Grant Robertson has confirmed he is standing for the leadership, and made a very strong case on TV last night about being part of the future, not the past, and able to unify Labour.
Shane Jones has said he is standing and it is almost unthinkable David Cunliffe won’t stand. At this stage I am comparing just Cunliffe and Robertson as they are by far the most likely to win. Hard to see how Jones can win a majority of caucus, members or unions – however he could pick up enough support to stop the others getting 50% – meaning second preferences will be crucial.
I’ve done a quick comparison of the relative strengths of the two main candidates, in the table below. And then I give my pick as to who would give Labour the best chance of winning in 2014.
|Speaking Ability||Can be a charismatic speaker, but has to be careful not to overdo the hyperbole||Not traditionally charismatic, but can do a powerful speech|
|Likeability||The dislike of Cunliffe is intense but not as widely shared as some portray. Most people who know Cunliffe like him||Generally acknowledged as likeable and affable, even by opponents|
|Political Management||Cunliffe has very good political strategy and tactical skills. He would not allow Labour to operate in an un-cordinated fashion||Robertson is a good political operator tactically, but some questions over his strategic judgement. Had a leading role in the unsucessful 2011 campaign|
|Issue Management||Cunliffe has shown an excellent ability to drive an issue both inside and outside Parliament as we saw with carpark tax and snapper limits||Robertson has been at various time health, tertiary education and employment spokesperson and never really bruised any of the respective Ministers|
|Question Time||Cunliffe is a more than competent questioner, and can think on his feet, but not landed any killer blows||Robertson is probably the most effective Labour MP at taking on the PM – no mean feat|
|Unity||The big risk. If Cunliffe wins the leadership, the caucus could remain divided and undermining the leader||Robertson, if he beats Cunliffe, would have a very strong mandate and the party would unite behind him|
|Party Hierarchy||Most of the NZ Council back Robertson, but Cunliffe would be supported if he wins||Robertson is very close to most of the NZ Council, and would have strong backing from them|
|Party Members||Cunliffe has strong support in Auckland, and Labour has few members left in provincial cities. He also has the backing of many activists on social media. What will be crucial is how strongly Cunliffe wins Auckland||Robertson has stronger support than many realise. He has the Lower North Island locked up, reasonable South Island support and Young Labour are (mainly) his personal fiefdom|
|Policy||Cunliffe has been pushing a very left line, but that has been rather tactical to position himself vs Shearer. Unknown what his true policy prescription would be.||Robertson is probably more left in his beliefs than Cunliffe, but is in the Helen Clark school of gradual sustainable change.|
|Economic Credentials||Cunliffe is a former finance spokesperson, had a very good private sector career including Boston Consulting Group and strong economic credentials||Robertson has never worked in the private sector (as in a post uni significant job)|
|Media relations||Cunliffe has a reasonably good relationship with media, but not especially strong. No reporters he is particularly close to.||Robertson is assiduous at courting the press gallery, is very close to several journalists, and popular with most of them|
|Media interviews||Cunliffe is very good generally in interviews, but can come off a bit “smarmy’||Robertson also generally very good, and has the ability to sound very reasonable|
So both candidates are well qualified, and will (at least initially) give Labour a boost in the polls. But which one should Labour choose?
Well if I was a Labour member, I’d vote for David Cunliffe. He is a bigger risk for Labour, but he also has the bigger potential to gain votes.
The risk with Cunliffe is Labour will remain divided, and that New Zealand won’t warm to him – on the basis his own colleagues haven’t.
But the reason I think he is worth the risk is his economic credentials. The major issue for the last election and the next one will be economic management. One of the reasons National has done so well is John Key resonates economic credibility with his strong business background.
Labour needs a leader that can be equally credible, or at least reasonably credible. While Grant is a skilled politician, his background is basically entirely within Government. He was a student politician, then a parliamentary staffer and then an MP, with a couple of brief spells with MFAT and Otago University. That makes it hard for him to convince New Zealanders that he can run the economy better than John Key and Bill English.
Cunliffe has studied at Harvard Business School, and worked at Boston Consulting Group. He was also a very competent Communications and ICT Minister. That gives him a greater opportunity (but not a guarantee) to convince New Zealanders that Labour can manage the economy. They don’t need to convince people that they will spend more on welfare and families and the like. They need to convince on economic management.
So as I said David Cunliffe is a bigger risk for Labour. Grant Robertson is a very solid performer and is certainly a more than safe option. If their ambition is to just gain 4% and govern with the support of the Greens, Winston and Hone, then Grant could well achieve that. But if they want to get a result in the high 30s or even higher, they need to take a risk on David Cunliffe.