Kiwiblog

John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

What were they thinking? Why did four of Labour’s most politically astute MPs – Phil Goff, Annette King, Clayton Cosgrove and Kris Faafoi – not foresee how awful it would look for senior party figures to be seen hobnobbing with SkyCity executives in the company’s corporate box at Ed

Almost a quorum for a caucus meeting!

The consequent perception is that Labour says one thing and does another. And, as oft-stated, perception is everything in politics.

To add further insult to injury, the MPs were fooling no one in lambasting the $400 million-plus project.

At some point, Labour is going to have to shift its position on the convention centre deal away from outright opposition to something more accommodating of the aspirations of the thousands without work in Labour strongholds such as South Auckland who view SkyCity’s latest venture as offering the possibility of a secure job.

It will be fascinating to see their election policy. Will they vow to legislate the deal away without compensation, which would see the convention centre construction stop overnight.

The gains that the party made in the polls earlier this year have largely evaporated. That has been replaced by a discernible sense of drift. David Shearer is once again struggling to gain profile. Sources describe working relationships in the leader’s parliamentary office as “dysfunctional”.

Despite the denials, I have now heard from three independent sources that the decision has been made for staff changes there, and they are actively trying to recruit a replacement.

Some MPs are at cross-purposes over policy. Others – notably Trevor Mallard – are consumed with making mountains out of parliamentary mole-hills. How many times can you stage a walkout from the parliamentary chamber without losing dramatic effect?

As I said, it is now more note-worthy when Mallard doesn’t walk out! And recall this is Labour’s nominee to be Speaker!

The blunt truth is that in terms of activity, innovative ideas, outright attack and all-round impact, the Greens are making Opposition look easy. They are running rings around Labour. They also wisely maintained a degree of perspective regarding Dunne, with Russel Norman this week questioning the value of a privileges committee hearing which is being sought by Labour.

Yep, the Greens did go too far also with talk of Police complaints, but soon wised up and backtracked.

David Shearer’s February reshuffle of his shadow Cabinet has, however, so far failed to create any sense of urgency that might suggest the party actually wants to govern. …

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking ever faster on Shearer.

I think Shearer will survive, because the caucus can no longer just roll him. If they no confidence him, then the leadership goes to a full ballot with the unions and members having the majority of the votes. The outcome of Cunliffe v Robertson is by no means certain.

David Cunliffe blogs at Red Alert:

Next week thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders will wake up to a cut in their take-home pay because of policy decisions by the National/United Future government.

From 1 April 2013 the minimum KiwiSaver contribution is increasing from 2% to 3%, while the Student Loan compulsory repayment jumps a whopping 20% to 12 cents in every dollar earned over the repayment threshold.

Just a second. A Labour MP is complaining that KiwiSaver contributions are going from 2% to 3%?

Under Labour the minimum contributions were 4%, and they complained bitterly when national reduced it to 2%.

Now Labour stands for a gradual move to universal, employment-based KiwiSaver contributions over time, because that will grow the economy and secure savers in retirement.

And while KiwiSaver is currently voluntary, meaning those who can’t afford a drop in the take home pay don’t have to join, Labour propose to make it compulsory to force every worked to take a drop in their take home pay (to use DC’s rhetoric).

There are valid arguments for and against compulsory KiwiSaver, but it is a bit rich to criticise a KiwiSaver contribution increase as being a cut to take home pay, when your policy is to make it compulsory!

But with unemployment today at record levels, and with so many families only just getting by, it’s crucial that changes which hit people in the pocket are well-signalled and well-understood before they take effect.

Umm, the policy was announced well over 12 months ago. And if you are unemployed you are not contributing a portion of your salary to KiwiSaver.

Unless Labour is proposing that KiwiSaver not just be made compulsory for employees, but also for beneficiaries?

David Cunliffe blogs at Red Alert:

Resolve is building to save our trees

Resolve is really building in West Auckland to stop National’s chainsaw massacre in the Waitakere Ranges.

Te Atatū Labour MP Phil Twyford, Labour’s Environment spokesperson Maryan Street, Councillors, Local Board representatives and ratepayers groups are all backing the community’s determination to save our trees – which together we surely will.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again every time this misinformation is promulgated.

THEY’RE NOT YOUR FUCKING TREES.

There has been absolutely no change in laws around trees on public or Council land.

The law change is around whether a home owner can trim or fell a tree that they own on their property.

And the law still allows Councils to protect individual trees of high value. What the law change does is stop Councils from doing blanket protection orders.

The misinformation and misleading language used on this issue is deliberate. The vast majority of the public don’t want to have to pay hundreds of dollars to Councils just for permission to trim their own trees.

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

David Shearer has again faced down his rival, David Cunliffe. Now he must decide what to do with him. …

Despite having been confirmed as party leader three times in a little over a year, Mr Shearer can have no confidence that Mr Cunliffe will accept today’s result by behaving any differently than his record suggests.

There is no point trying to unify the party by granting the New Lynn MP a senior role. The Clark/Cullen or Brash/English olive-branch approach just won’t work.

Mr Shearer should look instead at how Mr Key and Mr English ruthlessly despatched Dr Brash in 2006 as his model.

By getting him out of parliament altogether, Mr Key made sure Dr Brash could not become a focal point for any National MPs who were uncomfortable with the centrist direction he intended to take the party.

Any suggestion Dr Brash might ever return to the leadership was pre-emptively void and National was accordingly unified around the new direction Mr Key and Mr English had decided to take the party.

Mr Cunliffe and his crew have been a drag on Labour’s ability to unify for four years and there is no sign they have any intention of changing. The best way for Mr Shearer to unify the party is to cut his throat now by indicating he will never be returned to a senior role.

 If it leads to a byelection in New Lynn, so much the better. Byelections are always good for oppositions and Mr Shearer’s promise of 100,000 cheap houses is bound to be popular among Labour voters out west.

I disagree with Matthew on this. I think that Shearer should give Cunliffe a meaningful portfolio in the reshuffle, and offer him a path back the front bench.  Of course he can not return to the front bench immediately, but there should be a path back. The best thing to do would be to give him a chunky portfolio, but away from anything economic as that may allow him to upstage Parker.

Health wouldn’t be a bad pick for Cunliffe. He is a former Minister. No other health spokesperson (including Grant Robertson) has come close to ruffling Tony Ryall. If Cunliffe could hurt the Government on health, that would be the sort of win that would make it possible to then put him back on the front bench.

Stuff reports:

David Cunliffe was unceremoniously stripped of his portfolios – and he faced further ignominy last week when the Labour Party replaced him on a parliamentary trust.

In an incident described by a witness as “humiliating”, Mr Cunliffe arrived at a meeting of the Business and Parliament Trust on Wednesday to find fellow MP David Parker in his place.

A staffer from the office of leader David Shearer decided to replace the New Lynn MP after his front-bench demotion – but no-one thought to tell Mr Cunliffe.

This tells you a lot about the current state of affairs.

1. Staffers in Labour decide which MPs sit on which committees or trusts
2. They didn’t even inform their Leader of their decisions
3. They didn’t think they should even inform the MP they were sacking from the trust, that he had been sacked

It is going to be fascinating to observe them trying to run a country, should they win the election.

Tapu Misa writes in the NZ Herald:

No independent observer of Shearer’s media performances could have failed to notice his potentially fatal deficiencies.

Whatever his strengths, however nice a human being he is, he hadn’t lived up to the hype. If National was losing some of its gloss in the polls, it was no thanks to Shearer’s stumbling leadership. …

If the criticism seemed harsh and overly impatient, it has to be seen in the context of the past four years.

The party had been conspicuously united behind Phil Goff despite widely held reservations almost from the moment he assumed the leadership.

Much good that show of unity did them.

Now they were being asked to extend that faith to a political neophyte who, if anything, had fewer weapons in his arsenal.

If politics is a contest of ideas, it needs well-armed champions. …

But the reality is that whatever Cunliffe’s credentials, his thwarted leadership ambitions would have been dead if Shearer had lived up to expectations. No one would have been hankering after Cunliffe’s superior grasp of finance or communication skills. Or wondering why Shearer didn’t follow the canny lead of Helen Clark and John Key and keep his talented rival close, giving him the deputy leadership and finance portfolio.

Would this have happened if Shearer had kept Cunliffe as Finance Spokesperson? Would people be saying Russel Norman is the MP of the Year if he had been competing against Cunliffe instead of Parker?

Did Shearer’s much-praised speech silence the doubters? Was it the speech to bind all of Labour?

Those at the conference were certainly excited. I watched it on YouTube and was less smitten. Maybe you had to be there to feel the rapture.

However good, it was asking a lot of one speech. Especially when Shearer’s subsequent TV appearances show him bumbling his way through straightforward questions on Labour’s new housing policy and Cunliffe’s summary execution.

It’s nonsense to say this doesn’t matter.

There is no “rightful leader” of the Labour Party. The position isn’t Shearer’s by right, nor Cunliffe’s for that matter. It ought to be threatened if enough people feel the incumbent hasn’t earned it.

71 days to go until the next vote!

Phil Taylor in the NZ Herald profiles David Cunliffe:

In government, Cunliffe was one of Clark’s standout ministers, succeeding, where others failed, in unbundling Telecom’s local loop monopoly, and making bold decisions as health minister.

I’ve said many times that I thought Cunliffe was an excellent ICT and Comms Minister. He not only made good decisions, but he absolutely understood the issues from major to minor, and showed a determination to make beneficial changes.

I have to say also that I’ve never personally seen any of the issues cited by some of his colleagues about him. Yes he is ambitious, and I certainly think he made the wrong decision last weekend in his choice of words. But I’ve always found him honest and trustworthy. However I accept that others have a different perspective.

“Look, he’s a nice bloke, I like the guy. He was a competent minister [and] in my view he was a team player. I’d have to say that he polarises people. I don’t know what it is about his personality but he has the ability to make people utterly despise him.”

Two sources who have worked closely with Cunliffe are adamant he is made of the right stuff. The former staffer rates him as an exceptional boss, “warm, friendly, polite, and caring about his staff”. The staffer did no see him lose his temper with anyone despite long hours and the pressure of making tough political decisions such as approving animal organ transplants, sacking a hospital board, and going against the wishes of the strong herceptin lobby.

He can’t understand why Cunliffe attracts such passionate opposition among his caucus colleagues.

A lot of people who have worked with Cunliffe only have good things to say about him.

“He had a terrible personality clash with Clayton Cosgrove [a Shearer loyalist].

I think they both came in together in 1999 so there was a bit of rivalry. Cosgrove is thought to be the MP responsible for giving Cunliffe the Silent T nickname – but this has not been confirmed.

Quite right, says a health sector source who worked closely with Cunliffe. He is the right type to lead New Zealand, she told the Herald , having character, brains, heart and being in “politics for all the right reasons”.

Suggestions of arrogance were “a myth. It’s jealousy and spite. He’s talented, he’s open about his ambitions. That’s him he’s honest to a fault. He cares passionately about New Zealand and he has ideas about how to make it a better society.”

But Matthew Hooton in NBR is less generous:

But after Mr Cunliffe’s incredible antics this week – the ridiculously facile answers to the media; the smarm; the smirking; the fake wounded innocence; the bizarre victim mentality – my view is reversed.

Put Mr Cunliffe on national TV every night and the voters will certainly be repulsed. …

Hooton lays waste to the claims that Cunliffe did nothing wrong:

Now, Team Cunliffe expects us to believe, there never was any kind of leadership challenge planned at all.

According to Mr Cunliffe’s diminishing supporters, all their man has done these last four years is diligently work on new policy to break the current neoliberal hegemony.  (Yes, they really do talk that way.) …

The new story being put about by Team Cunliffe is that all the speculation about a leadership challenge at Labour’s conference was a right-wing media construct.

Under this scenario, current leader Mr Shearer was put into the job by a right-wing cabal as the human face of the dreaded neoliberalism.  (Team Cunliffe also sometimes says Mr Shearer is a neoconservative but consistency is not its strong point.) …

Alarmed at such apostasy, Team Cunliffe tells us, right-wing media barons, including even at Radio New Zealand, instructed their reporters to make up a story that he was challenging Mr Shearer for the leadership.

Poor Mr Cunliffe!  When he arrived at his party conference, the dastardly right-wing press gallery asked him whether he would support Mr Shearer’s leadership next year.

Mr Cunliffe could have said “yes” and the devious neoliberal plot would have been thwarted.  But, no, our Mr Cunliffe is way too honest for that.  Instead, he reserved his position:  “This is a constitutional conference, not a leadership conference.”

Disingenuously, the right-wing media decided that the fifth-ranked MP in the main opposition party refusing to publicly support his leader at their annual conference was newsworthy.

They even used camera angles to try to make Mr Cunliffe look smug and smarmy.

He’s not of course.  As his supporters point out, it’s just that his mind works so much faster than anyone else’s. 

Ouch, Matthew can be so sarcastic.

John Armstrong is more balanced:

Finance was not the only job Cunliffe was hankering for in Opposition.

According to insiders, he also unsuccessfully lobbied the caucus to appoint a second deputy leader. No prizes for guessing who intended filling the job.

Such an unquenchable ambition causes him to exempt himself from the laws of politics to which everyone else adheres.

It was not the first time and – as the past week or so has shown – not the last time that he has overreached himself.

That, in a nutshell, is the tragedy of David Cunliffe. He has most of the attributes required of a leader – intellect, political acumen, the ability to articulate the party’s position on something in simple, easily understood language.

He is pragmatic enough to bend when necessary, yet principled enough to stick to principle when the occasion demands.

But like Icarus, the figure of Greek mythology, Cunliffe tends to fly too close to the sun.

Can he come back:

The question now is whether colleagues could work under him. One of this week’s most significant statements was made by one such colleague, Chris Hipkins, who accused Cunliffe of undermining the Labour team.

If Cunliffe did manage to come back, then a number of senior MPs would not credibly be able to serve under him and would have to head to the backbenches.

Finally why did the Cunliffe “challenge fail? I think Claire Trevett has the answer:

Sources have also since claimed that on the Friday Cunliffe and his ally, Rajen Prasad, unsuccessfully tried to stack the Ethnic Sector council with Cunliffe supporters, including trying to install Cunliffe’s electorate committee member Susan Zhu as chairwoman. The ethnic sector group has more than 1000 members in it and is a potentially rich voting pool for a hopeful leadership contender. The rumour was that the plan was for the ethnic sector group to eventually publicly endorse Cunliffe come the time of a leadership contest.

If your plan for seizing the leadership rests on the strategic genius of Rajen Prasad, then you deserve to lose

It is interesting though that all the media have been full of stories against Cunliffe – obviously coming from other MPs. Yet Cunliffe himself has stayed quiet.

The New Lynn Labour Electorate Committee have said:

Statement by the New Lynn Labour Electorate Committee

November 21, 2012

The New Lynn Electorate Committee of the Labour Party, at a special meeting called today, voted unanimously to express its full confidence in its Member of Parliament David Cunliffe. While acknowledging that this decision was within the prerogative of the party leader, the LEC noted David’s demotion with regret.

The LEC also resolved to raise with the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party concerns about recent public statements made by Labour’s Senior Whip, and the leaking of confidential caucus information by unnamed MPs following Tuesday’s emergency caucus meeting.

As these processes are now internal party matters we do not intend making further comment.

There is a lot of anger over those comments – more so than the demotion. A demotion can be reversed eventually. But having your Chief Whip call you “dishonest” and “disingenuous” are quotes that can never be shaken off.

Jane Clifton writes in the Listener:

Like a dozen plotters before him, David Cunliffe has today paid the price for believing, against all historical precedent, that he could mime his disloyalty, and not get into trouble because he didn’t actually utter the naughty words out loud.

For all that his supporters, inside and outside the caucus, are insisting that he did nothing wrong, he really and truly did the coupster’s equivalent of waving his knickers at disembarking sailors. He followed several of the bog-standard, by-the-numbers steps taught in Coups 101, to the point that he might have studied at the knee of Maurice Williamson, Brian Connell or Richard Prebble.

1. You make speeches with tacit but heavily coded inferences that if they made you the leader, you would introduce kick-butt policies that the incumbent is too gutless/politically unsound/incompetent to contemplate – carefully omitting specifics.

2. You tickle up edginess among the many anxious party supporters who are panicking at what they perceive is a lack of progress in the party’s profile and poll fortunes.

3. You agree to a live TV interview on the morning of the party’s annual conference debate about the rules for electing the leader at which you conspicuously avoid expressing support for the leader.

Jane is right that DC did play a bit too cute at times with his speeches and his failure to appear more supportive of Shearer. However as Jane notes, this demotion is different to other ones:

It was easy enough for past perpetrators of disloyalty like Chris Carter, Brian Connell and Maurice Williamson to be dogboxed. At the time of their treacherous outings, they weren’t particularly valuable contributors to the big picture – or even useful low-profile Cinderellas. But the backbenching of Cunliffe is a massive loss for Labour. …

Of course, the uncomfortable corollary to Shearer’s no-brainer decision to dogbox Cunliffe is that the wider party is by no means of the same mind as the caucus. The flavour of decision-making at the weekend’s conference made this very clear. This remains both a risk for Shearer and an opportunity for Cunliffe. A lot of the party activists have bought the line that Cunliffe is the party’s criminally unrecognised saviour, and what they will doubtless see as his crucifixion today will intensify Cunliffe’s support base.

I’ve been thinking about how this all came to unfold. The catalyst was Cunliffe’s lines at the Labour Party conference, and this got me thinking.

Why in God’s name hadn’t all Labour Party MPs been given clear talking points about what to say regarding the leadership, for the conference?

I mean, the main focus of the conference was about the rules for electing the leader.  Did no one think that a journalist or two might ask some questions about where MPs stand on the leadership? Did the fact several bloggers and commentators on the left called for Shearer to go not ring a bell in the Labour Leader’s office that maybe some journalists will ask questions?

It is an absolute failure of political management that someone very senior didn’t make sure that all Labour MPs had very clear instructions on what to say if the media ask them how they will vote in February. And most of all, an absolute failure that someone had not sat down with David Cunliffe and negotiated acceptable wording for him. Cunliffe may have been ambitious, but if some lines had been negotiated in advance I believe he would have kept to them. MPs know a failure to stick to an agreed position is political death.

Some may say that is being wise with hindsight. That’s nonsense. I’ve been a parliamentary staffer through several coups. I’ve seen press secretaries spend hours negotiating exact wording of positions with MPs so they can keep their future options open (No aspiring leader ever wants to give a Shermanesque denial that they will never ever stand for the leadership) but minimise any speculation that they are seeking it now. I saw this negotiated with Bill English when Jenny Shipley was leader. I also saw (more from a distance) the negotiations when Don Brash resigned involving Key, English and Brownlee. By being pro-active on it, it meant that leadership changes were relatively orderly.

Even the stupidest political staffer should have worked out that it would be a good idea to negotiate exact talking points with David Cunliffe (in fact the entire Labour caucus) before the conference. And even if the Chief of Staff somehow overlooks this most basic step, then surely the Deputy Leader (who used to be H3) or the Chief Whip (also an experienced former staffer) should have thought of this.

All they had to do was give to caucus a set of acceptable lines to be used in case people asked about the February vote. If they had, then this sacking may not have happened.

So it begs the question. Was the failure to do so incompetence or deliberate?

At the time of the leadership election in late 2011, a couple of people in Labour both said they hoped that the result of the election would see Cunliffe not just fail to gain the leadership, but also out of Parliament. Since then we saw the backbiting to Duncan Garner about him, and finally he has been been sacked from the shadow cabinet.

So the question is, is there a path back for him?

Let’s look very carefully at what David Shearer said:

“David Cunliffe is a talented MP and it is possible there is a road back for him. But I would like him to take the time to reflect on his ability to play a part in our team. 

The phrasing is significant, I believe. It does not refer to Cunliffe’s desire to be part of the team, but his ability. That clearly suggests that Shearer, and the old guard, do not believe he is capable of being a team player.

Hence my conclusion is that Cunliffe has no realistic chance of rehabilitation under the current leadership.

The comments by his supporters on his Facebook page may not help his case. A few examples:

• Dont worry we want your actions in the future. Lets see where the polls take David Shearer for what he has done today.
• He will be the electorate MP for life but Shearer might try for a UN post after he loses the next election.
• Stick with it. If Shearer was an intelligent and competent leader he would not have reacted in the manner that he has.
• I told you, your time was 12 months prior to the last election to make your move. You needed to do it then. Because this has played out in the media it is unhelpful and it maybe too hard to recover. I agree that you are the better choice. I wish you the best of luck.
• Alas but jealousy has no cure my good friend. You are smarter, brighter, more popular and are by far more suited to both the leadership position and the front bench. Labour’s problem is that it lets a bunch of insecure, out of touch, incompetent puppets run itself, thus not realising what’s good for it even when told by the grass roots. Shearer is an embarrassment and each time he is heard or seen I cringe. How the freak is he expected to lead us to a 2014 victory?
• Helen was a good public speaker. She was a dominant and capable figure. She listened to the electorate, the public and so on. Ratings aside, does Shearer have any of that? I think not.
• Labour just lost their best bet for a win at the next election
• it seems that Labour still has to learn that this whole loyalty and ambition thing runs both ways. the naked ambition and disloyalty by the ABC crowd to keep their own jobs, while not doing them, must have blinded them to the reality that only they seem unable to see.
• Labour has now degenerated itself as a gaggle of gays, lesbians and unionists. They appear to be in self-destructive mode.
• I can’t see Party supporters raising funds for Shearer. Costs a lot to run an election, to spread the word and to get people to transport voters to the polling booths.
• The Labour caucus for the most part are a bunch of muppets. Shearer looks pathetic & weaker than ever now.
• Patience is a virtue David, bide your time, DS will never be PM
• While I thought Shearer was going to be the better option a year ago, I’ve lost all sympathy for him following his beneficiary-bashing speech
• The entire caucus is then a bunch of sheep out of touch with what NZ needs, David Shearer will never be Prime Minister because he is not the right leader for NEW ZEALAND.
• I have been a Labour Party member since 1984, I have not paid my membership this year, mostly because I don’t quite like where the leadership of the Labour Party is going.
• A demotion to the backbenches??…..that’s got to be coming from a pretty spiteful, insecure place Mr Shearer!
• As I see it, if we want a democratic, left-wing, Labour Party to fight for the future of New Zealand, then between now and February, those members who care need to make sure that the decision in Febuary is the right one.

