responsible for the Briquetting plant not opening? I now know who to blame for wasting my tax.

    And Russell was responsible for Waituna not flipping? Tui! What a joke Dave. Surely you must be joking? Russell turned up listened, kayaked and told farmers to reduce stock by 10%. What actually improved the lagoon had nothing to do with Russell.
    Farmers and ES combined to establish some ‘best practice principles’. The Government through Eric Roy, created a report and contributed $780,000 to the efforts. Russell and his Kayak… Yeah Nah.

    I hope you are just politicking and don’t actually believe the pish you push.

    Like

  33. Viv K says:

    re TraceyS at 11.24
    “Maybe people in my area are generally a conservative bunch. I know which of the above they tend to prefer, however”. That would depend who you usually talk to. I suggest Tracey, that you don’t know the views of people in your (also my) area, as well as you think you do.

    At your local polling booth in 2011, National got 311 party votes, Labour 175, Green 93. Labour/Green combined 268 compared to 311. Hardly a whitewash for National and down the road at my polling booth National 74 party votes, Labour 63, Green 74.

    While your nearest neighbours favoured National in 2011 , in the 4 polling booths that make up the area that you now represent on the local community board, the party votes totals were Labour 376, Green 392, National 569. That is 57% combined Labour/Green to 42% National.

    Like

  34. Viv K says:

    “Now I realise why Metiria Turei is never visible in her Dunedin office when I go past.”
    Her office is on the 5th floor Tracey, do you go past in a helicopter?

    Like

  35. TraceyS says:

    I know where her office is Viv, and I go past on foot.

    Since she shifted, it is now less obvious that no one is home. I must have driven past her old office hundreds of times. Very seldom were there any lights on or anyone moving about inside.

    If she believed her own words she’d run a candidate in Dunedin North who the people want. Otherwise she has a looming credibility problem.

    Like

  36. TraceyS says:

    I think you’re being presumptuous when you decided what “area” meant. It was not necessarily geographical area I was referring to and certainly not limited to the areas you have identified.

    And it is also an assumption that “conservative” means people who vote for National. I know people who support all three parties who are extremely conservative in their nature, especially when it comes to money. That is why they prefer the known over the unknown.

    Like

  37. jabba says:

    Tracey, as far as Turei is concerned the lights maybe on but there is no-one home. She must get on like a house on fire with bOb.

    Like

  38. Viv K says:

    Metiria stood as the Green’s Dunedin North candidate in 2011. ‘Since she shifted it is now less obvious that no one is home’. I suggest you are the one with the credibility problem here. There is plenty of work going on in the Greens office, I thought you said you weren’t going to comment on subjects you didn’t know anything about. Driving past the old electorate office (which was damp and mouldy) all you could see was the reception area which had good natural light and didn’t usually need electric lights on during the day. To express an opinion about what work goes on in someone else’s office, based on what you can see when you go past, is quite frankly ridiculous.

    Like

  39. Dave Kennedy says:

    I was talking about actual engagement, Mr E, National MPs have been particularly noticeable by their total absence in many cases. There is a limit what one can do in opposition, but if you spoke to the farmers we engaged with, many were impressed with Russel’s appreciation of the issues and commonsense approach.

    By the way I was impressed with your comments regarding Landcorp on another thread, they made good sense.

    Like

  40. TraceyS says:

    I didn’t see Metiria there. Maybe I’ll look harder next time and might see her!

    Like

  41. TraceyS says:

    On second thoughts I won’t have to because I can simply rely on you to tell me what I saw.

    Like

  42. robertguyton says:

    There are people in Metirias electorate that want her.
    Many of them are sophisticated voters who know how to use their vote to it’s best effect. Your requiring them to vote the way you think most suitable is probably something they’d laugh at, Tracey.

    Like

  43. robertguyton says:

    Eric Roy? Mr E! Very good!
    Dying estuaries? Let’s see, the Pourakino arm of Jacob’s River – are you going to claim it’s not in a parlous state? Okay then, let’s hear your evidence.

    Like

  44. robertguyton says:

    Dave – Mr E’s right – Gareth Hughes wasn’t responsible for the failure of the briquette plant at Mataura.
    Bill English was.

    Like

  45. TraceyS says:

    I’m not interested in the small subset of voters who are “sophisticated”. The majority of voters are not sophisticated.

    If your soul wasn’t consumed by politics then you might be able to see that.

