Watkins on Labour
May 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm by David FarrarDominion Post Political Editor Tracy Watkins looks at Labour’s plight:
And, finally, the desperate knowledge that even hitting the panic button probably won’t work. That, barring the heavens answering their prayers for an election-losing blunder by John Key, the two most likely scenarios now are to lose or to lose badly.
I like that – a choice between losing and losing badly. It is at times like that you start looking forward to the next election, and start debating whether one should not spend all (or too much) of their money on the 2008 campaign, or keep some in the kitty for 2011.
There are early signs that the mood in the caucus is already swinging in that direction: resentment is now brewing over the MPs who have refused to give up their safe seats – George Hawkins and Harry Duynhoven among them – to clear the decks for the generational change that will be forced on Labour in the event of an election defeat.
Both Harry and George have been reselected and control their local electorates. But there will be immense pressure to put the party first and step down, so that some of the new talented MPs such as Lousia Wall have a chance of retaining their place in Parliament.
But the party hierarchy faces a pincer movement as pressure builds on two fronts: the first, the desperation of sitting MPs for winnable list slots; the second, the rising pressure to preserve the best and brightest in Labour’s current ranks and make room for some up-and- comers to slot into Parliament post-election should there be an exodus in the event of a defeat.
Since Miss Clark and Dr Cullen are likely to lead the pack, the subterranean- level jockeying for post- election leadership scenarios may have already begun.
There are whispers that the campaign against Maryan Street, a possible deputy leadership contender from the Left of the party, is already in full swing.
The signs of panic, then, may be in their infancy – but they may also be a sign of things to come.
Street as Deputy Leader would be very resisted by Goff and the more moderate faction. Gof would rightly suspect he would be being setup to be interim Leader, and then rolled by the same forces which rolled Moore in 1993.
So who are the contenders for the three top spots. First Leader:
- Phil Goff
- David Cunliffe
- Shane Jones
Goff has to be favourite at this stage. With Maharey gone and Mallard in the sin bin, there is no credible contender from the left – Goff, Cunliffe and Jones are all from the more moderate side.
Deputy has a range of contenders:
- Maryan Street
- Clayton Cosgrove
- Shane Jones
- Chris Carter
Maybe Dyson or Dalziel also, but both would be challenging choices having both been sacked from Cabinet for indiscretions.
And then Finance Spokesperson:
- David Cunliffe
- Trevor Mallard
- Shane Jones
Cunliffe is the logical choice, but logic does not always come into it.
Related posts:
- ODT looks at new leadership for Labour
- The next Labour Leader
- The Leader in Waiting
- Parsons on Labour leadership
May 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I’ve long thought that Goff and King would make a good leadership pair. But with King now tipped to step down in 2011, perhaps a Goff/Street team, with Cunliffe as Finance would be the right combination to take Labour forward.
Still, that would leave Jones jilted and on the outer, perhaps he would be given Health or Education to keep him in line.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
All tainted with corruption?
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Interesting to see the amount of comment in newspapers starting around Labour’s impending defeat – starts to become self-fulfilling. Another couple of poor survey results and the death notices will be well and truely written.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I hope and pray that Labour do push the idea of Street as the new leader, she would guarantee that Labour remain unelectable for the foreseeable future.
The first thing any new Labour party leader has to do to make their party an electable option is to smash the power balance currently held by the fringe/extremist element
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Labour has the problem that their new aspiring MPs, like Louisa Wall, are already typical of the new Party. George Hawkins and Harry Duynhoven are not. Labour only narrows its appeal by replacing them with the lookalike sycophants of recent years.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
The ‘rising pressure to preserve the best and the brightest” ?!?! The rise will be minimal !
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Reminds me of 2002 for National. Nice to see it on the other foot (albeit bringing back bad memories).
The real concern is that useless tit Peters seems to benefit and is on the way back. It is truly incredible. He does nothing for 3 years political (to be fair save for a certain press conference he has done a fair job as Foreign Minister), languishes around 1-2% and then with a few months to go beats up on some Asians, picks something else populist, yells at the media and suddenly he’s around 5%. Little wonder Churchill described democracy is the worst form of government – except all of the others that have been tried.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Cunliffe and Jones are certainly arrogant and have enough self-belief that they could rule the world…but I had heard they were fairly widely disliked within their own caucus…
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Both here, and at the Herald ‘open slather’ opinion page on MMP, man have expressed their disdain/outrage/homicidal thoughts towards Winston Peters and Sue Bradford, amongst others.
It’s claimed that, since they are not elected by a constituency, they’re not real MPs. Which is absolute tripe, and what’s more, those who put the argument forward, know it.
Proportional representation enfranchises a wider amount of people than First Past the Post, because the country is, in a sense, one big electorate. Local MP’s essentially retain bragging rights and constituent advocacy – they remain typically dominated by the large parties.
Under FFP, elections were often decided, not by the voters, but by the Electoral Commission on Boundaries which became the battleground for seat adjustments. In the US, for example, some House seats drawn by the state legislatures are so illogical it beggars belief, simply so that one party has fewer huge margins, and others have more smaller margins.
Another complaint was that politics was dominated by “party stooges”. Just how different would FFP be, in that instance? I’ve been at an electorate selection meeting.
If you don’t like a MP or party, that’s fine. Vote for others, and persuade others to. But don’t expect to have it all your own way. People have differing opinions to your own, and like it or not, they have a right to express it at the ballot box, and for the ballot count to fairly represent the opinions of all voters.
Those who advocate for FPP are essentially anti-democratic. They want marginal seats to matter, they want minority views suppressed, they want the Boundaries Commission to decide elections.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
An unappealing list of names as I’ve ever seen. It’s going to depend which faction gains the upper hand. I agree with DPF’s idea of Goff as a temp for leader. Cannot really see the ‘boy wonder’ Cunliffe as a decent choice for leader longterm. They’re going to be in the same boat as the Liberals are in over the ditch in Aussie. A bunch of has-beens who don’t know where they’re going or how they intend to get there.
My prediction is expect to see more senior MP’s from Labour announce their retirement before the next election starting with Cullen and King.
The other scrap is going to be behind the scenes with the non-parliamentary side of the party currently stacked with Clark’s stooges.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Lindsay
Are you talking about the public service, the unions – or both ?
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Policy Parrot makes a good point, but I can’t help but feel that people who do attack Peters and Bradford because they are “not elected” by a constituency, only do so because of their distaste for that politician. I mean, did they ever say the same about Brash?
(or for that matter, Rodney Hide pre-2005?)
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Maybe “Clark’s stooges” are battling to stay afloat on the Liarbour tug boat. Who said the walls are coming down?
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Burt,
My guess is the whole Labour mob will start fighting amongst themselves regardless of where they are.
Cannot wait for that to happen!
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Will fight like cats, witches and wacko’s?
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
D4J,
It will be like the infighting circa 1990 when they sank faster than the Lusitania. By election day Helen’s name will be like a bad smell within Labour, ditto Cullen.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Can you imagine the skeletons in the closet after election day? Actually scratch closet, it’ll be an aircraft hanger full of nasty, festering surprises that dear old Helen will no longer be able to keep hidden from the light of day.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The pressure on Labour has just been ratcheted up a notch this afternoon with PPCS closing it’s Burnside opperation in Dunedin. Clare Curran and Pete(r) Hodgson won’t like that at all.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
What a disgusting, unseemly scramble it’s going to be watching them try to save their own arses.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
What are you all going on about.
I heard Clark tell Paul Holmes this morning that it is a `rogue poll’ (she used slightly different words) and Labour are still within sight of National.
Dream on you silly woman.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I’d say all of the above may lose their seats in Parliament due to prosecution post election… corrupt practices are already starting to bubble to the surface and when Key is Prime Minister, and accepts the public desire for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into corruption in the bureaucracy and the Labour Party, the whole wasp’s nest will be blown open… Clark herself may escape to the UN, perhaps taking up residence in France or some other country that shelters war criminals. But Mallard, Jones, Cunliffe and all the others will have their day in court… and even if they do not end up in jail or barred from office (probably as a result of claiming stupidity) the public would simply laugh at any press conference any of them gave as ‘leader’. (Quotations included because I don’t see much leadership coming from these drones)
And if Labour thinks they got it bad in 2008 wait until 2011… when they find their coffers empty because the public money they are used to has dried up, when the full extent of their crimes are revealed… I am praying that after 2011 there will be no more Labour party at all.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
alex Masterly said “The pressure on Labour has just been ratcheted up a notch this afternoon with PPCS closing it’s Burnside opperation in Dunedin. Clare Curran and Pete(r) Hodgson won’t like that at all.”
Especially when people are reminded of Ruth Dyson’s crassly stupid comment about job losses:
“I don’t think that this is bad news at all, actually”
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
A note to DPF- Donald Pryde is the Labour candidate for Clutha-Southland. He was a Labour candidate for Dunedin South against Claire Curran. He is also a mate of Andrew Little in the EPMWU union. He’s got as much chance of winning Clutha-Southland as I have of flying to the planet Saturn tomorrow.
Vote:My only comment is that a decimated Labour party although a nice feel for a “tory” like myself is not what is needed. A strong opposition is fundamental to a operating democracy. As well, we must have a ginger group within the government, be it ACT,United Future or a ginger group like the early 60′s with Muldoon,Gordon,McIntyre,Walker,Talboys and their ilk.Keeping the “buggers” honest and on course
Poor oppositions can negatively impact on govts just like Nationals poor efforts from 1999-2002. Let’s not put the boot in too hard.National was in this situation just eight years ago !
May 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
pushmepullu: “when Key is Prime Minister, and accepts the public desire for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into corruption in the bureaucracy and the Labour Party.”
Key would never authorise any such Inquiry. It would backfire on his own party..
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Frank
What this country needs is a new standard of openness and accountability. – Umm, hang on a minute, haven’t we been promised that before?
Before the cover our asses retrospective validation, before the misleading stories about interest free loans, before the Taito Field cover up, before the Immigration cover up….
Don’t vote Labour !
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“That, barring the heavens answering their prayers ”
These are socialist, they hate the concept of god more than tax cuts.
I suspect god hates them back.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Neil
Here is a deal – If National don’t steal public money to win the election and then validate their law breaking with retrospective legislation then we shouldn’t put the boot into Labour too hard for doing exactly that in 2005 as National will need to be balanced with a good opposition.
Other option – If Labour win – sell up and head to Aussie – at this stage of the game that is my plan.
National may also use the very effective Labour party excuse for everything – Labour did it too 18 years ago! However what surprises me the most is that Labour supporters don’t actually care how corrupt thier party is as long as there is an example of similar behaviour by National they just don’t care.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“Street as Deputy Leader would be very resisted by Goff and the more moderate faction. Goff would rightly suspect he would be being setup to be interim Leader, and then rolled by the same forces which rolled Moore in 1993.”
Yup, DPF, you certainly called that one right. I really can’t see how anybody could seriously believe that Maryan Street would have any appeal to the average man and woman in the street, though. Have I got this wrong?
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
pdm @ 3.58 refers…funny that, I just heard Clark apologist and boot licker Brian Edwards mention something similar on Radio Pravda.
He’s a great advertisement for the arrogance that is the Labour Party – we should get him a regular slot on a station the majority of Kiwis listen to so he can drive the poll ratings even further through the floor.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Neil, I believe Clark has actually destroyed the Labour Party as it has been known. She has done so by inculcating a culture of the grossest dishonesty, corruption and expediency which culture we are now seeing permeates the once independent public service and upper echelons of the police force. Surely this is an opportunity for the Green Party, stupid and loopy yes but comparably honest to come through and take the mantle of your ‘strong opposition.’ Perhaps the Greens and the Maori Party might coalesce to form a credible opposition although I’d like to see John Key invite the Maori Party and ACT onto the government benches, no matter what his majority might be. Now that would REALLY sink Labour for twenty years.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Wanting Duynhoven to stand side from the “safe” new plymouth seat?
Actually, in 2005, Duynhoven got 17,512 votes aginst Moira Irving’s 12,073.
However, in the party vote, Labour got 12,542, against 14,836 for the Nats. I think its rather silly for Labour to call for Duynhoven to stand-aside on that basis! It appears people voted for HIM, not for Labour!
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I personally object to the minor parties having influence in excess of their share of the votes – and that goes both ways. Getting policy concessions for things that are arguably only wanted by 5% of voters (or less, as we may see with Act in 2008) is hardly democratic.
Bradford & Winston are two clear examples – Bradford with anti-smacking, & winston with baubles.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Perhaps the electorate is replicating what it did in 2002 – when it assumed that National would lose and started to spread the vote among the minor parties. Perhaps the public thinks that the battle between National and Labour has been won by National – more likely lost by Labour, and are trying to ensure there is in fact an opposition.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Wow
Vote:Not an insult in sight. No ad hominen attacks.No name calling. I wonder why this thread is so civilized.
Any ideas?
May 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
If Street became leader would that mean it has become a mandatory requirement to be a lesbian if you have desires of running the Labour Party?
She would make a great team with having the women with the mans name (Chadwick) as deputy.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Gosh, it does all look very interim, whichever way you cut the cake. Especially when you get Shane Jones into the mix, he should be kept where he is of most use – bullying people behind the scenes.
What for the snap election just after the budget, that way Mikhael can promise the earth and have no real fear on having to deliver and also hope that the loss will not be a complete route.
Goff – o’dearleader
Vote:Carter – depty’o'dearleader
Cunliffe – commisar’o'rouble
Jones – KGB and Foreign Affairs (Replacing Mallard as bully boy senior – mallard would probably bow out this election).
Street – seniorcomrade’socialwelfare
May 19th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Apparently in Labour leaning electorates they can only match 40% of the electoral roll to a home land line.
For a national safe seat its 60%.
Along with all the refusals to even talk to a polling company.
Not all the eggs have been laid yet.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
A snap election just after the budget must be a real pissibolity. It ain’t going to get any better for Labour. Just imagine the scandals which will come out if Winston is allowed to fester for four months.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Ghost that could also mean in the Labour leaning electorates those same people don’t have Tv’s or read newspapers and so will be unaware the election has been held until its to late.
You must have some wicked wet dreams with an imagination wild enough to think Labour has a chance.
Does another company operation closing down in Dunedin (traditional Labour area) still bode well for the left?
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Sorry Ghostie, I don’t buy it.
The polling companies are clued up and can sample accordingly by qualifying respondents if they think the sample if skewed.
They don’t pay good money for a poll only to waste it on dubious data. They actually have reputations, and will invest time and energy to get things right.
Besides, all losing politicians tend to blame dodgy polls rather than admitting they have a discord with the public due to their policies. One has to try and keep morale up for the team, after all.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Fishbowl actually makes a very good point. If Labour look like dog tucker, do slightly left wing voters start voting tactically?
or even better, do moderate Labour voters swing in behind Key to ensure he can govern alone without Peters, ACT or the Maori Party?
Just like in 2002, it bears some thought.
It would mean that an interim leader (or two) would be selected, in much the same way that English took National to disaster, was replaced by Brash (who despite doing well, didn’t do well enough), and then the prodigy gets the chance.
perhaps the same will be true of Labour. Goff, Cunliffe then Jones? It’s even more fascinating because Labour is far more factionalised than National on the basis of identity.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Regardless of the election result eg how much National wins by, I think Key would be very wise to tie up the Maori Party and Act anyway.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Souther Raider – I think you make a good point. Even if they win an outright majority, Key should define some kind of “congress” or “consultation” with Hide and Turia to promote a healthy relationship.
After all, the Maori Party are in contest with Labour, it suits National to ensure the Maori Party get some concessions as independents in the house in order to keep defining themselves in their seats.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Euripidies said it first but Chris Trotter used it yesterday in reference to Helen Clark.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4373330a1861.html
I’ve been positing that there is a split in the Labour Party for some time now, to the amusement of some on the left. Funny they weren’t laughing today. In fact some were quite cutting about Trotter.
I’ve thought it for a while that Helen Clark is starting to display ‘Thatcher Syndrome’. It is the tendency to create enemies to smash with a hammer when the enemies in question required but a stern telling off. I’ve also been of the opinion that Helen is gifted in the ability to ‘start a fight in an empty room’.
These ‘battling’ tendencies can become labelled ‘bullying’ tendencies however, when the perception arises that the ‘battler’ is no longer the underdog. Despite the promise that MMP would bring us a kinder, gentler kind of representation, it has still encouraged politicians to engage in adversarial and polarised debate. Helen Clark has exemplified this approach, by fostering a wide contempt of anything National and by cowing even her allies into submission. But this is not Helen’s fault. It is how politics work.
I have also posted a few other theories about Helen Clark:
Maharey resigned because he was offered leadership after the next election and he didn’t want to be Leader of the Opposition
Helen Clark had mooted her departure after the next election to the inner circle
If Labour win Helen Clark will be out within 12 months
If Labour lose, perhaps sooner
Labour are stuck with Helen Clark as their greatest electoral asset
But also lumbered with her as their greatest potential liability
They can’t sack her, but can’t keep her.
All they can do is go into the next election on auto-pilot, quash as many fires as possible and hope that the post election scenario will not be too devastating for Labour’s longer-term recovery
above all they can’t allow the voters to even get a whiff of the idea that Helen Clark will not be around for long post-election.
As posted Jan 26th Lee – MWT
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
True point goblin. You’d hope that it was a relationship that was negotiated from a position of power though.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Exactly but it would remove the opportunity for the left to claim the new Govt was elistist or didn’t reflect the various cultures and groups in NZ.
Personally I have no issue with giving the Maori Party MP’s some associate roles in Health, Education etc as you can then make them put there money where their mouth is. Sometimes they come out with some wisdom and other times they really piss me off (eg Turia’s comments about tagging), but compared to Labour pissing me off 100% of the time its not to bad.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Tracy Watkins says, “the rising pressure to preserve the best and brightest in Liarbore’s current ranks”, I didn’t know that Tracy wrote satire, she is very good !!!!.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
One other thought is that if you could get the Maori Party into a position of status and then move the Maori seats you could screw over Labour.
In one scenario Maori voters may actually have to choose between party votes for the Maori Party or Labour instead of covering theiir bases. This could mean Maori voters move their votes from Labour across to the Maori Party to ensure they get over 5%. Labour would also lose the one or two Maori seats they always win.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Side show when the tide is already out there isn’t much to choose from.
I wish the media would do a MP to MP comparison down the list between National and Labour. It would be a disturbing view. Kind of like the All Blacks playing Georgia.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I’m happy that Key has now raised the idea to hold a referendum on MMP. Please note, he has not said, get rid of it. He has just suggested that the public be allowed to engage in what has become an unatural practice. i.e put their views forward.
The enthusiasts for MMP have always over dramatised the extent of public acceptance of MMP. The vote was 51 -49. Allowing for rounding it was probably closer. In most decent democracies such constitutional changes would require a greater majority.
Having said that, the Nats need to mount a real campaign against the Greens and NZ First who must not be allowed to hold the majority (That is both National and Labour) to ransom. The Sue Bradfords and Winston Firsts must be sent packing.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I’m not quite sure what you meant by that, DPF, but you may be a little unfair to Harry Duynhoven. I hate to say this, but I’ve whanau in New Plymouth and last time they split their vote between National and Duynhoven because they thought he was a good guy and an effective and active local MP. (His electorate vote was 4,570 higher than Labour’s party vote which would strongly imply there was a fair number of people who felt the same.) I don’t think Labour will be doing itself any favours if local feel their MP got knifed by head office.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Craig: All I mean is that the local Labour Party electorate are very loyal to their MPs and would resist a head office attempt to have them retire.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
What about Chris Carter & Darren Hughes…. that would be an intriguing, energised leadership duel.
Carter makes me laugh, but probably not the right reasons.
I’d never want them to get into power, but they’d make a fun opposition leadership.
A more serious proposition/threat would be Cunliffe & Dalziel duel.
My lest preferred duel is Clark’n Cullen. Oh wait, that’s the current team. How about Cullen’n Dyson… or worse still, Dyson’n Tizzard!!!! I do apologise to anyone reading this blog late for any nightmares that my comment my ensue.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
DPF:
Ah, so I did misread you there. Sorry about that, and I’d say you have a point. Harry Duynhoven isn’t exactly fresh meat, but he’s doing something right, and any head office attempt to roll him would go down like the proverbial bucket of cold sick. Deservedly so, in my view.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
As I said a number of months ago Street is a shoe in for deputy no matter who gets top job.
Remember – she was President of the Labour Party, she is a “woman”, but with some doubt, she is a lesbian – her family have some serious media influence in the Simpson/Clark cabal.
Vote: