Goff is Labour’s leader, and he should leadMy last post touched on Labour leader Phil Goff’s leadership, and, unlike many others, called for Goff to lead, not to be replaced by someone who doesn’t want the job – i.e. everyone else in Labour’s caucus.
As leader of the Opposition, Goff is supposed to lead a party that is intent on providing an alternative government so that when there is an election the people can decide that this alternative bunch is worth a crack at government again.
Just as the focus on the Darren Hughes affair shifted to Goff’s leadership, so the discussion is now shifting to the effectiveness of the party he is supposed to be leading. And much of this discussion is generated by Labour activists who can only be described as really pissed off. One activist asks “any suggestions on who to vote for in the upcoming election?”, implying a party other than Labour. The rest are asking for a leader other than Goff. They won't get that before the election.
Goff is now the leader, and he should lead. If Goff won’t lead - and he won’t be challenged - Labour deserve to go down the gurgler at the next election, in part because they didn’t have the balls to roll Goff earlier in the electoral cycle. I thought he should have been rolled way back in 2009 and called it.
Goff actually said the Hughes affair is bound to be bad for the party and then today said it has strengthened his leadership. Well, if it has strengthened his leadership, it needs to be a lot stronger, so, under Goff’s reasoning, let’s have another sex scandal.
some who'd rather not be led by Goff.
Labour needs to get back to being an opposition, to hold the government to account and to provide an alternative to National. Otherwise disaffected Labour activists may end up voting Green.