    Like

  46. robertguyton says:

    You like your politics unsophisticated, Tracey?#colourmesurprised

    Like

  47. Viv K says:

    ‘I can simply rely on you to tell me what I saw’. For goodness sake, how on earth did you come up with that one? What I told you is that you can’t make assumptions about the work being done in someone’s office from your view going past. I’ve only ever seen the large photos of Michael Woodhouse on his electorate office, I’ve never seen him there, but I don’t think that means I can make a value judgement about what, or how much, work he does.

    Like

  48. TraceyS says:

    “There are people in Metirias electorate that want her.”

    Sure Robert, just not enough of them. In fact, the majority of voters don’t want her. If they did, they would vote for her and give their party vote to Labour. To hell with the consequences, she’d be worth it for all she’d do for the region.

    How’s that for unsophisticated!

    Like

  49. TraceyS says:

    I never made such a judgement. I’m looking for her personal presence and the outcomes of her successful initiatives in the electorate…

    I’ll keep looking. Maybe she/they are hiding under her desk?

    Like

  50. robertguyton says:

    “I never made such a judgement…Maybe she/they are hiding under her desk?”

    Pfffffffft!

    Weasel words.

    Like

  51. robertguyton says:

    Tracey – by your own petard – “In fact, the majority of voters don’t want her.”
    More than 50% of New Zealanders voted at the last election not to have John Key as their Prime Minister.
    You claim he’s unwanted by the country?
    How disloyal of you to say so!

    Like

  52. Viv K says:

    ‘I’m looking for her personal presence’, really? Honestly? Other than driving past the old office in 2011 and glancing in, or walking past a building in which she has a 5th floor office, what other attempts have you made to look for her personal presence?

    Like

  53. TraceyS says:

    And 97% don’t want Russel Norman. 88% don’t want David Cunliffe. Does Metiria even register?

    Seems most of us might prefer no one as Prime Minister, Robert. Is that an argument for smaller government?

    Like

  54. TraceyS says:

    Shouldn’t have to look too hard, she’s a politician! Why isn’t she out looking for votes?

    Like

  55. Mr E says:

    The same Pourakino estuary that comes from the cleanest river in Southland. One that’s catchment has little to do farming and mostly to do with the longwoods forest.
    And you say it’s declining because there are more macrophytes. Organisms that are more successful in good weather. What odd conclusions you come to.

    Like

  56. robertguyton says:

    The same Pourakino estuary that is backwashed by water from the Aparima River, not the cleanest river in Southland. The Pourakino has farms alongside of it alright and I can offer two ‘historical’ snapshots of what that can be like, the first being the sight of dairy cows enjoying their free access to the river by standing in the water and crapping to their heart’s content and the second being the sight and smell of a sheep-dip full of chemical being emptied straight into the Pourakino in the way it had been done regularly since the concrete was poured however many years before. Those are just two examples of how the Pourakino has been misused, wanna hear more? To claim then, that it’s the cleanest in Southland doesn’t bode well for the others, does it. As for claiming that the Pourakino estuary is exempted from macrophytic growth because of bad weather must be a joke, so I’ll not comment. The Pourakino arm of the Aparima estuary is in a parlous state. Kayakers paddling up the Pourakino report that is stinks and not of forest, but of cow-shit.

    Like

  57. robertguyton says:

    Viv trounced you there, Tracey. With facts and figures. On that pin of yours, you danced (area? I meant “area”!) but Viv’s research told the truth of the matter.

    Like

  58. Paranormal says:

    Now you’re showing your stupidity RG. You prefer the corrupt raving of a railway engineer to actually looking at all the evidence and thinking it through for yourself.

    You’re no different to any other religious fanatic.

    Like

  59. TraceyS says:

    Yeah like when someone refers to their “field” of work they are always talking about their paddock, eh Robert?

    Like

  60. Blokeinauckland. says:

    So, the Lab/Green hopes fade into the dust. That was short lived. <a href=http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9332786/Poll-a-major-blow-to-Labour<Today's Fairfax poll is a mortal blow and just goes to show that there is no call for a shift to the far left or even left.

    Guyton’s braying now sounds as pathetic as “gimme my fwag back”

    Like

  61. Blokeinauckland. says:

    Try dancing on this pin.

    Four more years!

    Like

  62. robertguyton says:

    I’m entirely confident that the Green/Labour coalition will win the coming election, convincingly.

    Dust, bloke? One poll and you’ll all cock-a-hoop. I’ve seen your sort flare and fade like sparks from a lignite fire.

    Pffffft!!

    Like

  63. robertguyton says:

    Followed your link to see why you’re so over-heated. The bloke in the photo – a down-and-outer? If that’s how Tories look when the get a good-but-rogue poll, what will he look like when the next Left-favouring poll comes in?
    Death warmed up?

    Like

  64. TraceyS says:

    I have the vague feeling that I should call you a racist (or something) for commenting on a politican’s looks, but it’s beneath me to do so.

    He looks tired and thoughtful. Maybe from hard work.

    (In case you don’t recall, you called me a racist for commenting on Russel Norman’s dull skin).

    I’m glad to see this poll proves you wrong on another point. Labour has indeed taken nearly 1.6 points form the Greens. Dispute that and you must then consider the alternative that it was National.

    I shudder for you.

    Like

  65. TraceyS says:

    *from*

    Like

  66. TraceyS says:

    I’m confidently trying to thoroughly convince myself that you are correct Robert.

    🙂

    Like

  67. robertguyton says:

    This poll proves nothing, but your (blind) faith in them is … interesting.
    Key looks beaten, admit it.
    Because he is.
    Don’t shudder for me, Tracey. People might misconstrue your meaning.

    Like

  68. TraceyS says:

    Sorry Robert, it didn’t entirely convincingly work, therefore I cannot share your confidence. Too nice an afternoon perhaps. Will have to try again tomorrow. Sigh!

    Like

  69. robertguyton says:

    As an aside, Tracey, it’s blatantly obvious that the National Party MPs are forcing gaiety and over-confidence in the House, with their fever-pitched , ‘That’s right!” and “Very good” to each and every utterance from one of theirs. They’ve begun in earnest to try to appear buoyant and up-beat, as I’m sure they’ve been instructed, but it comes across as hollow bravado to all but the mesmerized. The Right blogs too, Keeping Stock in particular, are prefacing their posts with, “More good news” and ‘excellent progress” and so on, in a revealing display of over-egging in the face of a number of awful revelations and results (Meridian Energy, anyone? John ‘in-the-dock Banks? The Slaters?) It’s what I expect from a team going down, as, despite the Fairfax poll (it’s the least reliable of all the polls, you do acknowledge that, Tracey?) National surely is.
    Just saying. Keeping it real.

    Like

  70. TraceyS says:

    I think that is highly unlikely, Robert.

    What’s interesting though, is how much lower your comments go when you’ve run out of decent things to say.

    Like

  71. robertguyton says:

    “Today’s Fairfax poll is a mortal blow”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Lordy!

    Like

  72. TraceyS says:

    You’ve just suggested that people might “misconstrue” my comment “I shudder for you” and now you’re saying “keep it real”?

    You are unbelievable, Robert (and please don’t misconstrue that anyone).

    Along with all the other naifs out there, I don’t care about that stuff.

    Like

  73. robertguyton says:

    I had never seen the word ‘naif’ before, Tracey, and didn’t know what it meant. Thanks! I like new and interesting words lyt.

    Like

  74. Blokeinauckland. says:

    Keep believing buddy. That’s what they want – blind faith. Can’t tell the children the truth the game is up.

    Like

  75. Gravedodger says:

    Not sure how much of the bearpit you watch Robert but your description defies the scenes I watch.
    Sure there is some body language amongst the eye rollers on the treasury benches, often when such deeply incisive questions as “does the Minister(primeminister) stand by all his statements, that could be seen in a negative light if you had the sound off.
    However when the Patsy questions are more demanding, to the point and logical than the rubbish that is contained in those supposedly calling the Government to account then It is just more joke than debate.

    Many of the opposition questions are so long winded and wide ranging, ministers are given a free hit with answers and Mr Speaker has to call them off due to the embarrasment engendered.

    Btw I often wondered what Mr Shearers reaction would have been if at the end of the daily stammering does the PM stand by………., Mr Key got up and said No.

    Like

  76. robertguyton says:

    It’s ‘game-on’, bloke and the horse you’re backing’s headed for the knacker’s yard.

    Like

  77. robertguyton says:

    If Key did as you suggest, his finger-puppet MP’s would guffaw and hoot fit to burst, at the superb wit of their leader. There’d be back-slapping and high-five-ing all the way up to the back-benches and swooning too, from Maggie Barry et al. Only Simon Bridges would remain seated during the festivities, grinding his teeth and wishing he’d said that! “Akshullly”, he’d think to himself, “The reality is, moi turn will come”.
    Sooner than you think, Pants-on-fire. Sooner than you think.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: