Labour Party MP Claire Curran is furious at the Green Party for stealing votes that belong to Labour by right of divine primogeniture, and she’s discussing her views with Idiot/Savant on Twitter:
So I’ll be voting for the Greens this election, as previously stated. I’d like to vote Labour again in 2014 – but it simply wouldn’t be ethical to cast a vote for a party this dysfunctional, so there will have to be a lot of changes before I can switch back.
And getting rid of MPs like Claire Curran will be a big part of that. I’ll be casting my electorate vote for Grant Robertson, because he’s a good MP – but if you live in an electorate like, oh say, Dunedin South I think the best thing you can do for the left is cast your party vote for Labour or the Greens, or whoever, but cast your electorate vote for the National candidate. It won’t impact on the outcome of the election (unless you live in Ohariu) but it will send a message to Labour that if they force poor quality MPs on us in safe seats then they face the risk of losing that seat.
hehe
this is v funny given that Labour (from my perspective) seems to spend their whole life ignoring Green policies while in govt and then suddenly espousing them once in opposition. See, for example, Labour’s adoption of the capital gains tax, the $15 minimum wage and their sudden interest in public transport (as opposed to spending shitloads on state highways as they did over much of their 9 years in govt) which have all appeared over the last 3 years.
Comment by Amy — August 22, 2011 @ 7:10 pm
lo-fucking-l. Saw that coming a mile off. Why don’t you help Clare get reelected, I/S??? DO YOU WANT JOHN KEY TO WIN???
Comment by Dizzy — August 22, 2011 @ 7:14 pm
What is the problem here? I/S spends a lot of his time being a holier than thou jackass mouthing off at all and sundry – but for all his concern he isn’t interested in knocking on door and handing out leaflets and all the other stuff people who are wise guy slacktivists find beneath them. So if you and I/S don’t like an MP – you know, some who actually got elected to parliament ( unlike you, Danyl, and I/ S) – get off your arses and run against her.
Only you won’t, because neither of you have got the balls to put your names on a ballot and run the risk of rejection.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 22, 2011 @ 7:23 pm
Lol at the keyboard wariory.
Comment by Francisco Hernandez — August 22, 2011 @ 7:30 pm
Curran is a mouthy idiot riding on the student politics coat tail.
Comment by abel the amish — August 22, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
As long as you and I/S and people like you disdain joining parties, they will not get better. If you want better policies and better candidates you have to join them and participate. How and why do you expect parties to select candidates and politics you favour if you aren’t amongst it trying to make that happen? Politics is not merely marketing.
Comment by Stephen — August 22, 2011 @ 7:43 pm
What the hell are you talking about abel? Clare has never been a student politician. She came from the private sector.
Comment by Francisco Hernandez — August 22, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
Curran is such a hack. Easily my least favorite MP in the party. Would love to why on earth she has a safe seat because I don’t think there is a SINGLE person in the country who can honestly say ‘I’m voting Labour because of Clare Curran”
Comment by Hobbes — August 22, 2011 @ 7:48 pm
Sanctuary: There’s one problem with your logic. She’s an elected representative. She’s there to represent the views of people who vote for her. Tell me why they should put up with being told off by someone acting like a jealous ex-girlfriend when they feel disillusioned with their party or feel someone else can represent their views better? The onus isn’t on I/S or Danyl because they’re not collecting a cheque to represent anyone’s views but their own. But you keep fighting the good fight on the interhusking, where the business is the most serious of the serious.
Comment by Dan — August 22, 2011 @ 7:49 pm
Er, Francisco, she is a leftie labour journo from way back and rides the Dunedin Student Politics PR coat-tail. Thanks.
Comment by abel the amish — August 22, 2011 @ 7:52 pm
I really object to the “slacktivism” charge against I/S, Sanc – sure, he spends a hell of a lot of time behind his keyboard, but managing to pull off shit like actually forcing Cabinet Ministers to respond to OIAs in a timely manner has probably done a lot more for NZ’s democracy than Labour having a whinge about the paintjob at Premier House. Long may I/S’ keyboard make tappy noises.
Comment by QoT — August 22, 2011 @ 7:54 pm
Thing is QoT, has getting Cabinet Ministers answering OIAs actually done anything to improve the living standards of New Zealand’s poor? Even indirectly?
Comment by Hugh — August 22, 2011 @ 7:56 pm
Context:
Curran on The importance of being Labour #2.
Imperator Fish on Your Tory: A Care Guide (which is where the snark about “born to rule” mode comes from).
Comment by Idiot/Savant — August 22, 2011 @ 7:58 pm
@ hugh, WTF? Left field diversionary question if ever I have seen one.
Comment by abel the amish — August 22, 2011 @ 7:58 pm
Hugh – has Labour (while in opposition) actually done anything to improve the living standards of NZ’s poor? Even indirectly?
(MH, I’m sure you’re giggling).
Comment by TBWood — August 22, 2011 @ 8:00 pm
Don’t get me wrong – I/S does a lot of good stuff, if only half our journalists did half the work he does! But TBH, he is also frequently a behavioral hypocrite. I can see why a MP might get pissed off at him.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 22, 2011 @ 8:00 pm
Private sector? How very dare you. Take that back FH. She was a backroom union mong in OZ and then arrived home to reinvent herself as a “new media” policy wonk farting on about owning the language. She owes her seat to slazenger tennis balls more than any private sector skills.
However, I find myself agreeing with the North Korean blogger I/S. She appears to have her learnt her “new media” skills in the trade me or NZD chat rooms.
Dunedin thoroughly deserves her.
On another (and slightly off topic aside) note, I made a crack about eating roast peacock a few weeks ago. Today I was offered some peacocks and my butcher has agreed to prepare one for the oven for me. I will update further.
Comment by Barnsley Bill — August 22, 2011 @ 8:00 pm
Er, abel, do you have any idea what you are saying, or are you just stringing words together? Dunedin! Students! Politics! PR! Coat-tail!
The number of students who live in the South Dunedin electorate, let alone are enrolled to vote there, is negligible.
Comment by Grassed Up — August 22, 2011 @ 8:01 pm
Sanctuary, while I generally like your comments I don’t think there’s a single reason to defend Curran, from anyone. In a just world she would be de-selected/given a lower list ranking than George Hawkins.
Comment by Hobbes — August 22, 2011 @ 8:03 pm
@ Sanctuary: “But TBH, [I/S] is also frequently a behavioral hypocrite.”
Anything in the way of evidence to back that up? (Shouldn’t be hard for you to come up with some, given he “frequently” displays such behaviour.) Clock is ticking … .
Comment by Grassed Up — August 22, 2011 @ 8:04 pm
Vote Labour – or Clare Curran will get angry. You won’t like her when she’s angry.
(most of you don’t like her now, but, you know, I can’t even pretend to care. Bloody peasants)
Comment by Moz — August 22, 2011 @ 8:04 pm
Can somebody explain white-anting to me please? Sure, I COULD wiki it but meh…
Comment by garethw — August 22, 2011 @ 8:08 pm
Er GrassedUp (you smkoe much) , do you think/research before you launch into criticism?
i.e. http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/08/05/not-popular-in-dunedin/comment-page-1/#comment-188892
Comment by abel the amish — August 22, 2011 @ 8:11 pm
Abel we know you’re a bit slow mate but Dunedin North is the electorate with the Universities in it where all the students live, not South.
Comment by Hobbes — August 22, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
How insightful, abel. Labour MP joins protest against legislation proposed by their opponents and publicises it!
Keep those deep thoughts flowing, old bean. You’re setting the world on fire.
Comment by Grassed Up — August 22, 2011 @ 8:21 pm
“… but if you live in an electorate like, oh say, Dunedin South I think the best thing you can do for the left is cast your party vote for Labour or the Greens, or whoever, but cast your electorate vote for the National candidate.”
Of course, then you’d be voting for a Manawatu farmer who “will continue to run her family farm in the North Island while campaigning for the Dunedin South seat.” see http://www.itmaru.org.nz/newsline/?p=627
Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 22, 2011 @ 8:25 pm
When and where did Curran ask I/S to support or vote for her?
Comment by peterlepaysan — August 22, 2011 @ 8:26 pm
GrassedUp & Hobbes – You guys are great re-butt-ers.
Comment by abel the amish — August 22, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
Read her thread – Curran is not picking on I/S especially but everyone who disagrees with her logic: She says, “Listen to you all” not “I hate I/S because he’s a sanctimonious prick”.
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/08/22/the-importance-of-being-labour-2/
How hard would it have been for her to write a thread about how poverty makes her angry, and then another thread in which she writes about how Labour and the trade unions share DNA (sans slagging off the Greens)?
Really, she used to work in PR? Who for – Adidas? Telecom?
Comment by MeToo — August 22, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
When and where did Curran ask I/S to support or vote for her?
Exactly, PLP, exactly…
Curran doesn’t ask, because it’s expected that anyone left of National will, like, automatically bend knee and yield to the glorious magnificence of Team Red.
They’re just so dreamy.
Comment by Phil — August 22, 2011 @ 8:54 pm
Stephen, chicken and egg. With a stressful job and a young family, it literally wouldn’t be worth my time and energy to get mired in a political movement that’s given no recent indication it has the faintest clue what it’s doing. I could see the point if it were a marginal case, and I think there’s a lot to admire in folk for whom the calculus differs, such as yourself and Scott Yorke.
I could also see the point if Labour was unfairly maligned, but as I’ve made clear at considerable length — as have Sav and Danyl — it’s actually pretty fair.
L
Comment by Lew — August 22, 2011 @ 8:55 pm
This is a disastrous blurt from Curran, not so much with the voters at large but with the kind of people who actually might be inclined to put a shoulder to the wheel as she would wish. Gawd.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 22, 2011 @ 9:04 pm
So who here has actually door knocked, delivered pamphlets, been an LEC member, etc?
Comment by Russell Brown — August 22, 2011 @ 9:07 pm
*raises hand* (no door knocking as yet, but pamphlet delivery, LEC membership, various bits of volunteering etc).
Comment by Stephen — August 22, 2011 @ 9:15 pm
Yes to all & glad I don’t live in Dunedin South (thought the future MP for Dunedin North looks very good)
Comment by Hobbes — August 22, 2011 @ 9:18 pm
Russell Brown: So who here has actually door knocked, delivered pamphlets, been an LEC member, etc?
Me. 1989. Auckland Central LEC – tried to get rid of Richard Prebble as the local candidate. The Prebbleites signed up supporters (no doubt the genesis of ACT on Campus) as fast as we signed up his opponents. They won. I quit Labour, vowing to return when they became a left-wing party again…
Comment by MeToo — August 22, 2011 @ 9:19 pm
I can only echo your sentiments, Danyl.
I was so angry when I saw that posted on RA than I was actually ranting to my colleagues in the office.
Her response in the comments section beggars belief.
Curran has demonstrated to the entire online community that she is a fucking retard.
Any party who has her on the hustings deserves to be butchered in the election.
Russell Norman has my vote and any other that I can drum up (and now my time for leaftlet dropping or what have you in Rongotai) coming up to election time.
Comment by Gregor W — August 22, 2011 @ 9:21 pm
I have worked for (in a parliamentary capacity) and door knocked for Labour in the past. But this just makes me mad, and the reason why I will also most likely vote Green. Thats three out of four times now.
Comment by max — August 22, 2011 @ 9:30 pm
Me. 1989. Auckland Central LEC – tried to get rid of Richard Prebble as the local candidate. The Prebbleites signed up supporters (no doubt the genesis of ACT on Campus) as fast as we signed up his opponents. They won. I quit Labour, vowing to return when they became a left-wing party again…
Hah. I let my friend join me up to Labour after Prebble lost to Sandra Lee then fucked off. I couldn’t bear her at the time, so I joined Auckland Central. Prebble left pretty much scorched earth, so there wasn’t any entrenched culture to deal with. I wrote one campaign leaflet, and delivered them in two elections, ceasing when I decided party political activity was incompatible with the work I was beginning to do. I do think I did it for the right reasons: I’d written an editorial that said MMP was only going to work if we became engaged with party politics, so I felt the need to do justice to that.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 22, 2011 @ 9:31 pm
33.So who here has actually door knocked, delivered pamphlets, been an LEC member, etc?
All 3. Back in the 70′s – My last campaign was 1984.
Comment by Leopold — August 22, 2011 @ 9:35 pm
Hand up. Done all that in Australia too.
Fenton and Curran would do well to look at what Howes and Shorten are doing to the ALP. Its current direction – outdoing the Coalition on every wedge issue, tacking to the right at tremendous speed – is making them perhaps the least popular government in decades, at a time when their economy is pumping.
Comment by George D — August 22, 2011 @ 9:46 pm
Am I the only one just a little disturbed by the emerging theme of “you only have the right to express an opinion (if you’re a member of my club)”? It’s exactly the sort of bullying Curran did as an attempt to silence criticism of herself.
Comment by Rhinocrates — August 22, 2011 @ 9:47 pm
there will either be a Nat led govt or a Lab led govt next year – it is a simple choice. Not the govt of your dreams, sadly.
Comment by deemac — August 22, 2011 @ 9:50 pm
edit fail, FWIW, considering how idiosyncratic my punctuation is in this case anyway: “right to express an opinion if you’ve… (been a paid up member of my club “
Comment by Rhinocrates — August 22, 2011 @ 9:53 pm
At the end of all this, the obvious question is: why are you following Clare Curran on Twitter??
Comment by David C — August 22, 2011 @ 10:23 pm
So who here has actually door knocked, delivered pamphlets, been an LEC member, etc?
Wrong party, but all of the above in various combinations for fifteen years in which I’ve seen plenty of people (from voters to grassroots party members) react surprisingly poorly to being taken for granted. Curran may have the privilege of being in a electorate where she can afford to patronise and alienate potential supporters, but there are a lot of people in Labour who can’t.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 22, 2011 @ 10:28 pm
OTOH, anyone smelling a class traitors/stab in the back meme in the (to my mind, unlikely) prospect that the election turns into Labour’s ’02? The rich and fragrant silt left behind after the River Denial breaks its banks… I remember it well.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 22, 2011 @ 10:43 pm
@Barnsley: I’ve heard that peacock is a bit stringy. A relative liberated a pair on their farm to up the style quotient and when they started to overrun the place took them out with a shotgun. “Shat everywhere and bloody awful eating.”
Comment by Owen — August 22, 2011 @ 11:02 pm
Labour policy heavyweights such as Curran and Sepuloni are getting far too much airtime.
Comment by MrV — August 22, 2011 @ 11:06 pm
Re peacocks; apparently you have to treat them rather like wild turkeys, which are nothing like the bought kind. Brine heavy and cook sloooooow.
Alternatively there’s the proverbial pukeko stew; boil 6h with a chunk of manuka, then biff out the bird and eat the wood.
L
Comment by Lew — August 22, 2011 @ 11:11 pm
looks like Curran has just doubled down on her frothing with another post linking a cancer sufferer and her redundant husband to justify her “rage”
So she is either using an unfolding human tragedy to recover her situation or just making shit up.
Classy.
Thanks for the manuka advice. Very slow roast and lots of stock is the go methinks.
Comment by barnsley bill — August 22, 2011 @ 11:20 pm
I Like Clare. She writes short sentences. Very Short. Sometimes.Very very Short. Obviously been paid by the sentence. In a previous life. But not a lot of sense. In a logical way. Keep. It. Up. In a physical way.
Comment by Crusader Col — August 22, 2011 @ 11:20 pm
Russel:
“I wrote one campaign leaflet, and delivered them in two elections, ceasing when I decided party political activity was incompatible with the work I was beginning to do. I do think I did it for the right reasons: I’d written an editorial that said MMP was only going to work if we became engaged with party politics, so I felt the need to do justice to that.”
That work wouldn’t have involved taxpayer funds, would it?
Sanctuary:
“Only you won’t, because neither of you have got the balls to put your names on a ballot and run the risk of rejection.”
I’m not laughing out loud, for fear that my head would fall off.
If you can’t see that Curran and her like is what’s wrong with Labour then I’m not really sure what to ask you, except that you can’t honestly believe what you typed in up there, surely? Time for a great leap forward, comrade?
Comment by Dean — August 22, 2011 @ 11:23 pm
@bill #50: that’s … really off. I mean, *either* she’s actually cynical enough to think that’s a winning tactic, or she’s actually so lacking in political instinct she thinks it’s a winning tactic. Either way I’m a tad grossed out.
Comment by QoT — August 22, 2011 @ 11:52 pm
I guess though. We know one thing. Clare Curran writes her own blogs. No minions do it for her. Like some other MPs.
Comment by Hobbes — August 23, 2011 @ 12:11 am
That work wouldn’t have involved taxpayer funds, would it?
No. I’d resigned before I started Mediawatch. I’d done my dash anyway; I really only wanted to help out at the local level for a while.
But that’s the wrong measure. It’s offensive to declare that no public servant can have a private political life. Democracy actually needs people to do that.
I can understand Curran’s frustration if she’s seeing a lack of volunteer support — the kind of support that has always been important to Labour on the ground — for what she believes is an important cause. She won’t be the only one. But she hasn’t exactly gone the right way about fixing it.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 1:08 am
And Labour’s censorship button is working overtime. No sign of my first or second comments, and I am a left-wing voter. Given they have about 70 comments let through, imagine how many other critical comments by lefties have been censored out by Labour…
Oh, and ex-union official Darien Fenton and Labour’s Botany candidate Michael Woods have joined the fray, telling us to lighten up on poor Clare.
The jaw-dropping thing is they all think we have forgotten 9 years in which Labour refused to do the things they now – while safely in Opposition – proclaim undying fealty to.
Looks like 3 more years of National. Groan.
Comment by bob — August 23, 2011 @ 1:56 am
I can understand Curran’s frustration if she’s seeing a lack of volunteer support — the kind of support that has always been important to Labour on the ground
Russell: It’s the kind of support that’s important to every political party until we not only have state funding of political parties but civil servants seconded to work the campaigns.
But, FFS, if Curran thinks being a condescending dick is going to help, Labour might as well get Alastair Thompson to bang out their workplace equity policy.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 23, 2011 @ 2:13 am
This sort of shit makes me yearn for the good old days of David Benson-Pope MP
Comment by Newtown News — August 23, 2011 @ 9:14 am
Hobbes – I started a reply, but then I realised I couldn’t be bothered with this particular thread. Always remember – the blogs are read by practically no one, and Curran’s outburst has upset about three people.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 23, 2011 @ 9:22 am
Does this mean I should email the Dom Post and point them to Clare throwing a tanty?
Comment by Dizzy — August 23, 2011 @ 9:27 am
You could Dizzy, but by the time the reporters get back from the all expenses paid off the record lunch in Martinborough with the minister the story will be stale.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 23, 2011 @ 9:31 am
Always remember – the blogs are read by practically no one, and Curran’s outburst has upset about three people.
Well, you know what Tom – I’d encourage Curran to go vent her entitlement issues on a larger stage. I’m sure Greens-leaning voters will just recant their class treason after a condescending lecture in prime time.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 23, 2011 @ 9:46 am
I think you give them too much credit. You’re suggest they’re actively complicit. In reality, they’re just incompetently lazy.
Does it make you feel better to think that the people who you think are fucking you over are doing so not because they don’t know what they’re doing, but because they’re actually evil?
Comment by Dizzy — August 23, 2011 @ 9:47 am
The misoginy and woman hating on this thread is delicious and ironic to behold.
Comment by Francisco Hernandez — August 23, 2011 @ 9:48 am
Sanctuary, I think you’re on the money. Curran is really railing against the blogosphere for being what they are, people who care about politics, but won’t usually do much more than talk about it. Which might seem like a safe target, bugger all people read it. Except for the fact that one of the key groups that does read it – people who write the stuff that people DO read – will judge her apparent arrogance.
It’s never a good idea to have angry, ill considered outbursts when you’re a politician, particularly not a opinion leaders. I understand her frustration, but you don’t motivate allies by getting angry at them.
Comment by Ben Wilson — August 23, 2011 @ 9:54 am
Francisco @65: Which posts in particular? I must be a sexist because I need this to be pointed out to me
Comment by Newtown News — August 23, 2011 @ 10:06 am
Too many tweets might make a twat.
/Because quoting a Tory PM is always going to be popular
Comment by Rick Rowling — August 23, 2011 @ 10:07 am
What gets me is that Curran thinks that door-knocking in her own electorate is some selfless act of charity that she does out of the goodness of her heart, and makes her a worthy person. Door-knocking is public relations! She does it because she’s the MP for that electorate and she wants to get re-elected to her extremely well paid job! So using it as a pretext to claim the moral high-ground is really repulsive.
Comment by danylmc — August 23, 2011 @ 10:08 am
Yeah, you’re so right Fransisco.
It all about Curran being a woman, not a muppet.
Comment by Gregor W — August 23, 2011 @ 10:08 am
“…Except for the fact that one of the key groups that does read it – people who write the stuff that people DO read – will judge her apparent arrogance…”
Recently I have come to wonder about this as well. I doubt anything from redalert has any impact whatsoever on the mainstream media narrative. About the only site I think gets read by anyone important would be Brian Edwards one, he seems well connected and clearly he is read by the media elites. But he is on the downward slope nowadays and well past his best, more a cranky and contrarian old man than anything else in many of his posts.
Sleeze balls who throw out easily digestible salacious shit like Slater and Farrar have a bit of an audience amongst some journalists who like to think interviewing their blogs represent some sort of finger on the nation’s zeitgeist (Jim Mora, I am looking at you). But really, if those journalist actually took their time to examine kiwiblog or whaleoil in critical detail they would be sickened by what they saw. Those guys get read because they give lazy journalists a headline that is semi-official from the well oiled National HQ spin machine, not because anyone really cares what Slater and Farrar actually think about anything. On the left, PublicAddress is pretty much stuck in the last decades political narrative, and while it’s readership is well educated and erudite the canning of PA radio and Media 7 – both of which would be more accessable to Joe Six Pack than the PA website – with barely a ripple shows how it has no wider resonance or constituency beyond its immediate community.
As for this site, or all the others I visit and enjoy commenting on, I think they are largely exercises in our collective vanity and desire/need to write. But that is fine by me.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 23, 2011 @ 10:29 am
I too will give the Greens my party vote in the next election. As for Curran – anyone who lists being a member of a toy library on her official parliamentary page must be a bit addled, my eight-month old daughter could list the same (if she were able to type of course).
Comment by Conrad — August 23, 2011 @ 10:52 am
What gets me is that Curran thinks that door-knocking in her own electorate is some selfless act of charity that she does out of the goodness of her heart, and makes her a worthy person. Door-knocking is public relations! She does it because she’s the MP for that electorate and she wants to get re-elected to her extremely well paid job! So using it as a pretext to claim the moral high-ground is really repulsive.
Oh get a grip, Danyl. I’m sure that if it turned out that she wasn’t out fronting in her electorate your headline would be “Labour MP thinks votes are hers by divine right”, or something. You’d find some way to fit the facts to your narrative.
Clearly, she’s frustrated that she’s not getting enough volunteer support and resents the keyboard commandos she thinks should be helping the cause. She’s wrong, and it’s remarkable how much of her energy is misdirected, but “repulsive”? Really?
Her attempt to create some sort of turf war over political principles with the Greens is ridiculous. But while we’re lauding the Green MPs, it’s worth noting that while they are principled operators in Parliament, and the things they say appeal to the likes of us, they’ve almost always been hopeless electorate campaigners, and that has a direct bearing on their inability to get out their vote. Nandor Tanczos, for whom I have a great deal of respect, had an opportunity in Auckland Central, but he was a non-entity at local level. The dreaded Judith Tizard, meanwhile, actually did have people who would give up their Saturdays to go out door knocking or distributing leaflets — and she was trumped in 2008 by Nikki Kaye, who spent months doorknocking, because she lost that support at local level.
I admire the way Jacinda Ardern has been holding her “Locally Left” events, and doing it at places like Golden Dawn, where someone under 30 might actually turn up. They’re exercises in engagement of the kind that any number of lazy-arsed backbenchers don’t bother with. The idea that all this happens because someone wants to keep their “extremely well-paid job” is just too cynical for me.
It’s worth noting that Labour’s high point in this term was the Mt Abert by-election, which they won by virtue of a very capable campaign manager and a dedicated electorate team. It was an old-fashioned win, over a National candidate who had no skills in face-to-face campaigning and no such team. It wasn’t won by people writing clever blogs. Curran is presumably hurting because she’s not seeing that in her electorate. Perhaps it’s her fault, or her party’s, but dismissing her desire to get out there as “repulsive” reeks of the kind of arrogance that could only come from someone who’s never done it.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 11:05 am
Having just dissed your web site I am now in the invidious position of having to say “hear hear” Mr. Brown.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 23, 2011 @ 11:12 am
‘I’m sure that if it turned out that she wasn’t out fronting in her electorate ‘
It’s probably just observational bias…but having lived in her electorate all the time she campaigned and then represented…I have yet to see her at my front door.
Comment by Peter Martin — August 23, 2011 @ 11:15 am
You’ve all missed the point. This is all part of Curran’s plan to be leader. She rates herself that highly. She is mobilising Labour’s core support, al 15% of them, and ensuring those wishy washy list loving waverers will get wiped out, leaving her as the obvious leadership contender – glamour, hepness, PR savvy and party cred in the one small package, no stamp required.
Comment by insider — August 23, 2011 @ 11:15 am
It’s worth noting that Labour’s high point in this term was the Mt Abert by-election, which they won by virtue of a very capable campaign manager and a dedicated electorate team. It was an old-fashioned win, over a National candidate who had no skills in face-to-face campaigning and no such team.
They won Mt Albert because Melissa Lee repeatedly showed herself to be a fantastically incompetent moron with a mouth that acted independently of her brain. Oh, that and the seat’s been Labour since dinosaurs walked the Earth and it was known as Gondwanaland South. Those things helped. Shearer could have shown up in a gimp mask and still retained 60%.
Clearly, Curran is a bit of a moron, and the fact that no-one wants to get out there and door-knock on her behalf is reflective of her massive ego (“Only voting for me can help!”) and her inability to spot that the lack of support for her is something to do with her, not with everyone else.
I’d rather door knock with a petition for a Clayton Weatherston pardon than tp drum up support for Clare Curran and Labour.
Comment by Dizzy — August 23, 2011 @ 11:23 am
They won Mt Albert because Melissa Lee repeatedly showed herself to be a fantastically incompetent moron with a mouth that acted independently of her brain. Oh, that and the seat’s been Labour since dinosaurs walked the Earth and it was known as Gondwanaland South. Those things helped. Shearer could have shown up in a gimp mask and still retained 60%.
Actually, various commentators were talking up Lee as a fresh new talent, and suggesting that Labour would struggle to hold the seat without Clark’s mojo. DPF was high-fiving himself for making Tizard and Twyford the issue before the campaign even started.
To be fair, our host got it right from the beginning. And he observed afterwards that:
Labour got lots of people on the ground, the Greens, as usual, did not.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 11:44 am
@ Dizzy
Fair point re Melissa Lee. Clayton Weatherston comparison though, really?
@Russell B
Though I substantially agree, Curran did make her own bed with those ludicrous remarks and now she has to lie in it.
Even if you dismiss the original premise and subsequent ham-fisted justifications (apparently based on the positions of ‘some people are poor in my electorate so I know better than you’, ‘because you think I’m wrong you’re a class traitor’, and ‘you’re all clearly right wing patsies’) she has demonstrated her unfitness for representing the LP, being capable of intelligent discourse and a frightening lack of self reflection.
Fair point re the Greens being disorganised at the electorate level but hopefully, Curran’s manifest incompetence in engaging what could have been marginal support will help energise some tangible support for a genuine Left alternative.
Comment by Gregor W — August 23, 2011 @ 11:47 am
As Russel says, trying to say that Melissa Lee was flawed form the get-go and that anybody could’ve got the result David Shearer did is revisionism; she was meant to be some great new face who was within ‘striking reach’ of taking the seat because the Greens were going to split the vote when Whaleoil uncovered Shearer’s mercenary past or whatever stupid shit the right were saying at the time, that election was won due to the massive Labour campaign, lee’s rantings about criminals just sealed the deal.
Comment by Hobbes — August 23, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Fair point re Melissa Lee. Clayton Weatherston comparison though, really?
Quite. Taking offence at a stupid statement by Curran is one thing, but I don’t see how you can reasonably get from that to ranking her below a narcissistic murderer. It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes the blogosphere go round, I guess, but … ugh.
Though I substantially agree, Curran did make her own bed with those ludicrous remarks and now she has to lie in it.
You will find no quarrel from me there.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 11:55 am
@Russell – I think it’s a good thing that MPs door knock. But it is part of their job, not something they get to crow about.
Comment by danylmc — August 23, 2011 @ 12:23 pm
And I thought Danyl’s previous post was parody….. – “National to spot Labour Steven Joyce during election campaign: In the interests of party balance, Labour has traded Joyce for Dunedin South MP Clare Curran”
She is taking to her new role with much gusto! Labour will be buried in no time. How will the Labour mastermind Joyce respond?
Comment by J Mex — August 23, 2011 @ 12:23 pm
Talk about over-reacting. Clayton Weatherston? Jesus..
Clare Curran wrote some things on a blogpost that she shouldn’t have. But it’s a big leap to saying Labour’s out of touch and arrogant and doesn’t deserve anyone’s vote. If you’re only going to vote for a party whose MPs don’t occasionally say dumb things in the blogosphere, then that means you’ll be giving two ticks to National. Good luck with that.
Comment by Scott — August 23, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
It’s called hyperbole. It’s a literary device that deliberately exaggerates something to the point of ridiculous. The kind of rhetoric that makes the blogosphere go round, I guess, but… ugh… you pretentious cock. Elevate yourself above it then, and fuck off. I hear that the New Yorker is looking for a new cockmuncher to do their World section.
Comment by Dizzy — August 23, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
Francisco Hernandez :
The misoginy and woman hating on this thread is delicious and ironic to behold.
Look in the index under “grip, get a”. I actually respect women in public life enough to take them seriously, and hold them to account for their public statements to exactly the same level as any man. No more, but certainly no less.
Comment by
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 23, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
To be honest I think neither Curran nor I/S come off well here. Both are extremely sanctimonious individuals who see their own political allegiances as the only allegiance compatible with being a moral person. It’s unsurprising that they’d clash like this, and neither comes off very well.
Comment by Hugh — August 23, 2011 @ 1:16 pm
Recently I have come to wonder about this as well. I doubt anything from redalert has any impact whatsoever on the mainstream media narrative.
It seems you’ve been proven wrong: Clare Curran stirs blog controversy
I could also point to all the other stories which have stemmed from Red Alert this year, but it would be redundant. Journalists do pay attention to it, and report on it when they can’t find anything better to do.
Comment by Idiot/Savant — August 23, 2011 @ 1:19 pm
you pretentious cock. Elevate yourself above it then, and fuck off. I hear that the New Yorker is looking for a new cockmuncher to do their World section.
And good day to you, sir.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 1:20 pm
“The misoginy (sp) and woman hating on this thread is delicious and ironic to behold.”
People who see ‘woman hating’ when confronted with “what a stupid woman!”, but do not when confronted with “what a stupid man!”, demonstrate their own delicious and ironic sexism far better than anyone else ever could.
Comment by J Mex — August 23, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
while we’re lauding the Green MPs, it’s worth noting that while they are principled operators in Parliament, and the things they say appeal to the likes of us, they’ve almost always been hopeless electorate campaigners, and that has a direct bearing on their inability to get out their vote. Nandor Tanczos, for whom I have a great deal of respect, had an opportunity in Auckland Central, but he was a non-entity at local level. The dreaded Judith Tizard, meanwhile, actually did have people who would give up their Saturdays to go out door knocking or distributing leaflets — and she was trumped in 2008 by Nikki Kaye, who spent months doorknocking, because she lost that support at local level
Absolutely true. The Greens failure to organise electorates has cost them considerably in the past (and will likely cause them to underperform in this election too).
Scott, entitled attitudes towards voters hurt any party that holds them – and this counts in all of them in the last decade, including Labour and the Greens.
Comment by George D — August 23, 2011 @ 1:22 pm
I am mildly amused that Dizzy’s response to Curran saying stupid things on a blog and losing the plot a bit is to … say stupid things on a blog and lose the plot a bit.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 1:24 pm
And for someone who bitches about “trolls” on Red Alert, I have to say this quote from the story I/S linked to was deliciously ironic:
Curran today said she didn’t want to comment. ”I’m not taking it any further. I think there has been enough in the blog-osphere about it, with people going feral, so I’m not going to fuel that further.”
Ah, yes… the kind of passive-aggressive troll Messers Farrar and Prentice are Jedi Masters of. “Oh, look at those nasty feral animals. I had no idea they’d be attracted by the raw meat and offal I dumped on the door step. “
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 23, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
Curran’s use of the word “feral” really does show an astounding lack of judgement.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 1:26 pm
I think the point about greens failing to organise electorates effectively hits the nail on the head. I am very familiar with how the greens operate and have helped out in a couple of campaigns. I have been shocked at how poorly organised they have been and how the greens have been unable to motivate people to do work on the ground for them.
By contrast Labour appear highly organised with a coherent strategy for organising volunteers.
Comment by Squirrel — August 23, 2011 @ 1:28 pm
The $9.99 question, George, is why the Greens fail so hard and so reliably to organise electorates? The Green website is full of descriptions of themselves as a party with a strong connection to an energised membership – shouldn’t that result in a relatively active activist base for door-knocking etc?
Comment by Hugh — August 23, 2011 @ 1:28 pm
“…Recently I have come to wonder about this as well. I doubt anything from redalert has any impact whatsoever on the mainstream media narrative.
It seems you’ve been proven wrong: Clare Curran stirs blog controversy…”
I’ve yet to see anything that changes my mind. I never said it wouldn’t get a footnote on stuff; What i talked about was an impact on the mainstream media narrative. Like I said, Farrar and Slater get reported when what they say on their blogs reinforces the mainstream narrative and has the sniff of national party spin meisters to it – the same thing here for this report. For all your juicy OIA requests you never get reported, because you don’t serve up what our “Woman’s Day” news media think their viewers/readers want. The role of the blogs is to simply reinforce the bias of those reading it, and as far as i can see they are only effective if they are a tool of a wider media manipulation strategy.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 23, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
The All Blacks are banned from tweeting throught the RWC. Maybe this ban could be extended to some MPs…
Comment by Ross — August 23, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
And for someone who bitches about “trolls” on Red Alert, I have to say this quote from the story I/S linked to was deliciously ironic
Is everyone having the delicious irony for lunch today, or shall someone else order something different? We can always share…
Comment by J Mex — August 23, 2011 @ 1:34 pm
‘By contrast Labour appear highly organised with a coherent strategy for organising volunteers.’
Such as Curran’s outburst?
‘Listen to you all. Go and knock on some bloody doors will you and stop pontificating. Get down to South Dunedin and see what it’s really like. Foodbanks are empty.’
For what it’s worth, this headline in the ODT of 17 June 2008 ( the year Curran was elected):
‘Cupboards bare at food banks
Food banks in Dunedin are empty, with demand back to early 1990s levels.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/9797/cupboards-bare-food-banks
Comment by Peter Martin — August 23, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
The $9.99 question, George, is why the Greens fail so hard and so reliably to organise electorates? The Green website is full of descriptions of themselves as a party with a strong connection to an energised membership – shouldn’t that result in a relatively active activist base for door-knocking etc?
It’s a cultural thing. People have _actively disdained_ electorates in previous elections, seeing the Greens as an MMP party that transcends locality. After the loss of Coromandel, and the poor showings in Auckland Central and other key elections, this has become orthodoxy. (despite these being in part due to weaknesses in campaigning). The idea is that because the Greens do well among particular groups and have limited resources, they should focus the great majority of their efforts on those groups. This makes a degree of sense, but it’s short sighted. If you’re going to grow, you can’t just rely on subsets of the population. People don’t just vote in their tribe, and people want to vote for people as much as they want to vote for policies and ideas (current polling showing National ahead despite unpopular policy should underline this as much as anything).
Their problem is that this means you don’t have electorate committees with sufficient people or resources to take on elections (excepting a few places around the country). Doors never get knocked, leaflets never get stuffed, money never gets raised. The Greens could build over a few years if they made it a priority, but it’s very late at this stage.
Hopefully this will change. I could see Kevin Hague running a very good West Coast campaign, for example, and do not consider that this would be a waste of resources.
And yes, I think it’s reasonable to criticise armchair warriors. I’m doing things I believe in, otherwise I don’t think I’d have half as much right to say what I do.
Comment by George D — August 23, 2011 @ 1:47 pm
Curran’s use of the word “feral” really does show an astounding lack of judgement.
Yes. It’s more of green-oriented word, really.
http://www.feralcheryl.com.au/
Comment by Rich (the other one) — August 23, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
Well it’s there now…http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5491588/Clare-Curran-stirs-blog-controversy
Comment by StephenR — August 23, 2011 @ 2:15 pm
The Greens in Oz have a pretty effective on the ground campaign and it doesn’t seem to help them a huge amount compared to NZ. Albeit the ozzies have a two-party biased electoral system. But it took a huge amount of work and lots of luck to get Adam Bandt elected here, and it’s still a man-bites-dog story. I’ve handed out how to votes on election day every election I’ve been here for, letterboxed and put up/taken down posters. I’ll be doing that again later this week, trying to reinforce support for the carbon tax since the ALP are so crap at it.
I’m tempted to take a couple of weeks off and head to NZ for the election to do the same thing, but it’s at a really inconvenient time for my job so I don’t know if I can.
Comment by moz — August 23, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
That all makes a lot of sense to me George, particularly the bit about tightly targeting sub-sets of the population. The problem with that is it can be alienating to people outside those sub-sets. I’ve often felt that Green campaigning seems to be aimed more at retaining existing support than reaching for new support.
Still, while Greens may not win a lot of electorate votes, surely they do feel confident that they can win more party votes, and isn’t door-knocking and so on just as effective at that?
Comment by Hugh — August 23, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
Moz, it’s been my experience too. We came close in 07 and 10 in Canberra (highest primary senate vote in the country) but were still shut out. It’s a lot of work, and the playing field is tilted against you, but it’s getting somewhere.
One very good thing is that the Greens have been taking their campaign wider, and talking extensively about economic issues. This is boosting their polling, and it is of course one reason why Labour MPs might feel undermined – traditionally the Greens have campaigned on abstractions and side issues, not touching the big three (economy, health, education). The success of the Australian Greens has taught people here a little.
Comment by George D — August 23, 2011 @ 2:31 pm
Having just dissed your web site I am now in the invidious position of having to say “hear hear” Mr. Brown.
Ha. To be honest, I don’t think of Public Address as a “political blog” — both because it often plainly isn’t, and because while I like reading and commenting on a handful of local political blogs, I don’t actually want PA to be one in that sense.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 23, 2011 @ 2:32 pm
ugh… you pretentious cock. Elevate yourself above it then, and fuck off. I hear that the New Yorker is looking for a new cockmuncher to do their World section
Dizzy, thank you for your learned and profound rebuttal of my argument.
Scott, entitled attitudes towards voters hurt any party that holds them – and this counts in all of them in the last decade, including Labour and the Greens.
Sure, but an ill-advised blogpost by one junior MP doesn’t suddenly make the entire Labour Party out of touch and arrogant.
Comment by Scott — August 23, 2011 @ 2:42 pm
@Sanctuary
>The role of the blogs is to simply reinforce the bias of those reading it, and as far as i can see they are only effective if they are a tool of a wider media manipulation strategy.
I’m not sure that this belief isn’t projection. You may never have changed your mind because of an online discussion. I have.
I’ve noticed a steadily increasing connection between newspaper opinion pieces and online discussion, which precedes the paper articles. It’s a good thing, it brings the blogosphere to a more massive audience. A good point is a good point, whoever makes it. That has a power you are failing to acknowledge. Human communication isn’t just the vain noises of animals barking their tribal allegiance. Sometimes there’s more to it than that.
Comment by Ben Wilson — August 23, 2011 @ 3:01 pm
Well it’s there now…http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5491588/Clare-Curran-stirs-blog-controversy
Yes, but only because someone read about it on Kiwiblog.
Comment by Graeme Edgeler — August 23, 2011 @ 3:01 pm
You may never have changed your mind because of an online discussion. I have.
How many people on blogs do that? I think it’s an interesting question. It seems obvious quite a few won’t change their first mind on some issues.
There are different types of blog posters, soap boxers, converters, ranters, moaners, message parrots, message protectors, pack attackers etc etc.
Like Ben I often change my mind, sometimes a bit, sometimes a lot. I often deliberately prod and learn before I make up my mind (sometimes dissed as fence sitting), sometimes I push an angle and I’m convinced to change my view, amongst the hubris there can be very informative and sometimes persuasive posts.
Human communication isn’t just the vain noises of animals barking their tribal allegiance. Sometimes there’s more to it than that.
That’s another way of putting it.
Comment by Pete George — August 23, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
Sure, but an ill-advised blogpost by one junior MP doesn’t suddenly make the entire Labour Party out of touch and arrogant.
I kind of does when the blog is the Labour party’s online mouthpiece.
And when the same blog contains the uninformed utternances, outright falsehoods and snide putdowns of the very senior Labour MP and election campaign manager, Trevor Mallard.
When you put this stuff in the public domain under your brand it becomes your pitch, for better or for worse.
Comment by Gregor W — August 23, 2011 @ 3:33 pm
Of course if you ask someone if they change their mind after having discussions about issues (online or otherwise), most people would say ‘yes, i do change my mind sometimes’. Not many people would admit to being arrogant and believing they are always right. In practice, however, it is easy to see that most discussions, especially those that are online, actually don’t change anything and IMO a vast majority of participants go away thinking the same thing that they thought in the start.
Comment by wtl — August 23, 2011 @ 3:52 pm
>In practice, however, it is easy to see that most discussions, especially those that are online, actually don’t change anything and IMO a vast majority of participants go away thinking the same thing that they thought in the start.
How is it easy to see that? I’m genuinely curious, and could change my mind if you have any evidence.
Comment by Ben Wilson — August 23, 2011 @ 4:24 pm
I kind of does when the blog is the Labour party’s online mouthpiece.
It isn’t. To quote the blog itself: “What you’ll read are the individual opinions of MPs”. Not party policy, but MPs opinions.
Comment by Scott — August 23, 2011 @ 4:50 pm
Scott,
But what’s the point of MPs giving us their opinions, especially when those opinions conflict with party policy? Voters could be confused into thinking that MPs’ opinions are policy.
Comment by Ross — August 23, 2011 @ 4:59 pm
@115
Does that actually matter in terms of public perception, however? The public perception of party policy is what gets reported as the utterances of its MPs. A party can issue policy statements to its heart’s content (“Our Policy on Piss-ups and Breweries is as follows…)”, but perception of the party… oh, Cthulhu/Clapton, I’m sorry to say this, how the… [gag] market perceives this is another matter, and probably more important. I’m afraid that I’d have to say to Curran, “Have you a product that I’m willing to buy, and if not, why should I be obliged to buy it? The advertising is shit and I have no confidence in your after-sales service, let alone your warranties and your spokesjerk is a former (or not) Rogernome who can best be described as an ideological windsock who has been singularly unable to discipline his caucus and present it as a competent government-in-waiting.”
In the end, if you accept that “perception is reality”, then it all comes down to the polls, and the trend of the polls is consistently bad for Labour. Whatever the (very real, in my opinion) virtues of Labour policy, Curran is disastrously undermining that perception and thereby it’s real support.
That said, I expect to see the slowest bursting of a bubble ever from November 2011 to 2014 for this government, but it will be quite dramatic nonetheless as the dissonance between aspiration and reality becomes painfully apparent.
Comment by Rhinocrates — August 23, 2011 @ 5:09 pm
“Does that actually matter in terms of public perception, however?”
If the public we’re talking about is the public that votes in elections it’s probably safe to say that only a vanishingly small minority of them have heard of Red Alert, and only an even more vanishingly small minority of that minority give a shit about it.
Having said that I do agree that, if the opinions posted on Red Alert really are just opinions with no political significance, there’s no reason we should be paying any attention to them, let alone engaging with them.
Comment by Hugh — August 23, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
But what’s the point of MPs giving us their opinions, especially when those opinions conflict with party policy? Voters could be confused into thinking that MPs’ opinions are policy.
That’s the problem/challenge with Red Alert. It’d be boring as hell if it was just a venue to issue press releases. But then, as I’ve argued elsewhere, maybe that’s what has to happen
Comment by Scott — August 23, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
That’s the problem/challenge with Red Alert. It’d be boring as hell if it was just a venue to issue press releases. But then, as I’ve argued elsewhere, maybe that’s what has to happen
Here’s a completely crazy idea – perhaps Labour’s Broadcasting, Communications and Information Technology spokeswoman might have something sane to say about her portfolio on a party blog?
Perhaps someone who used to be a professional PR flack could try not behaving like some Nana who’s just discovered the interweb thingy.
Hell, Labour could just try acting like they’re a government in waiting in a country where the National-Labour duopoly on political power is dead and gone.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 23, 2011 @ 7:58 pm
It never really operated as a blog from the begining. From the start people were banned for what in the blogoshpere is pretty mild rhetoric. Partly that’s because Mallard is a bully but partly it seemed all the other MPs involved did not understand this version of social networking – including Curran who likes to think she’s really up with things.
But lot sof Labour MPs have made fools of themselves there including Cunliffe so it’s fair I think to see it as representative of the Labour Party. How they appear there certainly is in no contrast to popular opinion.
Comment by NeilM — August 23, 2011 @ 7:59 pm
“IMO a vast majority of participants go away thinking the same thing that they thought in the start.”
The minds changed in online discussions, much like the minds changed in discussions IRL, aren’t the ones participating. They’re the ones observing. The second I comment in a thread I become entrenched – if I wasn’t already, which I usually am if I move myself to comment (letters to the editor syndrome) – and I continue to argue my line for a whole thread, usually (there have been exceptions, I suppose, but I can’t think of one). On the other hand, if I read a comment thread without commenting, I can generally abstract what I find to be the most reasonable points and it can change my mind. Lurkers represent a pretty huge proportion of the online audience (I don’t know Danyl’s stats but the usual rule of thumb is 90% of readers never say anything; 9% of readers contribute occasionally; 1% of readers are “heavy commenters”, i.e. most of the people participating in this thread). Considering that calculus, it doesn’t really matter if Hugh, Sanc, Dizzy, George D, or Abel never change their mind at all; the effectiveness of their arguments (or lack thereof) on changing the mind of people who never say a word is what’s actually valuable.
“People who see ‘woman hating’ when confronted with “what a stupid woman!”, but do not when confronted with “what a stupid man!”, demonstrate their own delicious and ironic sexism far better than anyone else ever could.”
I didn’t find the thread too bad myself, tbh, but the calculus you suggest is a poor one. Next time Danyl (or anyone else) does a thread about an incompetent dude, compare it with a thread on an incompetent woman. Compare how often “stupid man” shows up in the former compared to “stupid woman” in the latter – or even just compare the incidences of “man” and “boy” versus “woman” and “girl” in each thread. The point is not that the phrases aren’t similar in content; the point is that one phrase shows up more often than the other, contextualising a woman’s incompetency in her gender, while failing to do so for men.
Comment by Tui — August 23, 2011 @ 8:40 pm
I’ll be giving both ticks to the Mana Movement.
Comment by Joe Carolan — August 23, 2011 @ 9:52 pm
The air here is so thick with classism and woman hatred that I can cut bits of it off and make a very large birthday cake.
How many keyboard warriors here have actually felt the sweet sting of a hard day’s work or mingled amongst the toilers and the descamisadoes? Or looked outside the window of their ivory towers and taken their heads long enough from the trough of expensive pinot noir champagne and choccolate danishes?
One? Two? None?
Comment by Francisco Hernandez — August 24, 2011 @ 1:01 am
Oh Francisco,
If you don’t know that champagne made from a Pinot Meunier/Chardonney blend is far superior to a blanc de noir, I’m not sure how to debate rationally the issue of poverty with you.
Comment by Grassed Up — August 24, 2011 @ 7:43 am
so let me get this right:
a) Tui reckons the Clare haters are misogynists
b) Francisco reckons the Clare haters are class traitors
sounds like the whole of the Nth Dunners Labour Party have been mobilised.
Comment by will — August 24, 2011 @ 7:49 am
@Tui: “Next time Danyl (or anyone else) does a thread about an incompetent dude, compare it with a thread on an incompetent woman. Compare how often “stupid man” shows up in the former compared to “stupid woman” in the latter – or even just compare the incidences of “man” and “boy” versus “woman” and “girl” in each thread.”
OK – given that the only mention of “woman” or “girl” in this thread is by Francisco and then people who are quoting him, that should be an easy one to do …
Comment by Grassed Up — August 24, 2011 @ 7:58 am
i say, GrassedUp, i’m having a functuon this weekend to celebrate the oppression of the working classes in particular women and girls, would you care to join at say 7pm for the meal of roast peasant (be a darling and bring some expensive wine, something with body to go with the delicious yet gamey meat dish).
Comment by will — August 24, 2011 @ 8:06 am
Or looked outside the window of their ivory towers and taken their heads long enough from the trough of expensive pinot noir champagne and choccolate danishes?
Thanks for asking, Francisco. Must admit I don’t swill a lot of champaigne (or any other alcohol) because it messes with my sobriety and I prefer croissants to danish.
Still, thanks for the concern troll.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 24, 2011 @ 8:10 am
Bit busy, sorry will. I’m going to be door knocking on behalf of the Mana Party.
Comment by Grassed Up — August 24, 2011 @ 8:11 am
I’m free Will, having done my care in the community work this month (I gave to the needy – the local Labour guy).
Comment by abel the amish — August 24, 2011 @ 9:01 am
Come on, Will and Grassed Up, I specifically said I didn’t think this thread was a problem. Troll harder/improve your reading comprehension skills, please. It is possible to discuss a concept divorced from the most immediate context, I think. (Although “acting like a jealous ex-girlfriend” and “our Woman’s Day news media” are not the least sexist metaphors I’ve seen in my life. For the record.)
Comment by Tui — August 24, 2011 @ 9:04 am
Tui: I did read your comment as you wrote it. You didn’t say this thread was “not a problem” – you said it wasn’t “too bad”. Not the same thing, are they? And I’m simply pointing out that the “Next time Danyl (or anyone else) does a thread about an incompetent dude, [we can] compare it with [this] thread on [this] incompetent woman”, as opposed to a hypothetical thread about a hypothetical incompetent person (who happens to be a woman). Seems more profitable to me.
BTW: what is the “least sexist” metaphor you’ve ever seen in your life? Are there shades of sexist metaphors, from raised eyebrow tut-tut through to foot-stopping tanty causing?
Comment by Grassed Up — August 24, 2011 @ 9:40 am
Alright, Grassed Up, let me break it down for you. I described the thread as “not too bad” because I didn’t think there was an excess of sexist language. Two counts in a thread this size is frankly so low as to be mildly impressive (which is another reason I don’t care to use this thread as the standard, because I feel like it’s an outlier even on this blog). (Go ahead, I’ll wait while men reading this pat themselves on the back for having basic standards of human decency.) There is a tonne of sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. out there on the internet and, because I am a busy person, I try to restrict myself to commenting on such when I think it’s a serious problem about which someone has to say something. Ergo, “not a problem” (read: “not my problem”).
The least sexist metaphor I’ve ever read is “the wind is writing what it knows in lines across the water.”
Comment by Tui — August 24, 2011 @ 9:56 am
Hmm
all very well to argue about this sort of stuff but
if Clare is right and there are “starving” people in Dunedin
then shouldn’t we do something to help them? Like, donate to a food bank or something like that?
A.
Comment by Antoine — August 24, 2011 @ 9:59 am
Tui,
Let’s put aside the question of whether references to “a jealous girlfriend” or “Woman’s Day media” actually are sexist … or are the dimpost equivalent of this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-17-2011/indecision-2012—elephant-stampede-to-the-white-house—black-clouds—red-herrings
That aside, it really is so extraordinarily good of you to bestow your approval of us poor, benighted men in responding to the foolishness of Curran’s statements without reference to her gender. Please feel free to patronise us again in the future – it really helps us to know when we’re living up to your standards. May I reciprocate by pointing out how well you’ve done making a number of posts apparently without spilling any coffee over your keyboard?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 24, 2011 @ 1:16 pm
Actually, Andrew, I’d rather not leave it out. “Woman’s Day media” is a pretty clear indication that mainly-bought-by-women media aren’t “real” media (otherwise why not Inquirer media, Investigate media, Daily Fail media, Faux News media, or, hell, North & South media – all of which are closer comparisons to the flaws in mainstream media than the content of Woman’s Day. I don’t often see the attention to books, food, or women’s health issues given by Women’s Day in the Dom Post, for example.) Meanwhile, referring to a sitting MP’s behaviour towards constituents as the behaviour of a “jealous girlfriend”, per usual, implies that women’s relationships with their constituents are always informed by sex. (No? Would you ever say that John Key was acting like a jealous boyfriend? And if you wouldn’t, but might say that he acted like a jealous girlfriend, that says something else, doesn’t it?) Calling something “a red herring” implies that it is a small red fish, or more likely that it is a deliberately deceptive tactic. The two phrases are quite dissimilar in content and in implication.
I’ll stop being surprised by a thread in which men refrain from sexist language and fail to defend misogyny when I start frequently running into threads in which they don’t. Another one bites the dust, I guess.
Comment by Tui — August 24, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
And because I can never, ever resist the urge to link to this paper:
“Niss Moses would have us totally revamp the English language to suit bler purposes. If, for instance, we are to substitute “person” for “white,” where are we to stop? If we were to follow Niss Moses’ ideas to their logical conclusion, we would have to conclude that ble would like to see small blackeys and whiteys playing the game of “Hangperson” and reading the story of “Snow Person and the Seven Dwarfs.” And would ble have us rewrite history to say, “Don’t shoot until you see the persons of their eyes”? Will pundits and politicians henceforth issue person papers? Will we now have egg yolks and egg persons? And pledge allegiance to the good old Red, Person, and Blue? Will we sing, “I’m dreaming of a person Christmas”? Say of a frightened white, “Whe’s person as a sheet!”? Lament the increase of person-collar crime? Thrill to the chirping of bobpersons in our gardens? Ask a friend to person the table while we go visit the persons’room? Come off it, Niss Moses-don’t personwash our language!
“What conceivable harm is there in such beloved phrases as “No white is an island,” “Dog is white’s best friend,” or “White’s inhumanity to white”? Who would revise such classic book titles as Bronob Jacowski’s The Ascent of White or Eric Steeple Bell’s Whites of Mathematics? Did the poet who wrote “The best-laid plans of mice and whites gang aft agley” believe that blacks’ plans gang ne’er agley? Surely not! Such phrases are simply metaphors: everyone can see beyond that. Whe who interprets them as reinforcing racism must have a perverse desire to feel oppressed.”
– Douglas N Hofstadter, A Person Paper on Purity in Language.
Comment by Tui — August 24, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
Yeah, Andrew.
Stop getting your panties in a bunch and worrying your pretty little head about it, you misogynist prick.
Comment by Gregor W — August 24, 2011 @ 4:09 pm
Tui,
At the risk of speaking for Sanctuary (not something I’d choose to do lightly), I suspect the “Woman’s Day” reference is to the fact that such magazines have circulations that dwarf those of “news” magazines/papers (see here: http://nz.acnielsen.com/products/documents/MagazineComparativesQ22010-Q22011.pdf), and that faced with declining circulation figures the dead tree “news” media has sought to arrest that decline by adopting many of the apparently successful tropes of “Woman’s Day” et al. Hence a perceived move to soft focus reporting on the personalities of politicians, their families, etc over the policies they represent, along with the increased provision of “women attracting” sections – think style, magazines, etc. So the reference to a “Woman’s Day” news media is (it seems to me) a perfectly fair shorthand for a change in the way news is viewed and packaged, and I hardly think this is a particularly new insight. I further suspect Sanctuary’s problem with this move is that it leads to a form of news reporting that is (in her/his opinion) inferior and harmful to a properly informed demos. That may/may not be right – I’m not fighting Sanctuary’s battles for her/him … and I think this article shows she/he overplays her/his hand (http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=1555). But I think it’s more complex than a claim that “mainly-bought-by-women media aren’t “real” media” … they may well be “real” media, but is a world in which they serve as the dominant model for all media to follow a good/bad one?
As for “would I ever say John Key is acting like a “jealous boyfriend”", that rather depends on what John Key does. I could, for example, imagine saying exactly this if Key, Obama and a 3rd world leader were all at an event and Key constantly tried to interpose himself between Obama and the third leader. “Jealous girlfriend” seems like an apt way of describing Curran’s overly emotional (yes, yes … aware of the implications) response to voters appearing to leave Labour for the Greens – just as a somewhat aggressive desire to prevent anyone else talking to Obama would make “jealous boyfriend” an apt analogy for Key.
Finally, if you can’t see why popping by to congratulate us male commentators for not being as completely bad as “we” usually are could be a little irritating, then it seems to me you’re lacking some of the sensitivity to language and its deployment that you’re urging on others.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 24, 2011 @ 4:41 pm
Thank you for that Mr. Geddis.
I will be slightly more succinct. “Womens Day Media” sexist? Good grief, grow up Tui.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 24, 2011 @ 5:58 pm
Tui,
Run along, there’s Mans’ talk going on here.
Comment by abel the amish — August 24, 2011 @ 6:10 pm
Actually Sanctuary the “Womens Day Media” comment was sexist irrespective of the explanatory gobbledegook you and Andy have scratched up.
Comment by abel the amish — August 24, 2011 @ 6:17 pm
Oh, ffs abel.
Way to prove Tui’s point. I’m sure you’re just being “ironic” and all, but still … what a dick.
Comment by Grassed Up — August 24, 2011 @ 6:19 pm
To quote Sanctuary, Good grief, grow up Grassed Up.
If you can’t see by the juxtaposition between my comments at 6.10 and 6.17 that I’m taking the piss then you are a bit slow.
While I don’t agree with all of the positions that Tui takes I do agree that the implicit or underlying message that come with comments such as “Womens Day Media” and “a jealous girlfriend” is one of latent, subconscious or sly sexism.
You c*nt.
Comment by abel the amish — August 24, 2011 @ 6:28 pm
Alternatively, abel, my comment crossed with your second one.
Rather be a c*nt than a dick, though.
Comment by Grassed Up — August 24, 2011 @ 6:46 pm
Well, I’ll say sorry if you do but not if you keep acting like c*nt.
Comment by abel the amish — August 24, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
“A jealous girlfriend” sexist? Maybe.
“Womens Day Media” sexist? Not if the context is criticising the obsession of the so-called ‘news’ media with pointless celebrity stories.
Comment by wtl — August 24, 2011 @ 6:51 pm
In which case it is just as easy and even more relevant to describe the obsession as “celebrity obsessed media”, “HoS spam”, “SST shite”.
Comment by abel the amish — August 24, 2011 @ 6:59 pm
Claire Curran is Hot!
Comment by Nimrod — August 24, 2011 @ 7:33 pm
“The food banks are empty.” Another dumb and misguided remark from Labour. Does this mean that Labour is supportive of how we’ve set up food banks on such a grand scale that it’s akin to collusion with those who support replacing public provision with private charity and the slippery slope back to the days of the Poor Laws? Why isn’t she attacking the real enemies? Gutless wonders need to be thrown back in purgatory for not nine years, but twelve years – nine clearly wasn’t enough.
Comment by Anton — August 25, 2011 @ 8:21 pm
Anton, it’s a clear sign of rising unemployment and inadequate wages and benefits. I assume that’s why Clare is pointing to it, not because she thinks the need for food banks is ok.
Comment by Stephen — August 25, 2011 @ 9:49 pm