Kiwiblog

The Infrastructure Forum had six questions:

1. How will you stop the risk of power blackouts?
2. Will you privatise power generation SOEs to get more competition and lower prices?
3. How will you get broadband into more homes and businesses?
4. What changes will you make to the RMA?
5. Do you support more protection for businesses at risk from the ETS?
6. Do you support carbon credit allocation based on carbon intensity

Gerry Brownlee

1. Energy Policy released details improvements to both security and supply. Planning for far more growth than Labour. Major consent decisions to be made within nine months
2. No SOE sales
3. Ran out of time
4. Referred to in 1
5. Not a yes/no answer but said credit allocation should be decided by a select committee process and a National ETS will do that. Gave a great example of how concrete plants in Europe will pay far less for carbon credits so just force industry offshore.
6. Ran out of time

David Parker

1. Record investment in energy under Labour. National did not invest in the 1990s
2. No
3. Broadband essential. $500 million fund next five years. WIll not favour incumbent.
4. Does not accept RMA is a barrier
5. Missed
6. Missed

Jeanette Fitzsimons

1. One can have security by over-building capacity so it is wasted every year but the peak year. Not efficient. Better to have a standby plant. Says we had a 1 in 60 dry year. Third way is make smart adjustments to demand to reduce at times of shortage and that is what is missing.
2. Will not sell SOEs. Rejects that it would lead to lower prices.
3. Supported LLU. Broadband key to reducing transport. But not support large state investment.
4. Most changes Gerry wants to RMA already done. Problem is implementation and no national guidelines.
5. Trade-exposed businesses are already highly protected. Some businesses may end up with surplus credits without reducing emissions.
6. No – an intensity basis will lead to continued emissions.

Rodney Hide

1. Does not think we can rule out all the power generation methods the Greens do. Need to reduce cost of capital by lowering taxes.
2. Yes would sell them. No sense in Govt owing competitive businesses. Ownign them locks up taxpayers money and limits companies ability to raise capital for investment it deems necessary.
3. Broadband important but regulation stopping its rollout. Need a stronger economy to be able to afford it. Against National’s policy in this area. Investment is slowing down due to uncertainity.
4. Private property rights need to be enhanced, The RMA damages these rights.

Peter Dunne

1. Rejects ideology. Needs security of supply. Say question is an alarmist straw man. Currently power is an un-cordinated jigsaw (so why are we paying $90 million a year to the Electricity Commission then). Agrees we have had over supply in past – supports smaller local plants but big hydro plants.
2. I think it was a no.
3. RMA needs national policy guidelines. DO not throw away RMA – streamline it and keep core principles.
4. Missed.
5. Do not support further protection to at risk businesses as we do not know enough about impact.
6. No does not support but is subject to how the Act works out. Reason they oppose bill is because so much is uncertain and is being rushed through purely for political gain. Wants it passed by 1 April 2009.

I use eco bulbs at home, because it was my choice. The Government of course is passing a law to make them compulsory, regardless of whether or not people want them.

So it is unfortunate for the Government that they may burn your house down!

The memo, of which The Dominion Post has a copy, warns that compact fluorescent lamps, or eco bulbs, are reported to be melting, blowing up and blackening surrounding electrical equipment.

The concerns have been passed on to the Fire Service by Energy Safety, two months after Energy Minister David Parker announced plans to phase out traditional bulbs in favour of eco bulbs. …

There were reports that eco bulbs had burnt out and scorched fittings, causing smoke stains, and in a few cases they had caught fire.

People should send any charred furniture or fittings to the Minister.

The ODT looks at who will be the new leaders for Labour:

However, within Labour circles the speculation has started on likely replacements. …

But if Labour loses and the election result is close, party sources believe Trade Minister Phil Goff is the principal candidate for the job.

He is seen as a safe replacement who would not shift Labour markedly away from its centre-left position.

Goff is centre-left but more centre than left. He would be far more in touch with the electorate and less likely to make massive blunders such as Clark’s positioning over Section 59.

Police Minister Annette King is seen as the logical deputy leader for Mr Goff, to give the party a gender balance and an Auckland-Wellington split.

Gender balance will be important for Labour. I am not sure King is looking to spend another nine years in politics though. Also her star has dipped this year.

