Kiwiblog

David Cunliffe blogged:

$4.28 is less than I paid for the latte I just drank.

That is how much Craig and Carla Bradley can spend to feed each of their kids each day.

After rent, power, petrol and bugger all else.

Cactus helps with the budgeting:

1. Two cars of $160 a week. Beggars belief as to what cars they bought/financed.
2. Child support for SOCK of $132 a fortnight. So Craig can’t afford his first child. How on earth did Carla think this would end up?
3. Credit card debt. Go figure. Who gave them a credit card?
4. Petrol of $120 a week. So $280 a week is being spent on cars?
5. Wear shoes til they have a hole in them? Seen my shoe collection? I think most people do this. Even I resole. Especially if they are my favourites.
6. An old couch? So what most student flats have them and at 29 yo she’s not much past that.

She also notes:

The conclusion is that inequality is created by bad personal choices. No one forced these two to have three children of their own in addition to a SOCK. They didn’t accidentally have three children. The only thing the taxpayer should be paying for is Craig to have the snip.

Am I picking on Craig and Carla? Yes. But only because they have been silly enough to be used for this story. They are not the only family living like this. Will this be a permanent or temporary state for these people? Hard to tell. They have chosen to make life as difficult as possible for themselves that is for sure.

No one is forced to keep on having children. Of course there are situations, where even the best of planning fails, but this is the exception, not the rule.

The Dom Post reports:

An embittered David Cunliffe is refusing to rule out quitting Parliament altogether as leader David Shearer moves to finalise his front bench.

It is understood Mr Cunliffe has been offered a front bench seat and a senior portfolio but has balked at his proposed ranking.

Offering Cunliffe anything less than his current rating or portfolios, always runs the risk of a refusal.

Labour has been allocated eight front bench seats in the new Parliament and it is likely Mr Cunliffe has been offered either the sixth, seventh or eighth slot.

The top places are likely to be taken by Mr Shearer, deputy Grant Robertson, Jacinda Ardern, finance spokesman David Parker, Shane Jones and Clayton Cosgrove with the remaining two slots open to Mr Cunliffe and his running mate, Nanaia Mahuta, or possibly Ruth Dyson or Maryan Street.

So lets look at this from Cunliffe’s point of view. You’ll accept Shearer, Robertson and Parker all being ranked higher than you. But if the story is correct it is proposed that two other MPs would be higher ranked than Cunliffe, such as Jacinda Ardern or Ruth Dyson. Cunliffe would have a fair point to ask why any of those named deserve a higher ranking than him.

Now of course it is at the discretion of the leader, what ranking to give out – but it is also at the discretion of the MP whether or not to accept.

Meanwhile, former list MP Stuart Nash, who is close to Mr Shearer, has been offered the role of chief of staff.

He said he wanted to discuss it with his partner first, and would give Mr Shearer his answer by Sunday.

“It’s a really exciting opportunity, because I believe David Shearer can take us to victory in 2014.”

That’s a smart move. Labour really are on their way to rebuilding.

From today’s Herald

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

Maybe DC just wants to be Opposition Leader

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

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

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

Brian Edwards blogs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A group of supporters have set up a “We want David Cunliffe” website, giving reasons why Labour should make Cunliffe leader, and allowing people to e-mail their support to all 34 Labour MPs.

The site is a good concept in principle. I think it is good to see supporters of one of the contenders set up a support site. The more engaged supporters and activists get the better.

I was amused that they concluded by saying:

Don’t let the right-wing bloggers hijack your party’s Leadership election. Submit the form now!

So many people have got worked up that some of us have offered an opinion. I also had an opinion on the Green co-leadership contest between Bradford and Turei and it wasn’t such a big thing. I’ll probably offer my opinion on all leadership contests in all parties, except probably National where diplomacy would win out. Anyway back to this site.

While the site is a good thing in principle, three criticisms:

1. The design is awful. Looks like an excited eight year old did it.
2. The supporters are anonymous. This is a major fail. Who the hell sets up a support site and is not prepared to stick their name to it? It turns the site into an issue about who is really behind it – it could be Trevor Mallard for all we know
3. They have provided incorrect registration details to the .nz registry. They have done this to hide their identity, but the rules for .nz require a registrant to be named and contactable. Their domain name registration could be found to be invalid.

The substance of the site is pretty good though – it pushes his strong points well. Maybe we will see a site for Shearer also?

UPDATE: A reader points out a reason why the authors may be anonymous. They stated:

David Cunliffe wins elections. On Saturday David was almost the only Labour MP to increase his local majority. Labour will only be relevant when it can win enough votes to form the government. Cunliffe comes from a new progressive generation. We think he¹s the best candidate to beat John Key.

But DC was not the only Labour MP to increase his majority. Based on results to date the Labour MPs who increased majorities are:

1. Su’a William Sio +6,230
2. Nanaia Mahuta +4,485
3. Parekura Horomia +3,258
4. Grant Robertson +3,207
5. Chris Hipkins +2,373
6. Iain Lees-Galloway +1,884
7. Ross Robertson +1,405
8. David Cunliffe +450
9. Trevor Mallard +107

Such a basic mistake makes me wonder about who is behind it. Maybe it is actually the Young Nats having fun?

In my blog at Stuff, I make the case for David – in fact for both Davids, weighing up their respective strengths.

I’ve blogged previously that I think David Shearer is the best contender for the Labour leadership, based on his back-story, his freshness and his moderation. However he is untested, and a more risky prospect than David Cunliffe. People need to see if Shearer can handle the pressure of being Opposition Leader and then Prime Minister.

I have a high regard for David Cunliffe also. When David was Minister of ICT and Communications I had a very constructive relationship with him. He never refused to deal with me, despite my National background, and I think his reforms were excellent. He was obviously one of those Ministers who could drive a policy agenda through a ministry, not one of those who just sits back and administers what the Ministry tells them to do.

Anyway the point of the post is the disparate treatment both Davids got on The Nation. First up was David Shearer. His questions were basically:

• When did you write you speech?
• Was it a road to Damascus moment?
• When did you decide to run?
• Did you discuss running with anyone previously?
• Are you surprised you are now the front runner?
• Does Goff support you?
• Are you happy with Labour’s policies?
• Will you sacrifice some in caucus even if they support you?
• Can you work with Cunliffe?
• What would you say to vacillating caucus members to get them to vote for you?

There wasn’t one tough question there. It was basically just an opportunity to talk about himself. Now let us contrast that with the questions to David Cunliffe:

• Why aren’t you more popular in the Labour caucus?
• Then four further questions on whether Cunliffe is unpopular!
• Do you take any responsibility for the fact that Phil Goff didn’t have the numbers?
• Four further questions on whether Cunliffe was to blame or trying to get him to knife Goff such as “So would you be a better campaigner than Phil Goff was?”
• Okay are you committed to the platform that Phil Goff presented and you presented at the last election?
• Okay do you rework them with a mind to making them more palatable to centre voters, or left voters?
• And you say you’re a diplomat.  Have a look at this from the campaign in Avondale. (plays video and three follow up questions)
• Do you consider if you win this leadership battle, that your primary role in let’s say your first 100 days as leader, is to rebuild and reform the Labour Party or beat John Key?

Now look stuff like the video is fair game, but overall I think the two interviews were unbalanced. Shearer didn’t get a single tough question, while Cunliffe had most of his questions as tough questions, including multiple supplementaries on a topic to try and get him to say something damning.

I doubt this was a deliberate tactic of Sean or The Nation. Because Shearer has not held senior rank within Labour, there is not so much to question him about. But the media do have a responsibility not just to let Shearer be annointed by acclamation as he is a nice guy, but to actually put him under pressure and see if he copes.

As I said at the beginning, I think Shearer is most likely to get a better election result for Labour, but that is subject to him showing his mettle.

UPDATE: Pleased to report that Q&A was much more balanced, and sadly Shearer performed very badly. If he has another performance like that on television, momentum will flow to Cunliffe. I’d advise people to watch the show and see for themselves.

Sent in  by e-mail:

Q.Why did David Cunliffe chose Nanaia Mahuta as his running mate ?

 A .Because Ross Robertson was busy.

Heh.

I don’t think this needs any comment. Just listen to it.

Almost everyone is aware of The Press debate two weeks ago when Phil Goff couldn’t answer John Key’s question about how much revenue their proposed CGT will bring in the first year it starts, and what year that is. The result was a week of bad headlines for Goff, and serious damage to Labour’s economic credibility.

So after that fiasco, you would have thought that the first thing a semi-competent party leader would do is to make sure they can answer that question without hesitation. But amazingly Phil Goff couldn’t answer it for a second time!

On The Nation yesterday:

Duncan        One of the crucial questions that John Key asked you that night was around capital gains, and he asked you in your first year what sort of money do you raise in the first year, and you didn’t know.

Phil              Well the figures are out there, the figures are it’ll raise 26 billion in 16 years.  And what I said, let me finish this, it starts slowly, it starts with you know 20 – 50 million or whatever, it gets up to half a billion very quickly, gets up to a billion in about eight years, and then it hits about three billion.

Duncan        But do you know in the first year what it raises.

Phil              Yeah I’ve got it right here…

Duncan        No – do you know without looking?   It’s 68 billion (DPF: meant to be million)

So even after a week of ridicule over not knowing his numbers, Phil Goff still couldn’t answer, without looking it up, that Labour’s CGT will only bring in $68m in its first year.

Now of course no party leader will know every number, but again after what happened last week, this is one number that should have been tattooed.

But the problems for Goff don’t stop there. In a fit of loyalty Trevor Mallard in an online chat said that as campaign manager he takes full responsibility for Goff not being prepared for The Press debate. But the two Davids have told quite a different story to The Nation:

Here’s what David Cunliffe said:

N: Should he not have known those numbers for a debate like that?

DC: Well I’m sure he does, and did, but you never know the bounce of the ball on the day and what comes to mind but that’s really a question you should address to him

N: So , did he know the numbers did you know the numbers then?

DC: Well some of those questions were numbers that had been previously released by our tax package… but it’s sometimes it depends about how the question is framed at the time but I’m not going to second guess – Phil’s done a great job on this campaign….

So Cunliffe is saying that Goff did know and that basically he just stuffed up.

And Parker:

N: When was the fiscal strategy ready? When did you know it?

DP: Well it had been prepared in advance of our savings forum. Phil had determined we would release the strategy two days after debate.

N: Had he seen the numbers

N: Yes he was of course aware of the numbers, he was aware of the numbers when we made decision to increase kiwisaver compulsory — our fiscal numbers were worked out at that stage. The exact date of release was the Friday, the press debate was the prior Wednesday, the two day gap between that I don’t know there’s a lot in that.

Parker basically confirms that the numbers didn’t change in those two days, that Goff could have answered the question on the Wednesday if he had been on top of it.

I suspected a lot of women were offended by David Cunliffe’s statement on Judith Collins, and one of them hit back. This is Rachel Glucina hitting back in the Herald on Sunday. H/T: Whale Oil.

Who is the real winner from David Cunliffe’s brain fart, where he thought that in the middle of an election campaign, he would insult the highest ranked female Cabinet Minister by saying he thinks she is so unattractive, that no man would sleep with her, even to save the human race?

The answer is David Parker.

I’ve long advocated that Cunliffe is the most likely next Labour Party Leader. In recent months Parker has become a viable alternative.

Now assuming that there is a leadership ballot in December, the jibe which led the TV news last night will still be strong in their memories. Combine that with some internal anger over why it took so long to get fully costed fiscals, and I am worried I may lose my money.

Another possibility is Grant Robertson will become leader sooner than ideally he would want to. Grant is a smart guy who knows that in an ideal world he’d have another term of experience before becoming leader. But if Cunliffe has pushed himself out, and Parker is not sees as viable, then maybe Robertson will stick his hand up this time.

I don’t know if David Cunliffe has apologised yet for his comment on Judith Collins, but no doubt he will be forced to do so at some stage.

But is an insincere apology enough?

Take an analogy. Think if Bill English had a brain explosion and while being interviewed on radio about fiscal costings offered his opinion that if (say Annette King or Helen Clark) was the last woman on earth, the species would probably die from extinction.

It would be the lead item on TV news that night. Feminist groups up and down the country would condemn him, and Labour MPs would be battling for who could condemn him in the most strident terms.At an absolute minimum he would be censured by his party leader, if not demoted/sacked.

For this is not some anon troll on a blog saying nasty things about an MP. It’s not even a blog author. It’s the top ranked Labour MP after the Leader and Deputy.

And the comments were not in a pub to a mate. They were not even in the cut and thrust of debate in Parliament. They were offered up unsolicited on live radio.

So will Goff censure Cunliffe? Will a single female (or male) Labour MP or candidate say the comments were unacceptable? Or will they just pretend it didn’t happen, like they tried to with the Tinkerbell comments?

Whale has uploaded the audio of senior Labour MP David Cunliffe saying:

I have thought that if Judith Collins was the last woman on earth, the species would probably become extinct.

That has to be the most disgusting personal attack by an MP on another MP in recent times. There is just simply no excuse for an MP to say that on radio. He’s insulted not just Judith, but also her husband, and in fact her children. Can you imagine having to hear the man aspiring to be our Minister of Finance say that about your mother?

3 News reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff says anyone who suggests he’s facing a leadership challenge is flogging a dead horse.

The party’s caucus is meeting for the first time since reports were leaked that Mr Goff offered to step down at a front bench meeting.

Duncan        And you’re suggesting someone in the caucus has leaked?

Labour Leader Phil Goff is refusing to accept his party’s poor popularity saying its bad polling is because people aren’t focused on the issues.

Phil Goff’s excuse for his latest round of poor polling? “People aren’t focused on the issues”. But before Labour hacks engage in another round of “blame the voters”, I think we should ask: whose fault is that?

Johm Armstrong writes in the Herald:

A case of jumping the Budget gun only to shoot yourself in the foot? David Cunliffe, Labour’s finance spokesman, found himself a laughing stock in Parliament yesterday after a poll asking families whether they were better off or worse off as a result of the Budget appeared on his website.

The poll was an embarrassment for Cunliffe for two reasons. First, the Budget has yet to be delivered. Second – and worse from Labour’s point of view – nearly 90 per cent of those responding said they were better off.

Those respondents must have known something about the Budget that the rest of us won’t until this afternoon.

More likely, National supporters organised enough votes to skew the findings in their party’s favour.

Actually it was fairly spontaneous. I blogged yesterday on Cunliffe’s premature poll, and I think blog readers just decided to have some fun.

Having ensured the poll was taken down from Cunliffe’s website, Labour was insisting the survey was one that appeared on the site after last year’s Budget. A computer glitch had resulted in the poll reappearing.

A computer glitch? Sometimes I have things *not* appear due to a glitch, but I’ve never had something appear by itself with no human involvement.

What was amusing in the House was thet the Speaker was at first reluctant to allow the website poll to be tabled, as he discourages tabling of stuff already in the public domain. However when it was pointed out Labour had removed the poll from the website, that meant it was then okay to table it.

Labour Finance Spokesperson David Cunliffe has a poll on his website asking “How did the National-Act Budget affect your family?”. 86% of respondents have already said they will be worse off.

Quite remarkable to do a poll on how the Budget has affected your family prior to the details of the Budget being known.

The Herald reports:

Labour has accused the Prime Minister of being “out of touch” after he used a military helicopter to ferry him between engagements on Sunday. …

Mr Key’s office says it would have been unacceptable for him to be late as the Governor-General was also attending and protocol requires the Prime Minister cannot arrive later than the Queen’s representative. …

Labour’s finance spokesman David Cunliffe said Mr Key’s actions showed he is out of touch.

“Maybe Mr Key’s lavish lifestyle with his $55 million worth of investments tells him that flying around from Auckland to Hamilton and back in a helicopter is just normal business, but to most kiwis in this age of austerity it’s outrageous.”

One can have a debate about whether use of a helicopter is justified on a particular occassion (I suspect all PMs only use them when necessary), but what I find interesting is that Labour are once again attacking John Key for having been successful in business, and for being a “rich prick”.

This just reinforces to me that when Labour talk closing the gaps, their focus is not helping those at the bottom of society, but clawing down those who have done well.

In his speech Phil Goff referred to David Cunliffe as David Caygill – even with Cunliffe sitting literally in front of him when he said it.

I guess after 30 years in politics, it gets hard to connect the right names with the right people, as you’ve worked with so many different people.

A reader pointed out this PQ to me:

Hon David Cunliffe to the Associate Minister of Health (07 Sep 2010): How much was spent by the Waitakere DHB on mental health services, both hospital and community based, in June 2010?

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman (Associate Minister of Health) replied: There is no Waitakere DHB.

An extraordinary blog post by David Cunliffe on Red Alert. Let’s take it one step at a time:

When this country is in recession and Kiwi families are doing it bloody tough, I cannot bear to stand by and see rich and powerful private interests – whom I will not name at this point

A classic Winston tactic. Refer to dark vile secret forces.

and this post is not about SCF – rorting the rules and using their clubs and networks to finesse processes.

Thank God it is not about SCF. David seems to have become the spokesperson for a small Timaru cult. The latest cult newsletter proclaims:

In the end though, the only way Michelle, Keiran and I can help you is if you help yourself, and help us help you. If we stay out here alone, we are targets.

I have always felt like asking the Chinese Government how they intend to shoot a billion people.  …

David Cunliffe just called me and we have a thing or two planned which will help, watch this space.

David said “tell the investors to speak with one voice, and throw everything you have at John Key and Bill English and Simon Power – full force, don’t hold back……let RIP!

Anyway back to his blog post:

It makes Godzone look like “the coldest banana republic in the world”.

I thought that was when we had a foreign minister who took out ful page ads campaigning against his own Government’s great foreign policy sucess – a FTA with China. Now that was banana republic.

For goodness sake interests associated with the Natural Dairy Crafar farms bid (potentially with Nat links) reportedly gave $200,000 to the National Party while the Natural Dairy application was still before the OIO and while National has a ministerial policy review underway.

I blogged these donations when they were disclosed. In fact I blogged them before the media reported them. The association with Natural Dairy is rather weak – the husband of the wife who made the donation is an advisor to the Chinese Business Roundtable, and the founder of that Roundtable is involved in Natural Dairy NZ.

I suspect most Chinese businesspeople in Auckland are involved in the Chinese business roundtable. It is a fairly tight community.

National should IMMEDIATELY reject that bid – otherwise what is left to separate this from complete corruption?  Brown envelopes?

Here Mr Cunliffe jumps off the deep end. The public will judge any decision by the Government when it is made, and thanks to transparency with donations can judge whether or not they think that was a factor.

But it is bonkers to be screaming that the Government must interfere with the OIO process and destroy the ability of the Crafar recevers to recover maximum value from the assets, because of a donation from a Chinese businesswoman who is not involved in the bid.

I have a much better example of corruption for David Cunliffe.  In fact it is made in the comments section of Red Alert:

Bill Liu gave a donation of $5,000 to the labour party. His citizenship application was supported by Dover Samuels, who was at that time a Minister. His citizenship ceremony was presided over by Labour ministers, who knew that immigration were unhappy with him being in NZ. None of this is news to you, yet you have the temerity to accuse National of awarding corrupt favours to its friends.

Yes Labour ignored the strong advice from officials not to grant Liu citizenship due to his multiple fake identities, yet they did.

You want another example of corruption – your caucus colleage Taito Field – whom you associate immigration minister did so many favours for,

Or another – how about accepting $100,000 three days before the election, and not declaring it until after the election. From the same source that donated to Winston, whom Labour voted had done nothing wrong and never knew about the Owen Glenn donation despite the telephone logs.

Was it OK for the OIO-overseeing Minister of Finance to lease his (trust’s) house to the govt for a staggering ministerial rent

No, and the money was paid back. But what has that got to do with the OIO.

or accept hours of free TV for his “Plain English” ads?  Isn’t it time we Kiwis stood up and demanded that the tories do sweat the small stuff like the rest of us?  Isn’t it time John key held SOMEONE to account for SOMETHING rather than smile, wave and make excuses?

Now he is in full rant mode.

Beyond political donations, look at the ability of the rich and powerful to get their way while the poor and middle struggle: $2 billion a year of tax avoidance through LAQCs and trusts that National in government has refused to touch.

So the Government is corrupt as it did not abolish LAQCs. So does this mean the last Labour Government was also corrupt. Or that Labour’s policy is now to abolish LAQC’s?

Or it is just more part of a bizarre rant?

And he also rails against trusts. Well now we get to the hypocrisy. He suggests National is corrupt for not somehow stopping the use of trusts to avoid tax. So what does the Register of MPs Pecuniary Interests say for Cunliffe:

The Bozzie Family Trust (discretionary trust)

The hypocrisy is amazing.

Half the top 100 welathiest NZers are still not on the top tax rate!

Yes – and this happened under Labour!This is what happens when teh trust and top personal tax rates are not aligned – something that National has now fixed.

Well what is the point of getting our savings rate up (and asking hard working families to go without consumtion) if the investment vehicles we need to get the money to our struggling firms are being milked and siphoned by fees and sweet deals to the cronies in the markets?  Why would any sane Kiwi sweat 80 hours a week to build a real business here?  Where will our kids choose to live?

So no Kiwis will work 80 hour weeks because of the cronies in the markets? I’m sorry, but even I can’t follow his chain of thought any more. It seems to be just one big primal scream

It will only get worse until we have a Govt with the guts to stand up to it.   The smiling millionaire from Bankers Trust is hardly likely to do that!

Oh I see. It is all John Key’s fault.

Chris Trotter writes:

Is it possible that Chris Carter is right? Would Labour have a better chance of winning the next election under a new leader?

Is Phil Goff really the best, or even, as most political commentators emphatically insist, the only option available? And if, as those same commentators contend, Labour cannot win under Goff’s leadership, does that mean Labour cannot win, full stop?

A few days ago I would have conceded (albeit reluctantly) that those commentators were more likely to be proved right than wrong. And I use the word “reluctant” advisedly, because I count myself among Goff’s long-time supporters. As long ago as February 2008 I was urging the Labour caucus to persuade Helen Clark to step aside in favour of her defence minister.

But now Chris says:

Everything we have seen since the 2008 election points to a deadlocked Labour caucus in which no one faction possesses the numbers – or leadership – to give either the party, or the country, the clear new direction it so desperately needs.

There’s only two ways that Labour’s factions can resolve this impasse: the first is to wage a long and bitter war of attrition and agree to follow the last politician left standing; or to swallow their pride and, ignoring the factions, elect as leader the person best equipped both intellectually and presentationally to lead them to victory in 2008.

Last Saturday morning, on TV3′s The Nation, David Cunliffe demonstrated conclusively that he is that person. Articulate, good- humoured, open to new ideas and smart enough to turn them into credible policy, Cunliffe looked every inch the leader Labour needs to win.

The conventionally wise insist that he lacks sufficient allies to mount a successful challenge. But, from the perspective of Labour’s deadlocked caucus, Cunliffe’s absence of factional baggage may yet prove to be his most telling political advantage.

I blogged a month or two ago that I believe David Cunliffe will be the next leader, because he s acceptable to all factions. One Labour person somewhat unkindly (but perhaps accurately) said he is no one’s first choice, but everyone’s second choice.

However I still stand by my prediction, that Goff will remain leader until after the 2011 election.

I blogged yesterday that I thought David Cunliffe would be the next Leader of the Labour Party.

Today, I wanted to preview how I would go about “selling” DC if he did become Leader.

Some, amongst the beltway, think this is a tough sell, because he is seen to be somewhat lacking in the common touch.

However this overlooks the fact that 95% of New Zealanders will have no firm impression of Cunliffe. Most NZers are not like the blogosphere, where politics is followed on a daily basis.

The first few weeks or months of a new leader, can set a brand which will last for years if done well.

With the benefit of hindsight, Helen Clark did Phil Goff a terrible disservice by resigning on election night, and forcing Goff to become Leader three days after the election. All the media focus was on the new Prime Minister, so Goff never got the benefits of the normal “Who is ….” profiles.

So the first key step for Labour, if they lose the election, is not to allow Goff to resign straight away. He should remain in the job until at least early 2012, which will maximise publicity about the likely new leader, and allow the normal print and broadcast stories on him, introducing him to the public at large.

Then we turn to the substance – how do you sell Cunliffe as different to former Labour leaders, or in other words what would you expect from a Cunliffe-led Labour?

The major brand I would seek to establish for Cunliffe is that he is the first ever Labour Party Leader with a strong business and private sector background. He is not a unionist, an academic or an identity politician. His Labour Party is not an anti-business Labour Party, but a party that understands business.

DC spent four years working for the Boston Consulting Group as an economist and business strategy advisor. BCG is one of the pre-eminent management consulting firms and has appeared for five years in a row as one of Fortune Magazine’s top 15 companies to work for. BCG do not hire low achievers. Other former employees include Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu.

The secondary brand I would seek to establish for Cunliffe is that he is the guy who finally did something about Telecom’s monopolistic behaviour. While it was done on sound public policy grounds (supported by even NBR and Fran O’Sullivan), it was also hugely popular.

It was a ballsy call, which could have ended up in a massive war of attrition, such as happened in Australia with Telstra. But DC managed to get a parliamentary select committee to unanimously back operational separation of Telecom.

So there is an opportunity to brand Cunliffe as someone who understands and supports business, but also willing to stand up to big business when their actions hurt every day New Zealanders.

I think that would see a fair number of New Zealanders saying, hey we might give this guy a go.

Of course the challenge will be to actually deliver sensible policies, and a united team, that supports those policies. That is far from guaranteed. But if Labour do elect Cunliffe, and Cunliffe can establish a positive brand, then the 2014 election could be competitive.