Stuart Nash’s performance this morning will have depressed Labour supporters; Did someone instruct him to endorse the National Party’s line? Q+A, Television One, Sunday 7 December 2014
Halfway through today’s episode of this utterly dire programme—the last one of the year—a text from a viewer came up on screen: Should Lucy Lawless be defined as an ecoterrorist? I say yes.—Bob.
Part of the problem with New Zealand is that halfwits and moral pygmies like Bob alwaysvote, but normal, fair-minded, decent people don’t. The other part of the problem—probably the bigger part— is politicians like Stuart Nash. Shortly after Bob’s moronic text appeared, the screen was filled with a talking head….
GLENN GREENWALD: Any politician in New Zealand who has made statements like that, that there’s no mass surveillance been taking place aimed at New Zealanders, is a politician who has been deceiving the public.
Next talking head filling the screen was that of JOHN KEY, grinning nervously and ranting desperately about “Dotcom’s little henchman”, and denying that his government conducts mass surveillance on New Zealand citizens. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew Key was lying, and that he and his grotesque regime were extremely vulnerable at that point.
Greenwald is a journalist of unimpeachable integrity, and his work should have been devastating for the Key government. Any sensible and principled politicians would have co-opted Greenwald into their campaign. But listen to the Labour Party’s representative this morning….
STUART NASH: Kim Dotcom and Hone Harawira tried to focus on this last year and they failed. New Zealanders were not interested.
Nash was foolish enough to back up the National Party MP Chris Bishop’s take on the revelations from Nicky Hager’s book. Bishop asserted that “both sides have been at it”, that “both sides talked to bloggers” and that nobody cares anyway. That is the National Party line, beyond doubt carefully reiterated at the first meeting of the new Caucus. Instead of contradicting Chris Bishop’s audacious lie, Stuart Nash endorsed it.
It has often been mentioned that Nash is a great-grandson of Walter Nash. His spineless behaviour will only remind people of his great-grandfather’s infamous failure to take a position during the 1951 waterfront lockout. Stating that the Opposition was “neither for nor against” the watersiders, Walter Nash and the Labour Party ceded all authority to a vindictive, out-of-control National Party in 1951. Clearly, more than sixty years later, the Labour Party has not changed very much.
As I said before, I see no difference between Slater, the KKK, and Hitler’s Brownshirts.
Anyone who associates with Slater and his ilk endorse thuggery and intimidation.
How long before Slater, Lusk and Ede orchestrate a New Zealand version of kristallnacht
It happened in 1981, with people willing to smash bottles over the heads of women and children for a rugby match, there is no reason why it should happen again for lower taxes and corporate profits.
One wonders, with the benefit of hindsight, if Hager was better off releasing his book after the election…
Sure, it would have had everyone on here complain about how it should have been released before the election, but given the result, that point is moot.
It might have completely blindsided the government, and allowed the opposition to slowly wear them down over 3 years.
I believed for a while that National was always going to win in this year. Probably going back to David Cunliffe’s “chair of caucus” at question time — he probably lost the election right there and then — which is why I have empasised that Little needed to put in a solid performance (at least) at his first Question Time.
Cunliffe and the left were too impatient. Cunliffe should have bided his time and waiting for his chance instead of trying to force the issue, Hone should have said “thanks, but no thanks” to KDC’s offer that “moment of truth” should have been canned right from the start.
How we could have 6 more years, rather than just 3.
Little doesnt seem to be impatient as Cunliffe was, given his track record — he decided not to go for Parliament in 2008, and ruled out a shot at the leader ship in 2013. He knows the importance of occupying the crease and playing a straight bat, building an innings.
There’s no way of knowing if the left’s inability to mobilise the non-vote was a consequence of DP or KDC.
“Sure, it would have had everyone on here complain about how it should have been released before the election, but given the result, that point is moot.”
I think there would have been widespread shock and anger if Hager had released book after the election. It’s not about complaining on ts, it’s about the truth not being presented in time. The only option that Hager had was to wait and release it next year, but he strikes me as a pretty honest person so if he was asked he would have to say why he waited.
I think he did the right thing. There is no good timing here. The country is being screwed and even if DP/IMP hadn’t happened and the left had run a clean campaign, it would still have been smeared left right and centre. Plus there was the little matter of Labour not having its shit together. That the book came out before the election means that there are now compounding problems for National, it’s never going to end for them until Key and the dirty MPs are gone. Cat’s out of the bag and a bloody good thing too.
There’s no way of knowing if the left’s inability to mobilise the non-vote was a consequence of DP or KDC.
Nicky Hager researched and presented in irrefutable detail how the National Party’s attack machine had targeted LABOUR politicians. For some daft reason, some genius at Labour HQ decided that this revelation was an embarrassment and a distraction, rather than a godsend. You would have thought it was Andrew Little, Phil Goff and Stuart Nash who had been exposed as liars and criminals; instead of taking advantage of the book and attacking the people exposed in it, they spent more time attacking Kim Dotcom and belittling Hone Harawira.
Watching Nash’s almost unbelievably inept performance on Q+A this morning, it’s clear they’ve learned nothing.
yes, but we still don’t know why the non-vote didn’t vote. We’re guessing.
re Nash, I think Labour, and Little, need time make changes. If the conservatives in the party are seeing Nash as leadership potential, the problem is there are conservatives in the party. What you you going to do about them?
I don’t really understand how the Labour Caucus and parliamentary part work. I see big differences between them and the GP eg it’s rare to see a GP MP speak out from their own perspective rather than from party policy, but I don’t know if the difference is because the GP just has more internal philosophical cohesion, or if it’s because they actually work together, are required to work together, irrespective of their personal ideas.
yes, but we still don’t know why the non-vote didn’t vote.
With the publication of Dirty Politics, Labour, and New Zealand, was handed the most compelling evidence of National’s dishonesty and criminality. They could have teamed up with Nicky Hager, Laila Harré, Hone Harawira, Russell Norman and every other concerned New Zealander to really put the heat on the criminals and liars that run our country. Instead, they spent the whole of the election campaign repeating John Key’s line that “New Zealanders just don’t care about that sort of thing”. Why would anyone vote for such a timid and indecisive bunch as the Labour Party?
We’re guessing.
Well, we’re thinking about it. “Guessing” is a rather reductive way of describing that process.
re Nash, I think Labour, and Little, need time make changes.
As was painfully clear this morning, Nash has not got the wherewithal to inspire anyone. Little got off to a fine first week, but he undid it all by backing Key’s outrageous, anti-democratic “terror” legislation and then saying that “next time” the Labour Party won’t be such a pushover. National quite rightly will be feeling that they have him just where they want him—-compromised and on board.
“They could have teamed up with Nicky Hager, Laila Harré, Hone Harawira, Russell Norman and every other concerned New Zealander to really put the heat on” Yes. Things would be a bit different now if they had done that.
(AL) “backing Key’s outrageous, anti-democratic “terror” legislation” A.L/ Labour backing warrantless surveillance was a bit of a shocker. Very disappointing.
“compromised and on board.” I wish it were not so.
Did someone instruct him to endorse the National Party’s line?
Q+A, Television One, Sunday 7 December 2014
Yes. Things would be a bit different now if they had done that.
A.L/ Labour backing warrantless surveillance was a bit of a shocker. Very disappointing.
I wish it were not so.
You keep on making sense.