Tuesday, 20 November 2012

The difference between the Davids

Bill Ralston set me thinking about the choices facing the Labour caucus  this afternoon—or, more accurately, next February, since the only choice this afternoon is to get unanimous or get out.

So neither of those choices next February are perfect, but if Cunliffe did actually step up and put his mouth where his white-anting has been, the choice would be between a good communicator and a decent, honest, reasonable man.*

But whereas David Shearer is a decent, honest, reasonable man who can conceivably be taught to communicate better, it will forever be impossible to teach Cunliffe to be either decent, honest or reasonable.

Which should be the choice right there.

* * * *

* Bill Ralston’s description, not mine. A difficult one to defend, I would have thought, after his indecent, dishonest and unreasonable proposal for the government to build forty times the number of houses every year that the country’s largest house build currently builds without utterly skewing the land, labour and materials markets.

No comments:

Post a Comment

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.