As far as I can understand it, the drivers of these so-called distractions were ideological if they weren’t representative of Labour’s traditional values which Phil wishes to re-embrace.

BUT there is no indication that the driving philosophies of the idealogues have been repudiated (or even identified as to what the ideological end-points were) or that the idealogues are under threat.

Without those two things, the identification of “sideshows” will ring very hollow in the public mind as the suspicion that the political philosophy of the 9 years of flawed government has just been parked for a while until the public forget and can be conned into giving the party another opportunity to dust them off and start down the same road again.

Reassurance that the “new and revitalised Labour Party” can deliver will only come when the party’s leaders can clearly explain what the party stands for and in some cases what it doesn’t stand for any more. Until then change is only a perception.

I have not changed my vision of living in a country where every person has a chance to make the most of their potential. Where lack of money does not disadvantage a child born dyslexic. Where healthcare is accessible to all and public schools deliver a good and rounded education.

Not all of my vision has been realised and I hope that we move no further to the right than we already have.The Labour party of today is vastly different from the Labour party in the 1960’s.

Labour has lost its way and got far too involved in conscience issues in the last administration. You cannot legislate to change peoples behaviour. Its a lot more complex than that.

I hope we can find a way to bring back traditional Labour voters who have deserted the party because it lost its way.

What Tim forgets is the country was in such a bloody mess after 9 years of National investing in nothing.
If Tim actually was objective like he tries to make out he would acknowledge how Nationals policies had failed before Labour was elected.

Labour had to address teachers shortages nurses shortages, tradesmen shortages because we had no apprenticeships. At the end of Labours time we had decreased unemployment paid back Government Debt and increased the level of personal savings.
Don’t hold your breath Trev waiting for objectivity from Nats, you will tend to go blue and we all know thats not a good look!

Quotes like: “Government can help by ensuring there are redundancy provisions in employment agreements.” seems to support Ms Fenton’s private member’s bill, but seem to ignore that Ms Fenton’s bill wasn’t passed in nine years of a labour government.

Further the quote: “If we are going to get there, New Zealanders will expect us to show we have heard their message; to show we can be trusted.” seems to say that Labour can’t be trusted now, which is quite ironic given that the 2008 campaign was one that Labour tried to frame entirely on the issue of trust.

I don’t have a problem with Mr Goff’s speech, I think it is a very good speech. I just don’t think Mr Goff has the self-awareness to understand he has little credibility delivering these messages.

“Our job is not to judge people’s lifestyles.”

Exclusive Brethren anyone?