If the polls hold up, Labour could lose up to 18 MPs, including electorate members.

If the defeat is not too broad, Mr Goff will be challenged by Health Minister David Cunliffe and Labour Minister Trevor Mallard.

The conventional wisdom is Cunliffe will stand against Goff. I can’t see Mallard being a contender after his demotion last year.

Both would bring with them an image problem.

Mr Cunliffe was identified early in his career as a potential leader, but has earned the disdain of some colleagues for his “superior” attitude.

However if he has Helen’s backing against Goff, I would not count him out.

A decimation of Labour will see other candidates chancing their arm in the belief that it will take Labour six years, or two terms, to win office.

Energy Minister David Parker and Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove will mount challenges.

Neither is particularly popular with colleagues, and Mr Cosgrove will be a fiercer competitor than Mr Parker.

Parker for Leader? I’m sorry but my first reaction is has the ODT gone mad? But then I realised no they are just parochial and feel the need to include a local person in the speculation.

Mr Cosgrove has been a member of the party since he was 14, and is a protege of former prime minister Mike Moore.

Which is about as helpful in Labour as being endorsed by Dick Cheney is in the US.

Mr Parker is seen more in the mould of former prime minister Sir Wallace (Bill) Rowling, and would offer a leadership style out of step with modern politics.

Hmmn, the ODT has a point. Parker is a lot like Rowling.

Also in the mix at this level will be Building and Construction Minister Shane Jones, a Maori MP of whom was expected great things.

He is said to be “hugely bright” but pompous and obviously ambitious.

I think they have the hugely before the wrong word

My genuine best advice for Labour after the election would be Goff Leader, Cunliffe as Finance and Street as Deputy.

Hat Tip: Homepaddock (which is now a daily read)

There is a story in The Press about how carbon emissions are increasing due to the power problems as thermal stations are being reactivated and running at full steam. They say:

Figures for the week to Sunday show estimated CO2 emissions from thermal power stations have risen by about 75 per cent from about 125,000 tonnes a week in mid-March to 220,000 tonnes a week.

Now Energy Minister David Parker tried to dismiss this by saying:

Asked if he was concerned about that and if anything could be done about it, Parker said the longer-term trend was more important and that CO2 emissions from the electricity sector had fallen since about 2000.

Now it would be nice if journalists did not take assertions like this on the word of the Minister, and actually checked the veracity of the claim that CO2 emissions from electricity had fallen since about 2000. Let us do it for them:

The MED has a report covering the period 1990 to 2006. Now what does it say on page eight:

In 2000 thermal electricity generation produced 4,942 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases or CO2 equivalent. And in 2006 it was 8,300 kt. So rather than having fallen, it in fact increased 68% in six years. The increase has pretty much all been coal.

Now we have quarterly reports for post 2006, up to the end of 2007. If you add the four quarters together then the 2007 total is 6,644 – still 34% higher than in 2000.

An analyst tells me the fall in 2007 is due to decommissioning some of the older Huntly turbines – the very ones which are now running at flat tack again!

While on Greenhouse gases, one should also look at the massive deforestation which has happened due to Labour’s policies. Deforestation in 2007 was the highest it has been for 50 years.

And listen to Forestry Minister jim Anderton on Radio NZ about this. He basically says deforestation was inevitable due to government policy!

Is anyone else reminded of Dad’s Army? The Government is saying that yes there will be a power saving campaign, but there is absolutely no crisis at all, and no one is allowed to say that word.

It’s like Lance Corporal Jones running around saying “Don’t Panic, Don’t Panic”.

Unlike previous power conservation campaigns, this one will not have a target for savings and there appears to be little outward urgency within the Beehive to achieve big reductions.

Nobody was even willing to say yesterday how much power they hoped the campaign would save.

Energy Minister David Parker said the situation was being managed well and there was no need for a target yet.

“Power cuts are not even an unlikely prospect,” Mr Parker said. “We’re not setting a target at this stage, we’re actually managing things a lot better this time than we’ve previously managed.”

So Corporal Parker is saying nothing at all to worry about.

The chief executive of national grid operator Transpower, Patrick Strange, said the industry was “very concerned” with the situation and he saw it as serious.

A view that seems to be at odds with the actual grid operator.

The Herald looks at three new Ministers under pressure.

First is Maryan Street who spent all of Wednesday defending the $65,000 conference at Tongariro Lodge (ably backed by various Labour blogs) to then have the carpet pulled out from under her by the PM who declared yesterday it was totally unacceptable, the Minister was wrong, the Chair had been reprimanded and the CEO should have her salary docked.

Clark’s response, while somewhat over the top, is the one Street should have had from the beginning. I do think David Parker went far too far when he actually said he thought the CEO should have their pay docked – does the man not know anything about employment law and undue pressure? Anyway Clark understands that the issue is the nature of the resort. As I said – hold it at Rotorua Novotel and there would be no issue.

It didn’t get better for Street as it was revealed there was a second plush conference in 2003 at the Heritage Hotel & Spa du Vin. Meanwhile the Hawke’s Bay DHB couldn’t help scoring a point, pointing out their retreat for managers cost only $180!

What is surprising is the Street ignored Clark’s advice not to defend it, but did anyway – and then got over-ruled. Street has impressed many for her abilities to date – it remains to be seen.

Then you have Clayton Cosgrove, as more and more questions are asked about what he did or did not know, and how he has claimed there has been no cases of corruption – directly contradicting answers from his predecessor, Again Cosgrove has generally been astute championing populist issues. Hell even I cheered him on as he deals to elements on the real estate industry. But he does appear to have shown a remarkable lack of curiousity when it comes to a less populist issue – the Immigration Service.

The Herald also looks at Parker dealing with both the power shortage issues and the Emissions Trading Scheme. I have to say Parker baffles me. He came in as a potential star and I was initially a fan as he actually had a sucessful business background and appeared to be quite snesible and moderate on economic issues.

I’m not sure what has happened, but he really is struggling for credibility. He is almost cut out of the decision making process on the ETS, and just does not inspire confidence at all. I’m not saying this because he is Labour. Many of their Ministers are quite competent – I just don’t like their policies. I thought Parker would be one of the better ones, but I remain unconvinced.

The Government has spent all year telling us there is no power problem. The reality has been that our capacity has been dangerously low for some years because it is so difficult to get consents for new power plants.

Now consider the latest step to try and stave off power cuts. Workers in breathing gear and protective suits will have to go in to a mothballed asbestos ridden power plant, to supply us with more power.

This comes on top of the lowest lake levels since the 1992 power crisis, big industrial users cutting production (which negatively impacts economic growth) and massive increases in wholesale power rates which will flow through into household bills according to Meridian.

Yet the Government is still trying to say there is no problem. I mean sure it is normal to send workers in hazard suits and breathing gear in to operate asbestos ridden plants.

Again I would ask people to think about whether now is the right time to ban new thermal power plants. Sure do it, after you have made it easier to get consent for renewable power plants, but it would be incredibly reckless to proceed with such a ban- yet David Parker plans to.

That’s my generous term for the Government’s claim that if one doesn’t rush the ETS into law in June, it increase our emissions and cost us more.

The reason it is bullshit is because Labour itself had already announced that the transport sector would not come into the scheme until 2011 instead of 2009. No sector (except forestry which soaks up emissions, no produces them) is in before 2011 now, so taking 3 to 4 more months to get the scheme right has almost no downside.

The hypocrisy of Labour delaying the transport sector coming into the scheme by two years, and then complaining about a delay of just a few months, is as usual quite large.

It is interesting to look at the Government’s resonse to Key’s six areas of concern:

Key: The ETS should be fiscally neutral rather than providing billions of dollars in windfall gains to the government accounts at the expense of businesses and consumers. National does not think it is responsible for the Government to use green initiatives to swell the Crown coffers at the expense of Kiwis’ wallets.
Parker: The ETS would not result in a surplus of credits for the Government in the short term, and any surplus that might result later depends on New Zealand’s target under future international agreements. The five-yearly reviews of the scheme are the way to take account of that.

First of all, note the weasel words – in the short term. That may just means the first couple of years. Now government officials have admitted a profit for the Government of up to $22 billion. There is no requirement in the current law for this to be refunded to consumers and businesses. Now if anyone really believes the Government would voluntarily reduce the amount of money the scheme makes, then I have a bridge they may wish to buy.

After all, remember how it has taken nine years to get tax cuts – and that has been with some of the highest surpluses in the world.

Key: The ETS should encourage the use of technologies that improve efficiency and reduce emissions intensity, rather than encourage an exodus of industries and their skilled staff to other countries.
Parker: The select committee and the Government are already considering intensity-based allocation within a cap.

Now this is absolute proof positive that any revised bill needs to be opened up to a second round of submissions. A change to intensity based allocations would be a major major change, and the impact on stakeholders would be very different to the current proposed law. It would be economic vandalism to make such major changes without any ability to have comment and input on the new model.

Just to show that there is no shame, have a look at how Labour Ministers both claimed wrongly a National MP had said something he had not, but then how nasty they get, and how the Speaker protects them. From yesterday:

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What changed between the time when David Cunliffe, the then Minister of Immigration, was briefed, as he now alleges, on completion of the Oughton inquiry in July of last year, and when he himself was fully briefed in December last year on the Oughton report—what changed between then and April this year, when the Oughton report was exposed to public scrutiny, other than the fact that the cover-up was over?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In order to assist the member, I tell him that the previous Minister was not briefed in December. I was the Minister at that time.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I said you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, the member said “the Minister at the time”, and “the previous Minister”.

Now have a look at the Hansard.  Lockwood clearly refers to David Cunliffe as per-December and Cosgrove as the Minister in December as he says “he himself” in the question to Cosgrove. Cosgrove is clearly wrong with his insistance Lockwood had it wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re wrong.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I think we may need stretcher-bearers for one particular member. This is a serious issue, and should be dealt with in a serious way. We may need stretcher-bearers for the other Dr Smith. Can I say—

Now again remember Cosgrove is in the wrong here, and Nick Smith is correct in backing up Lockwood. So what does Cosgrove do – resort to the normal smear they use against Nick.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister, in reciting my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s question, was mistaken in his restating of the course of events. In response to an interjection from me saying that he was wrong, I was then subjected to personal abuse. I think it would be helpful if Dr Smith re-asked his question—in which his dating and timing were correct—because it seems that the Minister was confused about the question that my colleague Dr Smith was asking.

Nick doesn’t respond to the taunt, but just makes the point that the Ministers were mistaken so the question should be re-asked, so the Minister addresses the correct question.

Hon David Parker: I, as well as Minister Clayton Cosgrove, listened carefully to the question, and I am clear that the question that was asked included the imputation that the Minister was the prior Minister, not the current Minister, and that is the point to which Mr Cosgrove was responding.

David Parker jumps in, and also has it clearly wrong, as the Hansard shows.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their interventions. I think if members would keep the noise down, it would be easier to hear. As I have said, interjections do occasion responses. Would the Minister please just respond to the question as succinctly as possible.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would appear that confusion has arisen around my question. It was very clear. I would be very happy to repeat it to avoid that confusion.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think we should take it in the order it was. I am happy to look at the Hansard. I heard it also in the way that, I am afraid, others did. The member, obviously, feels that he did ask another question. As I said, I am happy to go and look at it later. Could we have a succinct answer to the question, and there is always an opportunity to ask another question—there are still supplementary questions available.

And now the Speaker also gets it wrong, and even worse won’t let Lockwood re-ask the question, despite the fact clearly the Ministers misheard what he said.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are on question No. 8 and we have had Dr Nick Smith running interference on every question across the House. He is not asking questions; he is just interjecting and yelling out personal comments. I think we have just about had enough today, and I ask you to require him not to continue going on in that fashion.

Annette seems to have missed the log in her own colleague’s eyes.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think that today comments have been made from all sides of the House. Obviously, it does create disorder, and it has. Members have noted the comments that have been made from all sides of the House on this matter. Could I please ask the Minister to succinctly address the question, and then we will ask Dr Smith to ask the question again. Thank you.

And then the Speaker totally confused says Cosgove will answer/address the question, and then have it re-asked!!! And then it isn’t!

Labour have been warned many times over their repeated goes at Nick with references to taking pills, and now out on a stretcher. That is bad enough at any time, but Labour may wish to consider the old saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Firstly I note that David Parker has responded to the claim that the Government could make up to $80 billion from the Emissions Trading Scheme:

By 2030, when farmers and the smokestack sector would also be paying for 100 per cent of their emissions, and with a carbon price of $100 to $200 a tonne, the Government would make an extra $5 billion to $10 billion a year.

