Mallard needs to quit
Mallard wants to leave parliament - in the same way that a very frustrated and angry Steve Maharey wanted to leave parliament. In the same way too that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were itching to get out of that tomb - their political careers having reached a peak and their redundancy and decline the only thing on the horizon inside the House. But unlike Steve Maharey and his Vice-Chancellorship, Helen Clark and her UN posting, Michael Cullen and his government directorships and consultancy and unlike Margaret Wilson and her exit back into academia as if running the government and parliament was just a sabbatical, unlike all of those people, Trevor Mallard has nothing to look forward to.
It's a mid-ranked existence and a long sorry slide down a long caucus ladder. The man is feeling it. He had become accustomed to something more whilst in government - they all must have - and they share in the despondency at the loss of power and uncomfortable and joyless change of purpose and routine. From champions of the positive and leading the affairs of state - to seers of doom and pedantic debating chamber temper tantrums.
Mallard is a scrapper and a bully and yes - angry - but it just isn't effective or worthwhile being that sort of person in the twilight years, looking back down the way he came up in a professional cul de sac.
This stress is showing. This is what Maharey was getting like before he had to call it quits. Mallard should resign for his own piece of mind. This is what he's being paid for these days - torrid trivia, banalities and reminiscences - from Labour's Red Alert Blog:
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 6:32 pm
6 comments
6 Comments:
I can only agree, Tim. Mallard is looking more pathetic by the day. He did have his uses in the Clark/Cullen era. He was like a loyal rottwieler. Helen Clark would get Mallard to say something truly outrageous and inflammatory (usually about the National party leader, Brash then Key - it was all about attacking the leaders credibility). After a while whatever he said would get proved wrong, but it didn't matter the seeds were sown. Helen Clark would smile and say something like "that's Trevor". So he had a purpose (of sorts) but those days are truly gone.
What a surprise, open your mouth a little wider bc and you'll be able to get National's balls in your mouth as well. Labour need Trevor, just as Bill Ralston was pointing out in his column last week.
If that's what Ralston says - what does that say about Labour? There's plenty of new blood (and younger ex-Ministers) in the chamber - Mallard is redundant. Hodgson is also in that redundancy zone, but he hides it better.
Oh grow up anon. You only descend to abuse because you have nothing constructive to say. I notice you came up with NO good reason why Labour needs Mallard. So what do you have to say anon?
I actually said that Mallard had his uses in the Clark/Cullen government, although I deplored his methods. He really was a puppet used by Clark at her convenience. This is why he has now become irrelevant - he is a one trick pony. He is trying to carry on in the same style (this is all he can do) but he is failing miserably because he can't do it without someone smart/cunning like Helen Clark to help him.
I've got plenty of examples of how Mallard is failing miserably if you really want them anon. But for now let's here from you why you think Mallard is great - time to put up or shut up.
Talking to people who've met him he sounds like a really nice and personable type of guy. Is it only the Nats who are allowed to stir things up in the house?
I think you are missing the point of Tim's blog, anon - namely, that Trev is acting in an increasing bizarre manner and showing signs of a meltdown. Oh and there's a difference between being allowed to "stir things up" and saying outrageous statements (ie lies) and not admitting it when he's caught out.
Post a Comment
<< Home