That name seems to have stirred a bit of feeling in New Zealand. He got booted out of the New Zealand Labour party recently after he spoke out against Phil Goff, Labour's leader claiming that Labour can't win under him.
I've found myself arguing that he has a point.
Labour could win under Phil Goff. I'm not confident that Phil Goff is going to do the things that need to be done for this to happen.
Phil Goff's media excursions thus far have been to whinge about something that National is doing, thus he's coming across as very negative and is only get a couple of seconds of air time, or, in the case of the Christchurch earthquake, has stood on the coat tails of the charismatic John Key (Prime minister - leader of the opposition).
It is my contention that without putting a positive message out there, perhaps seeking media coverage of NZOpenLabour which is the Labour Party's draft policy around open and transparent government (done in such a way that your average Joe can participate), the Labour Party can not win the next election.
This is a real problem for me as I don't think we can afford to have the National party leading things for another term. They made the promise that they would not sell off any state assets during their first term in power. They know this is a problem for most New Zealanders and so made the promise in the first place. Without that promise in place, we can say goodbye to the train infrastructure again and any other state assets that we have.
Oh and then there's the CERRA issue. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Response Act. Basically it allows the suspension of any NZ law except 5 acts including the Bill of Rights Act and the Electoral Act. Furthermore, those suspensions don't have to be made by parliament but rather can be done by individual agents.
The bill was passed with no opposition.
This is a problem. Phil Goff intends to be prime minister but fails to show leadership qualities by not objecting to a bill that he knew to be flawed at best. There's a response here as to why Labour voted for it.
At the end of the first paragraph it says:
"...we’d rather not spend the next 18 months being portrayed by National and the media as having obstructed the post-earthquake recovery."
Sure, that wasn't written by Phil Goff. But remember, that post describes a party line. The leader of the Labour party would have to had to, at the very least, listened to the arguments for and against the act and if that's the sort of reasoning that was used for the Labour party to choose to support a bill that they knew to be horribly flawed, then I have to wonder if someone who can be swayed so easily is really fit to run the country.
I don't think he can win on charisma either. A friend of mine saw Phil Goff speak and told me that he's really charismatic in person. I almost outright called her a liar. Thus far, Phil Goff as failed to make any real impression. He's what Bill English was to the National party a few years back. Someone who just fails to make any sort of positive impression.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have any feelings towards Phil Goff (and that's sort of the point). To be fair, no one showed any sort of leadership when it came to CERRA. I reckon New Zealand deserves A LOT better.
So to all those out there criticizing Chris Carter... well... he has a point.