These are all comments on the Facebook page of the Labour MP for New Lynn. The comments at The Standard are even more heated. Some highlights:

• Having voted Labour for my whole adult life I have just moved my support to the Greens.
• On TVOne just now Shearer came across as the sort of bully who terrorises his family in the home but is all smiles and nice guy on the outside. Acts tough with his kids (caucus) but is an utter wimp with powerful adults. I’ve voted Labour all my life. No more.
• Shearer has just made a mortal enemy of many of the members and supporters.
• Shearer’s arrogance takes one’s breath away. I voted Labour for well over 50 years. Never again! I am now with the Greens all the way.
• So much for unity the Dunedin youth chairman has quit the party and more have told me they will follow.
• It’s absolutely imperative that people thinking of leaving remain in Labour, and support Cunliffe for February, as well as working on any waivering support. Otherwise Labour will wither and die, under the current strategy and leadership.
• Shearer looks like exactly what he is, a puppet that is being manipulated by Mallard and the media. The sooner he is gone along with Mallard and co the better!

The activists seem split between two strategies. Half say they are quitting Labour, and half are saying they want to rejoin to vote against Shearer next year if they get the chance.

UPDATE: As expected David Cunliffe has been sacked from the shadow cabinet, being removed from the front bench and his portfolios. David Shearer was unanimously backed in caucus and optimistically claims Labour is now totally united behind him. Never mind so many of his colleagues are keeping their position reserved for the real vote in February.

In tribute to the wonderful pre-election Cats that look like David Cunliffe page, here is the updated cat that looks like David Cunliffe following today’s caucus meeting.

We also have these photos taken just before the caucus meeting.

And the final photo was taken during the caucus meeting!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

David Cunliffe will be stripped of his portfolios and banished to the back benches for disloyalty today after a leadership vote in which Labour leader David Shearer is set to win unanimous backing.

As expected, yesterday Mr Shearer summoned his MPs to Wellington for an urgent vote today in an attempt to force Mr Cunliffe to “put up or shut up”. …

Party sources said once he received the expected unanimous backing from MPs he would dump Mr Cunliffe from the top 20 and send him to the “unranked” back benches.

Some in the caucus are calling for his close supporters to also be demoted, which could mean bad news for shadow attorney-general Charles Chauvel and energy spokeswoman Moana Mackey.

MP Sue Moroney, seen as in the Cunliffe camp, said she would back Mr Shearer.

But no-one would say what they would do in February’s vote.

“I don’t think there has been any challenge issued, actually.”

Before Mr Shearer had sought her backing, no-one had asked for her support for a leadership bid.

She had seen no evidence of disloyalty by Mr Cunliffe.

“I’m quite surprised at the level of the attack on David Cunliffe . . . in the last 24 hours,” she said.

There’s a fair few in Labour arguing that it is unreasonable to expect any MP to state how they will vote in a secret ballot in three month’s time. Having said that, I think Cunliffe could have chosen words that would not have been so destabilising, yet left him wriggle room.

Former Labour Party General Secretary Mike Smith says there was clearly a coup planned:

My first indication that something was up was the rising temperature of comments on the Standard, culminating with anonymous posts days before the conference calling for Shearer to stand down. I don’t know if the posters are Labour members or not, but it now looks like an attempt to destabilise Shearer days before his first conference speech. …

The next intimation I had that something more was afoot was when I turned up at the Conference on Friday night to be told that the affiliates meeting had ignored the Party Council’s recommendation for what may trigger a leadership vote across the Party, and supported a motion from Northland and Te Tai Tokerau to turn the long-standing majority confidence vote, held at the start of each year, to an endorsement vote with a 60% threshold. 

This was quite unexpected by the Party leadership but as became clear in the debate the following day, not unexpected by some in the unions, a few caucus members and some of the electorates. …

Cunliffe refused to rule out a February challenge. If it walks like a duck…

I was the first to say that the three posts (and one column) calling for Shearer to go were orchestrated. Quite a few doubted that. I’m pleased to see Mike Smith saying that he also saw it as part of a destabilization attempt.

A pro-Cunliffe view comes from “Blue” at The Standard:

The ABC club would have us believe that David Cunliffe has ‘openly undermined’ both David Shearer’s leadership and Phil Goff’s before him.

They appeal to the need for a ‘unified team’ and want David Cunliffe shot at dawn for supposedly threatening it.

These attempts to rewrite history are amusing but factually inaccurate. We all know who undermined Phil Goff’s leadership and it wasn’t David Cunliffe.

It was Grant Robertson and Trevor Mallard who made the decision to keep Phil Goff off the Labour billboards at the last election, openly admitting during an election campaign that they considered their leader a liability. Phil Goff’s stumble in the ‘show me the money’ debate was no one’s fault but his own – he got caught out not having done his homework on a flagship policy and only the most determined denier of reality could try to pin that one on anyone else.

We also know who has been undermining party unity during David Shearer’s leadership, and again, it isn’t David Cunliffe. It’s the ABC club who ring up Duncan Garner for a giggle about how much they hate their own colleague.

I think the great winner from all this has been Grant Robertson. He has kept entirely out of this, allowing the two Camp Davids to go to war against each other. If Shearer’s leadership becomes unviable at some stage then Robertson is poised to take over.

Grant has huge sway within the party. His supporters are in all the influential positions on the NZ Council and the like. If he had taken a call in the debate and argued against the 60% threshold for a vote in February, then I believe that would have made the difference in what was a very close vote. But he was smart and has kept his name away from all the infighting – making him the unifying choice in future.

UPDATE: NZ Herald editorial says:

A more experienced leader would have dismissed any suggestion he should try to “call out” a challenge with an early vote. When a leader wins – as usually happens the first time – the question does not go away. It merely leaves the party divided and ensures the discontented faction will choose its moment to make another bid.

The damage is long lasting. The Cunliffe faction will be seething at the fact that Chris Hipkins so publicly slammed David Cunliffe and accused him of undermining both Goff and Shearer. They understand that such a public denunciation means that Cunliffe can never have a meaningful role again under Shearer. You can’t say someone has been backstabbing leaders for the last four years and then rehabilitate them.

But if at some stage Cunliffe did become Leader, then MPs such as Hipkins would be unable to continue in a senior role also. Having called Cunliffe a backstabbing fink, he could never serve under him. This is why it is so very rare for MPs to openly denounce each other. They have to work together day in day out – sometimes for years to come.

What will be fascinating to watch next year is what new rules get agreed to for selections and list ranking.

UPDATE2: Zetetic at The Standard names names:

For the past four years, Labour has been controlled by a clique of 3 has-beens and 2 beltway hacks: Goff, King, Mallard, Robertson, and Hipkins.

This old guard clique led Labour to its worst defeat.

Trevor and Grant ran the campaign. Goff and King fronted. Not sure what Chippie did!

A year later, with their second choice frontman as leader after they ignored the members’ will, Labour’s still below its 2008 result and on track for another defeat. (Funny story, since the start of the year, Hipkins has been telling all and sundry in all seriousness that ‘if these trends continue’ Labour will win in a landslide in 2014 – I parodied him here - now, take a look at the real trend)

Oh Chippie is the polling guru!

