Chris Trotter, like Brian Edwards, is aghast at the muzzling of David Cunliffe. He writes in the Dom Post:

David Shearer’s decision to muzzle his rival, David Cunliffe, is deeply worrying.

Right now, there’s nothing Labour needs more than an open debate about its future.

That its leader and the coterie of courtiers with which he has surrounded himself were willing to go to the extraordinary lengths of preventing Labour’s spokesperson on economic development from appearing on TV3′s The Nation reveals how ruthlessly Shearer’s faction intends to stifle all dissent.

Shearer’s petty, politically self-destructive decision can only be interpreted as Cunliffe’s punishment for delivering a speech to his New Lynn electorate’s women’s branch highly critical of Labour’s fraught, 25-year association with neo- liberal economics.

Clearly, the disparity between the Labour leader’s three uninspiring “positioning” speeches, and the compellingly radical content of Cunliffe’s April 29 address, had rankled.

The disparity is probably what was worrying his staff. What if Cunliffe went on The Nation and shone?

According to Garner, Cunliffe’s critics described his speech as “stupid and foolish”. Labour’s “Leadership Group”, advised of The Nation’s invitation, then weighed the issue and decided Cunliffe should not appear. The Nation failed to change their minds.

This sort of overt factional squabbling has not been seen in the Labour Party for more than 15 years. Throughout Helen Clark’s record-breaking reign as leader, open dissent was almost always cast as treason. …

Labour’s full recovery as a vibrant, creative and politically relevant organisation cannot be secured except by a radical opening-up of the party. Interestingly, recent reports about Labour’s organisational restructuring exercise suggest this may be happening.

The party’s constitutional review committee is rumoured to have recommended that rank-and-file members be given a deliberative voice in the choice of party leader, as well as an effective veto over sudden, caucus-inspired, leadership spills.

Unsurprisingly, it is also rumoured that Labour’s caucus is doing all it can to prevent such changes coming into immediate effect. The party’s annual conference in November promises to be a bloody affair.

I’m tempted to register as media and attend with popcorn

Courtiers make poor campaigners. As Game of Thrones addicts know, power is not always to be found among the wielders of swords.

As often as not it lies in the hands of eunuchs and whoremasters: the manipulators, tricksters and casters-of-shadows who keep their daggers hidden and seldom venture beyond the palace gates.

Heh, as a former parliamentary staffer I might fall into that description. I’d prefer to be a whoremaster than a eunuch I have to say

If Shearer believes the country will be best served by turning the Ship of State’s tiller hard to starboard, then let him say so, and let him and his faction spell out clearly what the policy implications of such a rightward shift would be.

Cunliffe has made it clear that he believes a sharp leftward turn to be in order. How exhilarating and liberating it would be, not simply for the Labour Party, but for the whole country, to see this debate played out.

How depressing, therefore, to learn that, instead of welcoming Cunliffe’s offering, his jealous courtier colleagues described it as “stupid and foolish”.

I think the time for that debate was when there was a leadership vacancy.

Brian Edwards blogs:

The absence of anyone from Labour on The Nation was explained by Garner at the very start of the show. The programme had invited Labour’s Spokesperson for Economic Development and Associate Finance Spokesperson, David Cunliffe, to discuss more or less the same things that Norman and Peters were discussing on Q & A – the future direction of the economy. Cunliffe was happy to appear but, conscious of the current sensitivities in the parliamentary party over Labour’s leadership, sought an assurance that that topic would not be canvassed in the interview. He received that assurance in writing from Executive Producer Richard Harman and Garner himself. 

Despite those assurances, Cunliffe’s appearance was later vetoed by what Garner called Labour’s ‘top team’ which he defined as ‘David Shearer and the media team’. The reason given was apparently that the ‘top team’ didn’t want anything to distract from Finance Spokesman David Parker so close to the Budget.

Shearer was badly advised to ban Cunliffe from appearing. Rather than make his speech less of an issue, it has made it an even greater issue.

Anyway, ‘the top team’ didn’t like Cunliffe’s brilliant speech and he was apparently bawled out by Shearer and others and told the  speech was’ naive and stupid.’ That tends to be the price you pay for idealism. And, according to the extremely  well informed Duncan Garner, the  price may be high for Cunliffe who has been ‘put in his place, somewhere down the bottom of the pecking order’.

This is so utterly stupid that it beggars belief. Cunliffe is not only intellectually brilliant, he is by far Labour’s most accomplished debater in the House and on television and radio.  No-one in the Labour Party can hold a candle to him as a media spokesperson. Stammering and stuttering seem to be the main criteria for that at present.

Ouch. That is pretty brutal.

Finally, given the paranoia that clearly surrounds Cunliffe in the Labour Caucus, I should perhaps add that nothing in this post came from him.

Cunliffe had a good career before he entered Parliament. If he remains marginalised, I would not be surprised if he packs it in at the next election – which would be a pity. That is however the hope of some in the ABC faction.

Tensions on the Labour front bench have just got even worse.

David Cunliffe’s speech on an economic direction for Labour did not go down well with many of his colleagues. The Nation reported today that Cunliffe was told in the following caucus meeting that his speech was stupid and foolish. I think it was neither of those – rather very calculated. But many MPs got up to criticise Cunliffe for his speech, including David Shearer.

The Nation invited David Cunliffe on this morning to talk about his views on economic development, and the problems he identified with current and previous policies. He was happy to do so, but Shearer’s office banned him from going on.

Now this is a very rare thing. Certainly some Ministers will sometimes not accept an interview request, but Opposition MPs pretty much never turn down such opportunities. We now have a situation where Labour’s Economic Development spokesperson has been gagged from speaking publicly on economic development and related issues. This is not the sign of a happy camp, and indicates how tense things must be.

The Nation even promised that they would not ask any questions at all about leadership. It would be an interview only on economic issues. But even that was enough for Shearer’s office to gag Cunliffe and ban him from being interviewed.

Shearer’s leadership is safe (for this year anyway), but the marginalisation of Cunliffe will go down badly with the many party activists who recognise Cunliffe’s talents and praised his speech.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald:

The Labour Party is considering a major change in the way it elects its leader to allow party members to force a handover of power through a no-confidence vote, or to block an attempt by caucus to roll the leader.

The group set up to review the Labour Party after its poor election result has recommended party members vote on the leader. At present only MPs elect the leader.

Party president Moira Coatsworth said it was “a significant shift” for the party.

“At the moment, because it is a caucus decision, caucus at any time can walk in and have a vote. So this would decide on mechanisms for triggering [a leadership vote.]“

New Zealand and Australia were the only Westminster countries in which the equivalent of the Labour Party did not allow members to vote on the leader. 

It is unclear to what extent it is recommended that Labour members get a say on the party leadership, but this looks to be a step in the right direction.

Of course it may create tension, if implemented, as it seems most party members backed Cunliffe for Leader, while the caucus backed Shearer. So would Cunliffe’s supporters be able to trigger a leadership vote against the wishes of caucus? It will be interesting to see the detailed proposal.

What will also be interesting if whether unions will get a block vote for the leadership. This could give them even more power within the party.

Chris Trotter writes:

 I drove home with three conclusions:

One: the deeply cynical and self-destructive folly of Labour’s caucus in refusing to make Cunliffe their leader.

Two: the MP for New Lynn’s singular and radical understanding of the need to steer Labour into the new, fast-flowing tides of historical change.

Three: that if anyone can persuade the quiet suburbs of New Zealand to accept and embrace the need for change; it’s David Cunliffe.

If Shearer does not last the distance, the battle between Cunliffe and Robertson will be massive. It will be Auckland v Wellington and more.

Fran O’Sullivan backs David Shearer:

But unlike Cunliffe and Robertson he is not hostage to Labour’s past policy positions. He wasn’t an active player in policy formation for the 2011 general election. This has proved to be a strength – not a weakness – as he quickly jettisoned one of Labour’s more wacky election policies, wiping GST on fruit and vegetables. He followed through yesterday by abandoning another ill-considered Labour policy to support Government borrowing offshore to top up the Super Fund.

Shearer’s moves display political courage. He is not afraid to upset grassroot Labour Party members. By adopting a classically rational approach he will increase Labour’s appeal to centrist voters from across the voting spectrum.

I agree, so long as he can carry his party with him. Trevor Mallard was attacking National’s suspensions of contributions to the NZ Super Fund just two days before Shearer announced he is adopting National’s policy.

Also John Roughan writes:

Shearer seemed a normal guy who is not a natural at the arts of politics. For that reason I’d like to see him succeed.

Not too soon, of course. John Key is doing good things and if he continues the way he is going he will deserve the three terms New Zealand voters usually give a government. But Labour’s turn will come and when it does I hope Shearer is still there.

I think that is being optimistics. If Shearer doesn’t win in 2014, I find it hard to imagine he will be there in 2017.

David Cunliffe delivered a speech yesterday that has many Labour and left activists praising it. It is a speech well outside his area of economic development (He is Economic Development, not Finance spokesperson after Shearer demoted him), and is an effective state of the nation or state of the party speech. I have seen these speeches before, and inevitably when portfolio spokespersons give speeches like this, they are wanting a certain job. Some extracts:

You know that at the last election, the one that we lost so badly, nearly 1 million people didn’t vote. Over 800,000 people: a fifth of the population didn’t vote.

Now you know, there are lots of reasons that people didn’t vote, and there were even more reasons why people didn’t vote for Labour. Let me give you just a few.

The major reason that voters didn’t vote for Labour, and sometimes didn’t vote at all, is simply that Labour failed to inspire voters that it was a credible alternative to National. …

I want to be clear from the outset that this speech represents my own views and does not pretend to represent overall Labour policy. All policies are being reviewed in the post-election period. 

All the classic signs. “My personal views”. “Why we failed”. The implication is “Why we continue to fail”.

When the right-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the left-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the left-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.

 I think that’s a major reason that nearly one million voters deserted us at the last election. It wasn’t because we failed to communicate our policies. Quite the opposite. Those voters saw that our policies – with the exception of asset sales – were mostly the same as National’s. So we can’t really be surprised at the result.

This is a clear call to arms for the left activists. Never mind the reality they were promising $70 more a week to beneficiaries and the like, and most commentator said their policies under Goff were more left-wing than even under Helen Clark. Cunliffe needs the left activist base. The activist base is always less moderate that the supporters. The average National activist is well to the right of a National Government, and the average Labour activist well to the left of a Labour Government.

But you’d never know this if you listened to John Key. Like a quack doctor whose cure has failed, his response is to double the dose until the patient is dead.

 Sorry, John, but let me quote Sir Winston Churchill:

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”

No matter how many politicians and economists still defend the economic policies that led us into this mess, the truth is steadily showing itself.

The obligatory Churchill quote every leadership speech has.

Labour has a new leader with strong values, who’s focused on reconnecting with the voters and has the courage to stand up to bullies. It’s up to us, as a Party, to share with our leader, our hopes, our fears and our dreams, to reconstruct the Party from within, to reclaim our natural constituency of decent, ordinary New Zealanders who believe in fairness and hard work.

This paragraph is astonishing. It strongly implies that the leader does not already share their hopes, fears and dreams. It is a call to action for activists to back Cunliffe’s views and policies and insist Shearer implements them, with a clear implication about what may happen if he does not.

But we didn’t. And we don’t have to back away from creating policies that can turn us away from the economic insanity of the last three decades.

David Cunliffe was a Minister in the last Labour Government. He is now saying that the economic polices of that Government were insane. This is what you do when trying to position yourself as a new leader.

What I find surprising in this speech is not that Cunliffe is making a leadership style speech, but that he has done so in such an unsubtle way. Normally these things are much more subtle and coded. I have never seen an MP urge activists to “share” their views with the leader, in a way which suggests he is out of touch.

The other interesting thing is events of the last week. First we have top Auckland Labour Party official, Greg Presland, who blogged last Wednesday praising David Cunliffe. He implied the Robertson camp was behind the attacks on both Cunliffe and Shearer, and openly said:

Cunliffe may now be Shearer’s best chance of survival as Labour Head Office and the Beehive are filled with Robertson supporters. 

Now bear in mind to have your top Auckland official openly talk about the leader not surviving, and how it is is only the good graces of Cunliffe keeping him alive. In National such an official would be outski. Party officials should never ever talk about how the Leader is struggling to survive.

Then two days later on Friday Chris Trotter blogged:

I was wrong about David Shearer. I made the mistake of believing that a politician with a brilliant back-story couldn’t fail to give us an equally brilliant front-story. …

It’s time for the Labour Caucus to put an end to “the unfortunate experiment” and begin a new one. They could call it “democracy” – and stop taking their party for Grant-ed.

A clear attack on both Shearer, and Grant Robertson, which by omission suggests Cunliffe should be Leader.

Then another two days later, Cunliffe makes a “True Labour” speech, with Tumeke noting:

It was given by David Cunliffe at 2pm Sunday at the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre on his personal beliefs for the economic vision for Labour. 70 people were there by invitation including myself, Chris Trotter and Peter Davis and I have never heard the explanation of why Labour lost the 2011 election and what vision is necessary to regain that support with the passion and intelligence that Cunliffe brought to it. 

Cunliffe launched a personal vision of what I’d call ‘True Labour’, a renouncing of the neo liberal agenda and an explanation that the reason a million enrolled voters didn’t bother to vote Labour was because despite a few policy differences, Labour was still the lighter shade of blue. 

Now I am sure this is all a coincidence because I am a trusting sort of person. But someone more cynical and suspicious than me might wonder about the timing of all this.

UPDATE: Am sure this David Cunliffe campaign website is also a coincidence and is really aimed for the general election in 31 months time.

There is an episode of the West Wing called “Let Bartlett be Barlett” (S1E19).

The staff begin to realize that the Bartlet administration has been ineffective because it has been too timid to make bold decisions, focusing instead on the exigencies of politics. Finally, Leo confronts President Bartlet with his own timidity, challenging him to be himself and to take the staff “off the leash.” – in other words, he seeks to “Let Bartlet be Bartlet”. The President and his staff resolve to act boldly and “raise the level of public debate” in America.

This is what David Shearer needs to do also.

I agree with the NZ Herald editorial that says:

They say Leader of the Opposition is the worst job in politics. It requires unceasing, carping criticism of everything the Government does and a relentlessly negative outlook on the country’s condition and prospects under current policies. Somehow this hapless individual is supposed to be popular too.

David Shearer, elected leader of the Labour Party after the last election, has clearly decided this job description is not for him. Whatever he has been doing since his elevation he has not been out front on most of the issues that are making this a testing year for John Key’s Government. There is a view that he is to blame for the fact these issues have not dented National’s standing in two recent polls or lifted Labour’s support. The concern seems to have permeated his own office with the resignation of his chief of staff, Stuart Nash.

If the departure of Mr Nash signals a change of style for Mr Shearer, it would be a mistake. Mr Shearer is clearly not a tub-thumping politician. He seems a normal, thoughtful, cautious and fair-minded citizen. 

Those in Labour who are getting so worked up about the fact they have not gone up in the polls, despite National dealing with some unpopular issues, need to realise that beyond the beltway people are not talking over morning tea about how David Shearer did in the House. Yes, he has some way to go to be a confident and authoritative presence in the House. But he will not become Prime Minister purely by being a good attack dog in the House, and nor does he need to be. That is why you have a Deputy.

Where there is fair criticism of Shearer has been his inability, to date, to articulate what he stands for and how his beliefs are different to both Phil Goff’s and John Key’s. The Goff led Labour achieved a near 100 year low for their vote. David Shearer must avoid being tuned turned into Goff-lite.

The problem, as I understand it from a couple of Labour people, is that David Shearer does have some innovative and exciting ideas around policy, ones that break the stereotype of right vs left. But the problem is he has been unable to get them through his caucus, who remain largely wedded to their current policies.

As the Herald editorial says:

 People do not follow leaders who lack the confidence to be themselves.

The role of political leadership is more than being chairman of the board, or the caucus. Don Brash did not let Caucus decide his Orewa speech. John Key in Opposition did not have Caucus vote on his agreement with Helen Clark over the anti-smacking law compromise. That show of leadership won him huge acclaim at the time.

Likewise in Government, Helen Clark and John Key did not let Caucus determine key policies. In fact one could argue they wouldn’t let Caucus determine a bus timetable!

Shearer needs to start putting out policies and ideas which define him. I probably won’t like most of them, and that is not a bad thing. But neither is it a bad thing, if his caucus don’t like 100% of them also. What is important is that he likes them, and backs them. Leadership is about telling your caucus “these are the policies I want to lead on, back them or find yourself a new leader”. Decision making by committee of 34 is not a good option.

David Shearer is genuinely nice guy, who wants the best for New Zealand (as most, but not all, MPs do). It is incredible that only two and a bit months after Parliament has resumed this year, that some in Labour are already backsliding over their choice. You have to take a medium to long-term strategic view. What matters isn’t the polls at the moment, or how the House is going. What matters is whether or not there is a three year strategy designed to get Labour and its leader perceived as the Government in waiting, and that the right steps are being taken to implement that strategy.

From today’s Herald.

I understand that David Shearer’s Chief Press Secretary, has resigned her job and will be leaving the Labour Leader’s office in the near future.

Also Senior Advisor John Pagani’s contract terminated this week, and he no longer works for David Shearer.

Grant Robertson is almost going to run out of friends to fill these new vacancies

UPDATE: A reporter has tweeted A Labour media spokesperson says “as far as we’re aware Fran has not resigned”. She’s not answering phone calls.

My understanding is that Mold did resign by e-mail some time ago. This was before Nash left the office. However even after Nash’s departure was confirmed, she told other senior staff that she still intended to leave. Maybe she has been persuaded to change her mind. I have this from a very reliable source. I would suggest media ask specifically about any e-mails that include the word resignation or resign in them.

UPDATE2: A reporter has tweeted Mold denies she has resigned. Again I suggest people ask about whether or not she e-mailed her resignation or at least an offer of resignation in recent times. It is possible she has been persuaded to change her mind for now.

UPDATE3: A commenter has stated:

She resigned and announced it to colleagues some time ago. She has been talking about going off on an OE.

Maybe it has all changed now Nash is out of the way.

The commenter is someone with Labour Party connections, as is my original source. That is two independent people who have said Mold has or had resigned and more so announced it to some of her colleagues. Changing one’s mind (if it has changed) does not negate the fact it was announced originally.

Chris Trotter writes:

CONFESSION, THEY SAY, is good for the soul, so I have a confession to make. I was wrong about David Shearer. I made the mistake of believing that a politician with a brilliant back-story couldn’t fail to give us an equally brilliant front-story. Well, as Sportin’ Life tells the true believers in Porgy & Bess:

 “It ain’t necessarily so.”

And, now I (and I suspect you) know it ain’t so. David Shearer is a thoroughly likeable, thoroughly decent bloke, and his record at the United Nations is truly inspirational, but, come on, let’s face it: he ain’t anybody’s kind of leader.

David Shearer, like David Lange, is a creature of the factional and personal animosities dividing the Labour caucus. Bluntly: he was put there by an unholy alliance of right- and left-wing MPs to prevent the Labour Party’s choice, David Cunliffe, from taking the top job.

But those two speeches showed not the slightest trace of “big picture” thinking. On the contrary, they showed every sign of having been inspired by an Auckland-based focus-group, and composed by a Wellington-based committee. The only picture they painted was one that revealed Labour’s deficiencies. That not only did the party lack leadership, but it also lacked ideas. 

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Labour leader David Shearer has appointed lawyer and NZ Aids Foundation chairman Alastair Cameron as his new chief of staff after the resignation of Stuart Nash.

Alastair Cameron is a long-term Labour activist, and generally regarded by Labour people as a good operator. He was on the NZ Council when he was a student, as the party’s youth vice-president around 2002.

Mr Shearer last week led the charge on the Crafar farms sale, but the previous strategy of keeping him away from subjects on which Labour had a negative line gave rise to speculation about the leadership after his deputy, Mr Robertson, was left to lead Labour’s reaction on major issues such as Nick Smith’s resignation as minister over troubles in ACC.

Mr Shearer said he did lead reaction on many issues but also recognised that his other MPs were “very able” and should be allowed to contribute.

The changes are a disruption Mr Shearer could do without as he tries to make an impact in the polls. Although it is not yet serious, he is already having to contend with speculation about his leadership and the ambition of his deputy. …

Mr Robertson has dismissed the speculation, but it has spread to others, including the left-wing blog the Standard.

Contributor Irish Bill observed that it was no secret Mr Robertson wanted the job and, although he hoped he was wrong, “it’s starting to feel like a leadership challenge is inevitable”.

Interesting that the Herald quotes an alias in a news story.

Mr Shearer said it was a long process to get Labour back to being “match fit” and there was an acceptance of that. He said he was not aware of tension within his office.

Really? If David is not aware of the tension within his office, he is the only person in Wellington who isn’t aware of it.

The two latest polls will increase the pressure on David Shearer. I actually think it would be silly for Labour to panic over polls just six months after an election. Rebuilding and changing a brand takes time. Their biggest challenge is not their leadership but defining what they stand for.

However it is clear there are rumblings in Labour. The Standard and Tumeke have both run posts openly disscussing whether there will be a leadership challenge. It is also clear from reading comments that many Auckland activists still think that the caucus erred in not choosing David Cunliffe, who arguably was the party’s preferred candidate.

Also Steve Gray has blogged (in less diplomatic terms than expressed here) that the Wellington gay community has been discussing that Grant Robertson will challenge Shearer in the near future.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that anything will happen this year. But neither is Shearer guaranteed to the election, as Goff pretty much was. I think the danger zone would be early next year, if Labour stay flatlined all year.

The problem for Shearer is that he may now be in a vicious cycle. The more speculation over the leadership, the harder it is to get resonance with the public. However it is worth noting he is still being given a fair chance by the public. Only 26% say they think he is performing poorly, while Goff’s comparative figure peaked at 54% performing poorly.

Brian Edwards blogs:

Just four months after an election then, political commentators are suggesting replacements  for the current Labour Party leader.

My own view is that the strategy, devised by his Chief of Staff Stuart Nash, of having Shearer stump the country making speeches, rather than leading the charge against the Government in the House, has been misguided. The effect has been that Shearer is rarely seen on prime time television, while the Greens, Winston Peters and his own Deputy make the 6 o’clock  running. Out of sight really can mean out of mind.

So let’s just indulge in a little speculation. Between McCarten’s and Hartevelt’s front-runners – Little and Robertson – who might make it to the finishing line? I’m going to plump for Robertson. Yes, Little enjoys the support of the unions and is a forceful debater in the House. But it’s hard to see this rather dour, uncharismatic unionist as the face of a rejuvenated Labour Party. At 41, Robertson, on the other hand, who lists his interests as ‘watching too much sport, playing a bit of indoor netball and squash, cooking, movies, listening to New Zealand music and reading New Zealand literature’, projects a youthful, energetic, upbeat  and thoroughly modern image. And he’s fiercely ambitious.

In talking this issue through with a gallery journalist I suggest the danger time for Shearer was the beginning of 2013. The journo reckoned it will all be over well before then.

So are we ready for a gay Prime Minister? I can only speak for myself. I find the idea invigorating. Other than prejudice, I can’t really think of any objection to it. And we Kiwis are for the most part an open-minded lot. After all, we had no trouble electing the world’s first transsexual MP.  And we didn’t seem to mind a mincing John Key.

It’s true that gay Prime Ministers are thin on the ground. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, elected Prime Minister of Iceland in 2009, was not only the country’s first woman Prime Minister but also Europe’s first openly gay head of state. She was followed in 2011 by Belgium’s Elio Di Rupo. When asked whether he was gay, the new Prime Minister replied, ‘Yes. So What?’ That strikes me as the only sensible answer to the question.

I don’t think it is useful to conflate mincing with being gay, but for the wider point I agree that the sensible answer is “Yes, so what”.

However sexuality can have some bearing, if it impacts politics. There is a difference between a politician who happens to be gay, and a politician that campaigns on gay issues. Chris Finlayson is very much in the former category while Chris Carter and Tim Barnett were in the latter category. I’d place Grant Robertson somewhere in-between.

I agree that at this stage the next leader of the Labour Party is probably a contest between Grant Robertson and Andrew Litttle, and Robertson is heaving favoured to win. The bigger issue is when will the vacancy occur!

Jordan Carter blogs:

I am not yet sure of it, but I think it is possible by the end of this year, the New Zealand Labour Party will have an institutional role for members in choosing the leadership of the Party.  We will, if that is so, be joining our fraternal parties around the world, and will be giving people a big new reason to join the party and be involved.

I’m a fan of giving the members a vote, as the UK Conservatives did in choosing David Cameron.

The process we choose will be important.  My view is that in a country as small as this, we should do our best to keep it deliberative.  We could, as Patrick suggests, have an electoral college model between the Caucus, Members and Affiliates, and that would work for me to a degree with postal ballots for the latter two, and in person ballots for the Caucus.

I’m more a one person one vote person. Jordan’s model (which is used in UK Labour) would see union bosses controlling say a third of the votes.

Why not just have a postal ballot of all members of the party, a member being someone who has filled in a membership form and paid a sub.

But good to see Labour looking at involving their members more.

For those who missed it, the post before this one was by Jadis, one of my guest editors. As it happens I disagree with Jadis on this, and think Shearer will lead Labour into the 2014 election. Hell if Labour didn’t roll Phil Goff for non-performance, then Shearer has nothing to worry about.

I actually think he has a very decent chance of becoming Prime Minister.

I’m on holiday until early January so Jadis will be doing the odd guest post, as well as possibly other guest editors.

I’ll still do a bit of blogging, but will be less regular.

And news just broken that the 34 Labour MPs have elected David Shearer as the 13th Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party. Grant Robertson is his Deputy Leader.

Commiserations go out to David Cunliffe, who ran a strong campaign. I hope Shearer retains him in Finance (or better).

I think this is a good decision for Labour. Shearer gives them an opportunity to make a clean break from their past. The challenge will be for that break to be substantive, not just symbolic, so I await his announcement of shadow cabinet and portfolios with interest.

If I was advising Shearer, I would have him read up on the leadership style of Michael Joseph Savage when Opposition Leader. Savage did not spend all his time attacking the Government and blaming them for everything from the weather to global crises, but went up and down NZ speaking of his vision for a better New Zealand.

I think David Shearer is a very decent man. I probably won’t agree with most of his policies (but possibly more than I have with Labour in the past), but I think and hope he will run a clean campaign to be Prime Minister and give New Zealanders a good choice.

UPDATE: Chris Hipkins has been elected Senior Whip, which I suggested was likely a few days ago. Darien Fenton is the Junior Whip. I presume Ross Robertson will be their nominee for Assistant Speaker.

Okay, so what are the different bloggers saying on the Labour leadership.

My view was expressed last week where I basically said Cunliffe is the safer option, while Shearer has the greater potential to grow Labour’s vote more. If Labour had got a result in the low 30s, then Cunliffe would make more sense, but with a result in the mid to high 20s only, then Shearer seems the better course.

• Keith Ng backs David Shearer
• Russell Brown appears to lean towards Shearer
• Imperator Fish is undecided after the Auckland meeting
• Chris Trotter endorsed David Shearer
• Brian Edwards now backs David Cunliffe
• Cactus Kate says it should be David Cunliffe. She also reports that some Auckland members are unhappy their MPs are not consulting them on their decision.
• Homepaddock is not giving a preference, but notes that at the Auckland meeting Grant Robertson refused to give an assurance he would not challenge for the leadership before 2014.
• Most of the commenters at The Standard appear to be backing Cunliffe
• Dim-Post is tepidly in the Shearer camp
• Hard to tell Whale Oil’s position – I think he is like Brian Edward’s – was Shearer, and now Cunliffe
• John Pagani backs Shearer
• Mickey Savage is a Cunliffe supporter
• Lew Stoddart supports Shearer
• Phil Quin is in the Shearer camp
• Morgan at Maui Street defends Nanaia Mahuta, saying she was the standout in the Native Affairs debates

Of course only 34 Labour MPs get a vote. Not sure what happens if it is a tie!

The Herald has an article with short pieces from supporters of David Shearer and David Cunliffe, which I found interesting. The supporters are:

David Shearer

• List MP Jacinda Ardern
• Former Goff staffer John Pagani
• Blogger Lew Stoddart

David Cunliffe

• Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta
• Labour Auckland-Northland Regional Chair Greg Presland
• Former parliamentary staffer David Hawkins

Most generally make their case well for their candidate, and that is not surprising as both candidates are very credible. However David Hawkins was rather aggressive with this statement:

This battle for Labour’s leadership is a choice between obsolete zero-sum politics and a progressive aspirational social democracy.

David Shearer’s a nice paper tiger. He’s just being exploited by a group that don’t respect New Zealand’s verdict. They actually don’t know what normal Kiwis think because they don’t understand modern direct engagement methods.

The Labour Party’s Red Alert website is symptomatic of the problem.

That is a theme I’ve heard quite a few push. Will Shearer be independent enough from the old guard who are supporting him? If he wins, I guess we will see when it comes to his shadow cabinet.

Patrick Leyland blogs at The Progress Report:

In a pretty bold break with tradition the caucus have decided to do things slightly differently this time. While the vote will still rest with the MPs, the candidates have been engaging in a more open campaign than we’ve ever seen. They have been on TV debates, spoken about their merits, blogged, and they have also begun a series of meetings with party members around the country. In my opinion this is the biggest step forward. The idea being that the candidates speak, the members are then afforded an opportunity to ask questions, and then the members are welcome to provide other caucus members with feedback.

Some have quietly complained that they do not get a direct vote in the leadership. This is a valid criticism and one that must be taken seriously by the new leadership team, and the party, during its upcoming review. …

They’ve attracted large crowds of members, many of whom have renewed their memberships just to gain entry and others who haven’t been to a party meeting in many years. It goes to show that an open process can really inspire people to get involved.

Imagine how many more members we would have at the door if they were allowed a vote on the leadership?

I congratulate the caucus and the party for the way they have conducted this process, but I hope they see it as a stepping-stone on the way to something bigger and better.

First of all I agree the public leadership contest has been very good for Labour. I’m pleased they took my advice which I blogged prior to their caucus after the election:

If Labour were really smart they would have the vote in February 2012 just before Parliament resumes and have a two month campaign for the leadership. Have the three contenders talk up and down the country to members and supporters about their vision for the future. It will boost the profiles of all three men, and start to get people to tune into Labour again.

Some have asked whether National will do the same, when it next has a leadership vacancy. It depends. If the vacancy is while they are in Government, then it could be difficult to have Ministers campaigning up and down New Zealand building support to become Prime Minister. Ministers are less able to offer policy alternatives than when you are in opposition.

But if the vacancy occurs when National is in opposition, then yes I hope National does do the same and gives members an opportunity to hear the contenders and question them. In fact members should demand it.

In terms of whether the membership should actually be given a vote on the leadership, I do actually favour that. I think the UK Conservative battle between Cameron and Davis did wonders for that party in terms of increasing membership and relevance.

It is important a leader has the confidence of their caucus, and you would want caucus to be able to veto a leader with minimal support. This could be done by requiring an MP to gain say at least 25% of caucus as nominees (MPs could nominate more than one MP).

I can’t see Labour or National signing up to membership elections of leaders, as the Greens do, anytime soon. But change often comes quickly. Labour’s semi-primary has been a step never done before, and will I suspect become the norm. And that step will lead to demands that mebers one day get more than just a voice, but also a vote. Not necessarily a vote equal to MPs, but some say.

Maybe Labour could take some notice of what is happening with Australia Labor, as they try to make their party more democratic:

Labor stalwarts have warned of a dying party unless major reform is embraced and more power given to the rank-and-file membership. …

She won support for the rank-and-file to directly elect a ”component” of delegates for the party’s future policy-setting national conferences.

The conferences are currently dominated by union and state branch chosen delegates.

Hilarious – the unions get to decide whether or not to let rank and file members directly elect delegates to national conferences, and how much power to allow the rank and file.

The conference also endorsed Ms Gillard’s push for a membership increase target of 8000 for next year, a trial of US-style primaries for some pre-selections – where non-members can vote on selecting candidates – and online membership participation in parties.

Also a good idea.

From today’s Herald

The Brian Rudman column he refers to is this one. The column is pretty obviously an implicit endorsement of Cunliffe, so this suggests that Davis, like his wife, is a Cunliffe supporter.

Chris Trotter writes:

Now Mr Shearer was a serious contender, but his new front-runner status came at a price. Like David Lange before him, he was no longer his own man. Labour’s spent forces, the MPs epitomised by the politically exhausted figure of Trevor Mallard, were now wrapped around Mr Shearer like supplejack around a totara. And they were clinging to him for only one reason: survival. Their arch-enemy, Mr Cunliffe, had long ago read their use-by dates. That’s why the ABCs couldn’t allow him to win.

But, if Mr Cunliffe cannot defeat Mr Shearer, he can, at least, defeat Mr Shearer’s backers. A rejuvenated, restructured, or, to borrow Labour stalwart Jordan Carter’s term, “refounded” Labour Party cannot be created by a glove-puppet.

Glove-puppet is too harsh a term, but Trotter is right that there is concern that Shearer with his relative inexperience and less alpha male personality could become the front guy for basically the same old group of MPs who entered Parliament under the 4th Labour Government and should have no part in the 6th Labour Government.

If Mr Cunliffe cannot beat Mr Shearer, then he should, over the next 72 hours, think very seriously about joining him. It’s not too late for the best qualified candidate to contact the most popular candidate; set up a meeting; and make a deal. Mr Key and Mr English did it – why not Mr Shearer and Mr Cunliffe?

Together, they’ve more than enough strength to tear off and make a bonfire of all that parasitic caucus supplejack. Together, they could bend the arc of history towards a Labour victory. Together, a new power curve could hurl their fighters skywards heading for the National fleet.

Cunliffe has gone out of his way to say that Shearer would be on his front bench, but Shearer won’t make the same commitment (on the basis he won’t commit to anyone). However media reports have made it pretty clear that the intention is if he wins, that Parker is Finance Spokesperson and Robertson Deputy, hence demoting Cunliffe. I think this would be a mistake.

I’m not saying that if Shearer wins that Cunliffe should be his Deputy. But I am saying he should at a minimum keep him on as Finance Spokesperson and have him part of the inner team. They would be a good combination.

Most of the focus has been on the leadership contest for Labour, but the battle for Deputy Leader is also interesting with Grant Robertson and Nanaia Mahuta both standing for it.

Effectively they are both standing on tickets with Shearer and Cunliffe respectively except that in the former’s case they are pretending it is not a ticket by not calling it that. I tend to subscribe to the theory that if it looks like a duck ……

The caucus though will have two separate votes for the positions, and will only vote for Deputy Leader when they know whom the leader is. It is possible at that point, one of the contenders would pull pull out, so there is no risk of the Leader ending up with a Deputy who was not backing them.

The conventional wisdom is that Shearer is ahead of Cunliffe at the moment, so Robertson one can assume is also more likely to become Labour Deputy Leader. If this eventuates this overall could be very powerful for Labour. But first the negative.

I’ve blogged before that the ideal deputy leader is one that doesn’t want to be leader, and I stand by this. Now this does not mean that I think Grant personally is a disloyal person who would be sitting there from day one plotting to undermine the leader and become leader. I don’t think that is Grant’s style or record. Also Grant is a relatively young guy with a pretty safe seat, and knows his best route to the leadership is to be part of a winning team, where his support for the leader is unquestionable.

However events can mean things are not that easy. If for some reason (assuming Shearer is Leader), Shearer fails to fire and after 18 months is struggling in the polls, then media will focus on the deputy leader and ask whether or not he should be leader. They will every week ask the deputy if he rules out a challenge, and of course no person can ever totally rule out a change, so a response with wriggle room will be given, and the media will note the wriggle room and the speculation becomes destabilising. I saw this first hand when Jenny Shipley was National Leader and Bill English her Deputy. I even recall the press secretary who had to go between the two of them negotiating a wording for his denial of plans to become Leader, but one that does not make you a liar should a change become necessary – which it eventually did. Very rarely will a Shermanesque denial be given which includes the statement “If nominated I will not accept”.

So the risk if Grant is Deputy is not that Grant will be disloyal. He is a team player. It is that if the leader does not perform as expected, that he will be promoted as a viable alternative – especially is as Deputy Leader he is seen to be performing better than the Leader.

Goff survived as Leader to contest the 2011 election because no one else in Labour wanted the job before the election. They were prepared to lose this election. However the caucus will be more hard headed going into 2014. The thought of a third term for National and nine years in Opposition for Labour will be deeply horrific to them. So if a Leader is not performing, then a change before 2014 would be more likely to occur. However I should state that it is not my expectation that either Shearer or Cunliffe would not perform well, so this scenario is a possibility not a probability.

Somewhat unfairly to Grant I’ve written more than I intended on the possible downside of his deputy leadership. The upside is not so long, but it is more powerful. It all relates to what the role of a deputy leader can and should be in a successful leadership team.

I think the best combinations of leader and deputy are like those in a great school. The school principal provides the leadership to the staff and students, while the deputy principal effectively manages the day to day running of the school.

A good deputy will, on behalf of the leader, help manage the caucus and the leader’s office. They will provide political management and sort out all but the biggest issues, freeing up the leader to lead and focus on convincing 400,000 more New Zealanders to vote for the party.

Robertson should be incredibly effective as this type of political deputy leader. His background in NZUSA, working for Hobbs and then as H3 to Clark gives him a wealth of experience in political management. Every day a parliamentary team has to decide what questions to be asking in Parliament, what press releases to put out on what issues etc.

So overall Robertson should be a very effective Deputy Leader for Labour if he gets elected.I would take one issue with his statement at Red Alert:

I know that I can hold my own and best any of the National frontbench in Parliament and on the hustings.

I’ve often blogged in the past about my respect for Grant’s skills and certain higher ups in National tease me relentlessly about a statement I once made that Robertson will give Ryall a much much tougher time in health. I’d even go so far to say they mock me for that statement, as the reality is that Ryall hasn’t even been mildly nuzzled by Robertson in the House, let alone savaged.

So I think it is a wee bit premature to be claiming you can best any of the National frontbench in Parliament. The evidence to date hasn’t shown that. However I think in National’s second term it will be easier for Labour MPs like Grant to land some blows.

The person behind the David Cunliffe support site has revealed their identity, which is a good thing.

He is David Hawkins. Not the former Mayor of Papakura, but as I understand it, the former Executive Assistant to Te Atatu MP Chris Carter.

This doesn’t mean of course that Chris Carter himself is backing Cunliffe, but it would be ironic if it turns out that David Cunliffe is backed by both Kabul and New York, rather than the former UN manager David Shearer. Is this a schism in the UN vote?

Brian Edwards blogs:

Praising Shearer’s freshness and dismissing his lack of experience in the bear pit of the Debating Chamber as irrelevant has almost become the norm in comparing him with Cunliffe. I was on that side of the argument myself when Shearer first threw his hat in the ring. But I’ve changed my mind.  

Shearer has had nearly three years to demonstrate his skill as a debater and about a fortnight to provide some evidence of competence in handling the media. He has done neither. His television appearances have bordered on the embarrassing. He lacks fluency and fails to project confidence or authority. Watching him makes you feel nervous and uncomfortable – a fatal flaw.

My problem is that I just can’t imagine him on his feet in the House footing it with the Prime Minister or any of his hugely experienced lieutenants. And a Leader of the Opposition must have a mastery not just of his own portfolios but of every portfolio. Clark had just such a mastery, but it was the product of 18 years experience in the Debating Chamber before she became Prime Minister.

I think Brian makes some good points, but I would point out the next election is in three years times, not three months time. Shearer’s decision to stand for the leadership is a recent one, so he hasn’t done the stuff aspiring leaders normally do such as media training and debating. He will never be a Michael Cullen in the House, but Michael would have never been elected PM.

And then there’s Cunliffe. We’re told there’s a group in the Labour caucus whose ABC mantra is ‘anyone but Cunliffe’. It’s hard to imagine a more childish or stupid approach. Your job, ladies and gentlemen,  is to choose someone who can win the next election, not someone who makes you feel warm and fuzzy. And when you’re making that choice you might like to consider this fact: above almost everything else, Kiwis like leaders who project strength. Kirk, Muldoon, Clark are prime examples. None of them was particularly ‘nice’. Rowling, Lange and Goff were ‘nice’. QED.

Cunliffe may or may not be nice, but he is hugely experienced, has an in-depth understanding of policy, conveys confidence and authority, handles the media superbly and can make mincemeat of anyone on the other side of the House. His ambition should be seen as an advantage not a disadvantage.

My instinct is that the Labour Party is about to make a huge mistake. Their logic, I suspect, is that they must replace an unpopular leader with a popular leader. But it is shallow thinking. What the next Leader of the Opposition must be able to do is best and bring down John Key. That really isn’t a job for ‘a nice guy’.

I am definitely not an ABC person, but of course I am not a member of the Labour caucus. I have considerable respect for David Cunliffe, having worked with him on some of the telco reforms. And on a personal level I’ve never seen the stuff that some people go on about. Yes David has ambition, but what MP doesn’t? Ambition is not a bad thing, if there is talent to back it up, and Cunliffe has that.

On balance I think Shearer has a greater chance of leading Labour to victory, for reasons I have written about previously. But I will say that Shearer is a somewhat risker option. There is greater potential to wins over the hearts and minds of New Zealanders and get Labour’s party vote back into the mid 30s or highers. But there is also a greater risk that Shearer just can’t hack it, and Labour stays weak or gets weaker.

However Labour has dire problems being in the mid 20s. If Labour had got say 30%+, then you might go for the safer option of Cunliffe to lift you that few per cent more. But to win enough party vote to form Government in 2014 from 27% in 2011, you need to take some risks. Otherwise the best you can hope for is a Labour/Green/Maori/Mana Government propped up by NZ First. Sure that will get you into Government, but it won’t be a very good one.

As I have said previously, both contenders should do better for Labour than Phil Goff. Labour are fortunate to have a healthy and competitive choice between two good options rather than choosing the least worst candidate.