John Pagani
Dimpost’s views about me would make more sense if they reflected what I actually believe.
“Goff’s former strategist thinks Labour should endorse National’s policies.”
Nup, no I don’t.
But not surprising that I get misrepresented by that bitter source: DimPost voted Green in 2008, and attacked the Greens then for being too close to Labour. He has also stated that he won’t be voting Labour in 2011. Pity, but y’know, he’s not exactly a disillusioned supporter.
He is wrong about my views, wildly wrong.
Look at this deliberate misrepresentation of my views:
“keep almost all of the members of the unpopular government the public was glad to get rid of, endorse National’s policies which are mostly horrible failures, and promote no substantial policy of their own.”
1. Labour hasn't kept almost all of the last government. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have retired. Around a third of the Labour caucus is entirely new. The next Labour government will be different to the last. By Xmas, Labour will have 22 MPs (at most) from the 1999-2008 Govt. More than half the caucus will be new faces. (Quoting to Phil Lyth on twitter. I haven’t counted. And I’m hoping 22 is less than half.).
2. No, Labour should not endorse National Policy and promote no substantial policy of its own.
That is not what Labour should do, nor is it what they are doing.
What in practice are the examples Dimpost and his commenters give as examples of where Labour should oppose harder? CERA and the copyright laws. Yeah. Go to Christchurch and explain that logic to people who can’t go to the toilet in a proper flushing loo.
The real action is on the cost of living. On asset sales. On the butchery National is making of skills and pre-school education. On big and bold ideas to change our long term economic development, and create a more equal New Zealand.
Labour needs to go to the election with hugely different policies on all those areas.
And I am certain they will.