The Douglas clique at least had an ideology they were working for. This clique what do they stand for? What are their values other than power for themselves? The failure of Labour to define a value set over the past four years is a reflection of this clique’s lack of values.

The membership voted no confidence in the old guard on Saturday. In retaliation, they’ve gone nuclear on the membership. The response of the old guard has been to unleash a nasty side that many who watch Labour politics have known about for some time, but never thought we’d see expressed quite this openly.

Next year’s conference could be fascinating.

The attacks on Cunliffe usually take the form of what we’re seeing right now, with unnamed ‘senior Labour MPs’ telling media Cunliffe is a ‘fink’ and an ‘egotist’ and calling for him to be ‘cut down’. This talking campaign has been going on since beore the last election and I know because I’ve heard it from the old guard’s proxies more times than I care to count. Mostly this doesn’t surface publicly, except for the odd stuff up like when Goff and King went to Garner to shop a story that Cunliffe was despised by the caucus in an effort to undermine his position. It’s been relentless.

Most people assume it was Trevor. Interesting speculation that it was Goff.

They’ll try to take him down today with an open ballot leadership vote – a Stalinist tactic that will hurt them next year and will be fruitless today because Cunliffe has launched no challenge and today’s vote will be unanimous. Their goal is to get Cunliffe and the membership out of the way so that when Shearer is replaced – it will be an open field for Robertson

While I doubt there is a lot I agree with Zetetic on, I agree with him that the real end goal is Robertson succeeding unopposed. Not so sure it will work.

In 79 days it will be the first Tuesday of February, when under Labour’s new rules David Shearer must win a secret ballot of his colleagues to prevent a party-wide leadership ballot. David Cunliffe needs to get only 13 votes (plus his own) in 79 days.

It is worth recalling that Shearer has promised to have a reshuffle of his front bench and in fact overall caucus responsibilities and portfolios. He needs to make significant changes, but can he afford to do so?

Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP David Cunliffe has left little doubt that he intends to overthrow David Shearer as Labour’s leader – a job made easier by a surprise change to the party rules.

The rule change was part of a chaotic day at the party’s annual conference in Ellerslie, during which delegates ignored the pleas of several senior MPs and voted to allow just 40 per cent of caucus to force a full leadership vote. All it would take is a vote from 14 of the current 34 MPs.

That puts Shearer’s leadership on much more precarious ground, and last night sources indicated the leader could move to bring matters to a head by forcing a vote, rather than letting it fester over summer.

Shearer can force a vote early. But as I understand the new rules, that in no way removes the constitutional requirement to also have a vote in February. Also an early vote would have a different threshold to the February 2013 vote. An early vote would only trigger a leadership election if 17 MPs voted against him. The Feb 2013 vote needs only 14 MPs.

Shearer’s supporters were clearly rattled by the change, but also confident he would secure the support – one stating they would easily “head (Cunliffe) off at the pass”.

Of 13 other MPs spoken to, most including Andrew Little, Clare Curran, Grant Robertson, Trevor Mallard and David Parker, said they would support Shearer in February’s vote.

Louisa Wall would not answer the question: “It’s irrelevant for me now – we’re in the middle of the conference.”

Phil Twyford said he supported Mr Shearer “because he is our leader now” but his vote in February would be a secret because it was a closed ballot.

The key words are “now” and “secret ballot”.

Charles Chauvel – who was a supporter of David Cunliffe last December – said he did not want to talk to the media.

How unusual!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

In its headlong rush to give grassroots members a greater say in future leadership votes, the Labour Party may have just pushed its current leader over the cliff.

Even if the damage to David Shearer isn’t fatal, it has made the party’s already difficult job that much harder.

However good his speech is today – and he was already under pressure to deliver a blockbuster full of core policy and “mongrel” – for the next three months he is the man on a knife edge.

If just 14 of his 33 caucus colleagues opt for change, the first two months of 2013 will be steeped in Labour bloodletting.

Possibly more than two months.

That’s the upshot of constitutional changes passed by delegates yesterday after an impassioned debate that exposed a bitterly divided party. It was the most extraordinary internecine political warfare since Rogernomics split the party in the 1980s, all played out on the conference floor.

In general the left, the unions and the north – let’s call it the Cunliffe camp – heavily backed the 40 per cent trigger with Wellington, the right and most MPs backing a simple majority that would have given embattled Shearer much greater protection.

It is manna from heaven for John Key’s fraying political machine that has just negotiated another week from hell.

Now National can run the line hard that if Labour wins in 2014, a minority in the caucus backed by dark forces in the party could, in just a matter of months, replace the people’s choice of prime minister.

This is an issue not yet fully focused on. Even if Labour win an election, the Leader will now be able to be toppled by just 40% of Caucus the February after an election. Now you might say, that would never happen. But it is well known that in 1993 Helen Clark was plotting to roll Mike Moore well before the 1993 election, and even if Labour had won (which they almost did) Clark was going to roll Moore – and would have had the numbers to do so.

The delegates could have controlled the damage to Shearer’s leadership by not insisting on a caucus vote in February, leaving it till the next cycle in 2014.

Senior MPs Trevor Mallard and David Parker tried to steer them that way but they were simply not listening.

Because in the end this was not just about a new constitution to make the party more open and democratic. It was also about the Cunliffe camp’s revenge for being ignored after last year’s primary race when the caucus installed Shearer as leader.

This is also a key point. The ongoing requirement is just for a scheduled vote after each general election. Now Labour have already had one of those – they had a leadership contest in Dec 2011 and Shearer won. But the conference explicitly voted to have a non-regular vote in February 2013. This can only be seen as directed at Shearer. If they had not passed that resolution, then you would need 50% of caucus to force a party wide vote on the leadership instead of 40%.

Cunliffe all but confirmed his interest in a challenge after his victory on the conference floor although, as one senior MP observed, “more than 60 per cent of the MPs voted for the trigger to stay at 50 per cent” – suggesting Shearer is safe for now – a spill cannot be ruled out even before February.

And then what? A new leader with a majority in the wider party but with a caucus that opposed him? And a dreadful bloodletting during the 2014 candidate selection process – which is already so fraught the party postponed its reform till late 2013?

In the meantime, Shearer’s leadership, already under pressure, will suffer a thousand speculations.

He has yet to show his hand and may think he can drink from the party’s poisoned chalice and survive. But his inner circle were late yesterday contemplating his next move.

The nuclear option would be to call Cunliffe out, confront him, demote him or put his unspoken challenge to the party now so February’s vote becomes a formality.

I’m generally a fan of nuclear options

I would point again out that an early vote doesn’t remove the requirement to also have a vote in February 2013.

Patrick Gower at 3 News reported:

David Shearer’s leadership of the Labour Party is under threat from his rival David Cunliffe.

The challenge emerged today at the Labour Party conference on the eve of what was meant to be a major speech for Mr Shearer.

Mr Cunliffe is putting his hand up, refusing to rule out a challenge to Mr Shearer when the Labour leadership comes up for grabs in February.

Cunliffe could have killed these stories dead by saving clearly “I will be voting in favour of David Shearer to remain Leader at the first caucus meeting of 2013, and will be urging all my colleagues to do the same. He will be the next Prime Minister”.

By the way if anyone is still doubting my contention that all those blog posts and columns last week calling for Shearer to go were a coincidence, I still have that bridge for sale!

UPDATE: Vernon Small reports:

Shearer is moving to put his leadership to a caucus vote as early as next week in an attempt to end speculation about his position and draw out challenger David Cunliffe.

Shearer’s lieutenants were today meeting to consider ways a vote could be taken early under caucus rules.

That would likely not replace the scheduled vote in February at which only 40 per cent of the caucus could trigger a run-off according to new uses approved by the Labour conference yesterday.

But if the caucus gave him a strong endorsement, possibly in a vote that was made public, that could make the February vote more of a formality. No caucus meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, but an urgent one may be called.

There are also rules that require at last a week’s notice of a leadership ballot, but that may not be needed to simply endorse Shearer.

It is understood if Shearer wins the backing of caucus he will move quickly to demote Cunliffe.

It will be fascinating if he sacks Cunliffe off the front bench and from his portfolio. Cunliffe has a lot of support from the activists, and sacking him may go down very badly with them.

Also the move to have an early leadership vote appears to be an attempt to ignore the rule that the conference explicitly voted for. The conference said that they want a leadership ballot unless Shearer has over 60% support of caucus. They did not vote for 50%.

I guess the strategy is that a sacked Cunliffe will not be able to gain 40% come February. And it is possible he won’t be able to. But it does mean Shearer will have a ongoing significant disaffected faction in caucus and definitely in the wider party.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words!

Despite that, give us your words below. Funny, not nasty.

Photo from NZ Herald. Idea from Keeping Stock.

Camp Cunliffe have done well at the Labour Party Conference.

Most of the caucus and hierarchy were arguing for a high threshold to trigger a leadership ballot.

The NZ Council in July proposed that you need a two thirds petition of caucus to trigger a leadership ballot. This met a backlash so they watered it down to 55%.

But the party delegates went further and reduced it to 50% for unscheduled votes. However here is the real big news. They lowered it to 40% for scheduled votes which are the ones held just after each general election (which will only be an issue if Labour loses) AND the vote scheduled for February 2013!

Vernon Small tweeted:

Labour votes to give 40pc pf MPs the trigger for a vote on the leadership by 264 to 237. Big win for Cunliffe.

It seems that the move to 40% was lost on the hand vote, but the unions used their bulk voting power to win the card vote.

This means that come February 2013, David Shearer needs to have at least 61% of caucus vote for him to remain leader – or a ballot is triggered.

The fact the unions have backed this, suggests that Cunliffe could win both the 40% members votes and the 20% union votes and be forced into the leadership no matter what the caucus votes.

Shearer will face immense pressure to perform tomorrow. It has already been reported that only a quarter rose to give him a standing ovation at the beginning of his speech, compared to 100% standing ovation for Goff and King as they were thanked. Shearer did get a full ovation at the end of the speech – but that is near compulsory.

UPDATE: Just calculated that just 14 Labour MPs can trigger a leadership ballot, under their new rules. Game on.

UPDATE2: According to Vernon Small (who gets the best Labour intelligence) the following MPs voted for Cunliffe in 2011:

1. David Cunliffe
2. Nanaia Mahuta
3. Charles Chauvel
4. Moana Mackey
5. Lianne Dalziel
6. Louisa Wall
7. Rino Tirikatene
8. Sua William Sio
9. Carmel Sepuloni
10. Sue Moroney
11. Rajen Prasad.

So he needs just three more votes to get a leadership ballot. Who were the unknowns:

1. Parekura Horomia
2. Shane Jones
3. Megan Woods
4. Ross Robertson
5. Andrew Little.

I’d say he’d get Parekura easily with Nanaia behind him. Shane Jones is known to have turned on Shearer after Shearer asked the Auditor-General to investigate him. So Ross Robertson could be crucial! More likely is Andrew Little is the power broken and can deliver four or five votes, plus the likely endorsement of the unions if a ballot is called for.

UPDATE3: Carmel didn’t make it back after recounts so Cunliffe needs four of the five who were listed as unsure. Of course he could also try to pick up someone who voted Shearer but has changed their mind.

A profile by Guyon Espiner on David Cunliffe has this photo.

A reader sent in the above link, along with this photo below:

Heh.

3 News Political Editor Duncan Garner blogs:

Labour promised an exciting back story that would impress and a new front man to rival the Prime Minister.

Sadly for Labour – they’re still looking for that person. David Shearer has failed. Labour’s lucky it’s not getting done under the law for false advertising.

Let’s be honest, Labour leader David Shearer doesn’t have it. He’s a nice, mild mannered, likeable, warm but a stuttering, incoherent mess that is the opposite of what an alternative Prime Minister should look like.

And before you say ‘give him some time’, he’s had a year and I think he’s gone backwards – not forwards.

He has no presence and his television performances are a disaster. That’s where voters make up their minds.

However Labour is up in the polls from the election.

The reason Shearer remains safe is disingenuous and it’s time to call it.

Labour MPs believe Grant Robertson is perhaps the next leader, but they don’t believe he’s quite ready – nor do they want to install a gay leader just yet. It shouldn’t be an issue – but it always is.

That’s why he remains the deputy. He knows politics is all about timing. Shearer has become the fall guy. Like Phil Goff was. It’s dishonest.

I think that is basically correct in that Robertson will be the next Leader, beating out Cunliffe and possibly Little. It could be messy though as Auckland Labour people are not that keen on their local guy being passed over in favour.

Duncan then tells a story about how strong the paranoia is about Cunliffe in Labour:

I tried to get a Labour face on TV this week to talk about capital gains taxes. I approached Shearer who was in Hokitika and too far away, David Parker in Dunedin and Cunliffe in Auckland.

Cunliffe was the easiest to get hold of. But, without naming names, the hoopla I was put through before he was ‘allowed’ on TV was fascinating. Even Cunliffe was nervous – but keen.

It took six hours of negotiating to get him on. It was quite simply, outrageous. It took me one text to get Russel Norman on the telly. It took two phone calls to get the Prime Minister to agree to a one-on-one interview.

So just two phone calls to get the Prime Minister of the country on, and six hours of negotiations to get the Opposition Economic Development Spokesperson?

Shearer has been promoted above what he’s capable of in my view.

I’m sure he’s entirely capable behind the scenes – you don’t do what he’s done by being stupid – but I’m just saying he’s not cut out for the hurly-burly, think-on-your-feet world of opposition politics. Robertson and Cunliffe are.

Shearer was handed the benefit of the doubt as pointed out by Gordon Campbell in a column this week and he’s failed to deliver on any of it.

For my 2c I think Shearer’s problem is more than he hasn’t been able to stamp a policy direction on the party. Even his own spokespersons contradict him.

Put simply, Shearer does not look, act or sound like a man ready to take over the Treasury benches and drive New Zealand out of this recession. The voters see it.

They see a Labour Party unconvinced and confused by their own choice. Until that changes, Labour will stay in opposition.

Possibly, but the current Government only has a one seat majority, without the Maori Party. Labour could well end up in Government, even if they are unconvinced and confused.

Imperator Fish blogs:

 David#1:  Great news, David! I have irrefutable evidence that John Key’s been lying to the nation over what he knew about Kim Dotcom!

David#2: That is indeed great news, David. Tell me more.

David#1:  He’s gone and spoken to GCSB staff about the guy, that’s what. Apparently he cracked a joke in front of them. And he was filmed!

David#2: I don’t see the problem.

David#1:  Don’t you see? It happened in February, at a time when Key supposedly didn’t even know the GCSB were monitoring Dotcom. If it turns out that Key was joking about Dotcom to GCSB staff then it will prove Key knew about the monitoring.

David#2:  Yes, that’s pretty powerful stuff, David.

David#1:  Thank you, David. I finally think we’ve got the bastard this time.

David#2:  I can’t wait to see Key’s face when you show the film.

David#1:  I know. It’ll be gold. There’s just a minor problem, though.

David#2:  Oh?

David#1:  Look… it’s just a minor detail, and I expect we’ll have it sorted out quickly. It’s about the tape.

David#2:  The tape of John Key joking about Kim Dotcom?

David#1:  The very same. You see, I don’t actually have a copy of it.

David#2:  I see. I presume one of your staff has it.

David#1:  Ah… no.

David#2:  Right. Your informant then, whoever that is. It’s not Fran’s bloke, is it?

David#1:  I can’t divulge my sources, David.

And the fictional conversation continues:

David#2:  So, basically, you have no tape, and your informant won’t come forward to verify your claim.

David#1:  When you put it that way it sounds like a stupid thing to do. But here’s the genius of the plan: when we demand the release of the tape and they can’t produce it, everyone will see the cynical cover-up.

David#2:  You know, David, I find this whole thing extraordinary. You are going to demand the release of a tape you aren’t certain even exists in order to prove something that you have no evidence of. I can hardly believe I am hearing this from the leader of my party. And do you know why? Because IT’S A GENIUS PLAN! Do it, man!

David#1:  This will destroy John Key.

David#2:  It will certainly be very destructive.

David#1:  And it might even precipitate a change of leadership.

David#2:  I’m certainly hoping so.

Heh, heh. One has to give Scott full credit – he mocks all parties well.

A reader e-mails:

Thought you might be interested in this. I am a labour supporter, but I can’t let basic scientific illiteracy like this go unpunished, so could you please do the honours? 

 The speech is at Cunliffe.co.nz/speech-forward-growing-good-jobs/

At the very start of his speech he launches into an analogy about how we need to have an economic system with more examples of win win symbiosis, like that between plants (who breathe out oxygen and breathe in CO2) and animals (who breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2). He concludes that “the green plants and I need each other”. 

 As any third former will tell you, yes WE need plants for the oxygen they produce during photosynthesis. But THEY don’t need us for the CO2 we produce during respiration in which we burn up the fruits of their photosynthesis. They also respire and produce CO2. That is why they photosynthesise in the first place. So they can make and store food and then use it later to produce energy and CO2. 

 Scientific progress is the main reason why the economy has grown so much over the last 200 years. When an aspiring PM doesn’t know or care enough about science to get it right then this is not good. He needs to be called out on this.

The reader is of course quite right. Plants enjoyed life on earth long before us humans turned up. Scientists think photoynthesis started around 3.5 billion years ago and diverged from chimps around 5 million years ago.

To be fair to DC, plants benefit from us humans, as the CO2 they produce is not the same as what they consume, but they certainly don’t need us. His words were:

The green plants and I need each other. We trade what we produce, and both sides survive and prosper as a result of our necessary partnership.

Sadly for us, the plants can survive and prosper without us. They find us useful, not not essential!

Hopefully DC’s economics are better tested than his science

I’ve embedded below a column by 3 News Political Editor Duncan Garner on David Shearer and the Labour leadership. He concludes that Shearer is not up to the job, and that David Cunliffe should be made leader. Some quotes:

Shearer is a hell of a nice guy…Labour picked him to be like John Key. But he can’t out-Key Key…The public doesn’t know what he stands for or against. He struggles to articulate himself….and in my opinion he’s largely botched his honeymoon….It’s become clear too that Shearer divides not only Labour’s caucus, but its membership too. He’s neither steeped inLabour Party knowldge or history.

Labour needs to take it to Key in 2013 and 2014, and Shearer hasn’t really kicked in. How would Cunliffe be any different? Substantially I think. He’s enormously articulate and can present an alternative vision. But there’s an element of fear within the caucus. A number of the more mature MPs fear Cunliffe will demote them and it will be the end of their careers. That’s why he is bad-mouthed so often. Some of those MPs need to go. Their time is up.

None of this should stop the caucus. .. The leadership of the party if too important for personal agenda to get in the way right now.

The other leadership options are either not ready or aren’t up to it: Grant Robertson: Ambitious? Yes. Ready? No. He’s best to bide his time. To be brutal, Key will wipe the floor with the Wellington Central MP. His time will come. But his immeditate elevation will not bring back the provinces. Jacinda Ardern: Way too early. Out of her depth as it is. David Parker: Get real. Andrew Little: Should put his name forward.

The quotes are from Twisted Hive.

Garner on Shearer

His call for some of Labour’s senior MPs to go for the good of the party is correct, but I suspect unlikely to occur.

The column appeared in Wellington Magazine Fishhead.

Put together by Patrick Gower. Fridays are great days for non critical projects

From written questions:

Hon David Cunliffe to the Minister for Economic Development(01 Aug 2012): Has the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment deleted any tweets from members of the public which reference the Ministry’s official Twitter page; if so, why?

Hon Steven Joyce (Minister for Economic Development) replied: I am advised that the Ministry has no ability to delete ‘tweets’ of members of the public, their Twitter accounts, or their Facebook pages. I am unaware of any legislation proposed by the Government which would give the Ministry this power. Should the Member wish to pursue this possibility, I suggest he does so by way of a Member’s Bill.

I blogged yesterday on the blog post by Duncan Garner reporting what senior Labour MPs had said about David Cunliffe.

Garner’s post seems to have sparked off a furious backlash against the Labour MPs thought to be behind it.

Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish blogs:

It’s a bit of a problem, though, when Cunliffe appears more closely ideologically aligned to the party’s activist base than the rest of caucus. How exactly do those bright sparks in caucus with their knives out for Cunliffe think the party’s base will treat such a brazen attack?

And what about those soft Labour voters who might conclude from all of this that their party is a dead loss?

Or maybe being in opposition is such fun that some within Labour’s caucus are keen to do it for another five years.

Irish Bill at The Standard said it is a step too far:

It looks like someone from within Labour’s top team* has decided to have a real nasty go at David Cunliffe via Duncan Garner. … 

I don’t know whether this is an attempt to blame someone else for the recent bad polling (and total strategic failure that’s generated it) or whether it’s an attempt to smear a potential competitor in a lead-up to a leadership challange, but it makes Labour look like a bunch of childish clowns.

My advice? Pull you’re f*cking head in and focus on providing Shearer with some decent strategy and support or we’ll see another three years of National because nobody wants to vote for people who behave like this.

*I think we can all guess who

I have no idea which senior Labour MPs were involved, but commenters at The Standard keep naming two MPs as likely suspects.

Chris Trotter says the caucus rivalries have turned toxic. He backgrounds:

The cynical calculation that persuaded Mr Cunliffe’s enemies to unite behind Mr Shearer in December 2011 has delivered a very paltry harvest. The public was prepared to give Labour’s new boss a fair go at growing into a credible Opposition leader, but their patience isn’t endless. Above all other things, a political leader must be a communicator – and Mr Shearer isn’t. Not surprisingly, the major public opinion polls are all now registering declining levels of public support for both Mr Shearer and his party.

The timing of the attack on Cunliffe just after the bad polls may be coincidence, or may not be.

If the polls continue to register the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the Shearer-led Labour Opposition, Mr Cunliffe’s enemies will do everything within their power to ensure that he is not elected as Mr Shearer’s replacement. They are terrified that the advent of Labour’s new Electoral College will encourage the party’s rank-and-file to not only assert their preference for a new leader, but also, by availing themselves of the new procedures for selecting candidates, for a wholesale sacking of the non-performers and time-servers who long ago ceased to advance Labour’s cause. It is to the cautious Grant Robertson that Mr Shearer’s erstwhile backers will turn, and the price of their support will be that the Opposition’s front-benchers (with the obvious exception of Mr Cunliffe and his allies) stay exactly where they are.

 Mr Robertson would be most unwise to have any part in such a Faustian bargain. Labour must change or it will die. Not quickly and dramatically, but slowly and ignominiously, as the best among its ranks depart, and the worst cling on – for reasons of personal vanity, or from fear of a community they have given no reason to welcome them back – until, at last, the navigation lights of the good shipLabour are swallowed up in “the running straits of history”.

If Labour is to be saved, then its younger MPs must not resist but make common cause with Mr Cunliffe. This is the only alliance that holds out the slightest hope for a renewal of the party’s purpose and the rebirth of its fighting spirit. Mr Robertson and his friends have time on their side: they, unlike the political movement to which they have devoted their lives, can afford to wait.

The Labour Caucus has nothing to lose but Trevor Mallard.

It has an election to win.

 

Cunliffe and Robertson unite!

3 News political editor Duncan Garner blogs:

The majority of Labour politicians clearly dislike David Cunliffe. With a passion. And with a serious degree of what now looks like hatred and mistrust.

That’s become so very clear to me this year – but even clearer since I released our 3 News poll on Sunday night.

I suggested David Shearer might be rolled before the next election if he couldn’t get his numbers up. And while not many in Labour denied that – they all said Cunliffe won’t replace him. Over their dead bodies.

This reflects that the anyone but Cunliffe faction in Labour is very real, and in fact a majority of the caucus.

In fact, Labour MPs have openly joked with me that Cunliffe, who is away on a lengthy family holiday overseas, should stay there.

Two very senior MPs have told me they would like an internal travel fund set up to keep Cunliffe out of the country for as long as possible. How nasty is this caucus? He is clearly not missed.

But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus – he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.

This is from his own colleagues. I don’t think Cunliffe is lazy incidentially.

Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him when he became Labour’s leader, but Shearer resisted and said he wanted to work with Cunliffe.

That hasn’t worked apparently – my sources tell me Shearer is deeply disappointed with Cunliffe and he feels let down. This relationship cannot last.

According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus.

I suspect doing speeches on what Labour needs to do, and urging activists to lobby their leader doesn’t help.

I have no problem personally with Cunliffe. We have always got on. I couldn’t really understand why they didn’t opt for him. I do now.

He is not just disliked – he is actively campaigned against. He’s probably hanging around to see if Shearer fails – and he’ll have another go.

But perhaps he doesn’t realise just how many of his colleagues are blocking his progress.

I can’t see him being the leader of this party. Ever. You need friends in the Labour Party caucus to survive. Cunliffe can count his on one hand with ease – he may even have fingers left dangling.

If I was him I’d look for a new career. It’s clear there is an impenetrable roadblock between him and his aim of being party leader.

And they all sit in the same room as he does. This hatred has largely stayed out of the mass media to date. But this is a story worth telling. This is not a collision course for Cunliffe. He and the caucus have already collided – and it’s a big pile up.

The real question is – does he know how bad it is? And what will he do next?

I actually rate Cunliffe’s ability. He did some very good things as a Minister, and is seriously smart. But his relationship with his collegaues has always been tense. They gave him the silent T nickname within a year of him becoming an MP, and things have obviously got worse.

He has a staunch following in the party. Any move to demote or push him out would get resistance. A decision by him not to stand in 2014 would also be a vote of no confidence in Labour. It is difficult to see a way forward for Labour on this issue.

I suspect Cunliffe hopes that if Shearer fails, he will become leader. However my understanding is the unions are committed to keeping in place Shearer for now, so their preferred candidate of Little can become the leader after Shearer. Little would pick up almost all of the 20% union vote under Labour’s proposed new rules. That means Robertson would need to win the caucus and members votes by a 3:1 majority to compensate and that is a hard call.

Despite that I still favour Robertson as the likely next leader.

First an easy rebuttal of Jones claim that he was told Liu would be executed if he went to China. The ODT reported:

The department’s case officer, Johannes Gambo, told the court Yan boasted that he had politician friends who would ensure he was granted citizenship.

When told he would not receive citizenship, Yan said he was 99 per cent sure he would, according to Mr Gambo.

“He said he had a lot of support from members of Parliament … he was going to take them to China.”

Do you really think he would be planning to take his MP mates to China, if he was at risk of being executed and organ harvested?

Also an amazing concession by Shane Jones, as reported by Stuff:

Labour MP Shane Jones knew there were serious questions over the true identity of Chinese millionaire Yong Ming Yan when he gave him a New Zealand passport. …

Mr Jones admitted he knew there were questions about Yan’s identity. “I certainly know that there was a live issue as to whether or not this man is who he says he was … there was always a mystery … Those were allegations.”

So Jones has said that he was not sure that Liu or Yan was who he claimed he was, yet he still gave him citizenship!!

I can’t think of another non third world country where the Minister grants citizenship to someone on the urging of his mates, despite not even knowing if that is the person’s real identity.

The papers about this case are on the Investigate site and worth a read. Some salient points:

• Nowhere at all in the papers is there any mention at all of fearing of going back to China. It is all about how much he has invested in NZ. So the reasons Jones says he made his decision on are not even in the official papers. It is all this mystery official’s verbal briefing!
• The fraud charges in China are for NZ$2.7m
• The papers clearly state he is entitled to reside indefinitely in NZ in terms of the Immigration Act, so this was NOT an issue about whether or not he might be deported to China. That is a total red herring.
• According to the Chinese Government he stole another person’s identity in 1999 by falsely registering their birth, and used this to obtain two false passports. He stole the identity of Yang Liu.
• The papers refer to Liu claiming he has worked to develop trade and good relations between China and NZ, including involvement in formalising agricultural agreements. Does this sound like someone terrified of China, and who fled because he was facing persecution?
• The papers also refer specifically to humanitarian considerations and does not detail any applicable in this case.
• The letter from Dover Samuels fails to disclose Liu donated to him.
• Strangely the Samuels letter says Liu deeply respects NZ’s anti nuclear policy. God knows what that has to do with anything, unless it is code for being a Labour Party donor.
• The papers make it clear that Rick Barker was the Minister initially dealing with this issue.  He must have recused himself only after a very late stage. Recall that Labour fundraiser Shane Te Pou took Liu down to meet Barker.
• A follow up letter from Samuels borders on the hysterical and accuses the officials of subjecting Liu to “mental torture”, and that his treatment is not the mark of a civilised country. Samuels seems to think citizenship for migrants is a right, not a privilege.
• Pansy Wong’s letter of support refers to the Immigration Minister not revoking Liu’s residency, and citing this as grounds for citizenship. So Cunliffe’s decision not to follow the advice of his officials, is then used to advocate for Liu to get special treatment from Jones, against official advice again.
• Wong’s letter was just addressed to DIA, and did not in fact advocate what the decision should be, just that they should commence consideration and take account of his community contributions. I find that quite different to Samuels who directly advocated the outcome to the Minister in the strongest possible terms.
• Chris Carter’s letter, like Pansy Wong’s, cites Liu’s contributions but does not call for a particular decision and is a general reference, not an advocacy letter direct to the Minister. I find no fault with Carter or Wong, except that they would both have been wise to have declared Liu had donated to them campaigns.

I suggest people read the full file. There are parts redacted but hopefully after the court case they will become public also.

A great cartoon by Hubbard Emmerson.