In effect that represented a substantial change to the tax system, which should be debated up-front and not introduced as the unintended consequence of an environmental bill.

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister David Parker said that if such a scenario was emerging, changes would be made during the scheme’s five-yearly reviews.

Now let us think about it. Parker is aying if the ETS makes too much money for the Government, they would change it. You mean, like if one had say $40 billion of surpluses over half a decade, you would reduce taxes? Yeah Right. If the ETS does turn into a cash cow for the Government, who really think they would ever give any of it back?

John Armstrong looks at rhetoric and reality:

As it is, Clark’s confirmation this week of that delay raises questions aplenty about Labour’s rhetoric surrounding carbon neutrality – which requires as much carbon be extracted from the atmosphere as is being pumped into it – and the Government’s actual record. …

The rhetoric had New Zealand becoming the first country which functions on a truly sustainable basis – “not by sacrificing our living standards, but by being smart and determined”.

Such language offers the illusion that meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved relatively painlessly without changing lifestyles. It is a nonsense, of course. But it is politically appetising nonsense, nonetheless.

This is the part which I have most objected to. The dishonest con job that one can simply cut carbon emissions and not have it done in a painful way.  The pain may be a necessary sacrifice if emissions need to be capped and reduced, but don’t try and con people that you can be carbon neutral and have the same standard of living.

Armstrong concludes:

What was going to be a major plank of Labour’s re-election campaign is now gathering dust – just like the “Champions of the Earth” award now sitting on some shelf in the Prime Minister’s office.

Indeed.

Fran O’Sullivan meanwhile has a way forward:

But by delaying the transport sector’s entry to 2011, Clark basically creates a problem for the next Government to address.

If the international economy is still sour there will be no political incentive to deal with the real problem, which is how to get New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions down to a sustainable basis.

The odds are that the next Government will face similar consumer fears when it comes to the entry of stationary energy into the emissions trading scheme in 2010.

This suggests that Labour and National – which will be the key drivers for New Zealand’s political future – should be talking.

If there is too little time to get a sensible outcome from the legislation before the election the two parties should agree to roll it over for the future Parliament to decide.

That will give New Zealand time to assess Australia’s forthcoming scheme and make sure that the Kiwi scheme stays compatible with our future economic competitiveness.

I think it would be madness to have the Select Committee report back on a NZ scheme, when by waiting just a month or two longer we can see details of the Australian scheme.

Fran O’Sullivan calls on Michael Cullen to intervene to make sure the suite of climate change measures being worked on  does not seriously damage the economy:

Finance Minister Michael Cullen now has all the ammunition he needs to force an urgent rethink on New Zealand’s controversial suite of climate change policies before the economy suffers serious damage.

Cullen doesn’t say so in public. But it’s well known he has growing concerns over the zealous approach his Cabinet colleague, David Parker, continues to take to climate change in the face of obvious policy defects.

New Zealand is already heading towards economic recession. Increasing power and fuel prices further to curb the country’s growing greenhouse gas emissions issue – while farmers make the problem bigger by continuing to expand agriculture emissions – is sheer madness.

Households, already suffering from rising mortgage costs, fuel and food bills, will not vote for a government planning to increase their financial pain next year by introducing a scheme which will impact on their budgets, while farmers escape their share of the cost burden until 2013.

I am not just saying this to make trouble, but I do speak to quite a few people working in the industries trying to get changes and almost universally they are full of praise for Cullen’s understanding of the issues and problems, and equally full of disdain for David Parker who is described in terms best not repeated.

There is also looming trouble with power shortages:

Adding to the political angst will be the mounting problems caused by the lack of rainfall this summer.

The heat can only intensify if ordinary householders are slapped with escalating power bills this winter – or electricity cuts – as power suppliers ration dwindling electricity supplies.

Yesterday’s announcement that the major NZ-based manufacturer Rio Tinto, which owns the Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter, is cutting back production in the face of potential brownouts – wood pulp producer Pan Pac may follow – has brought home the absurdity of Parker’s other key decision to enforce a 10-year moratorium on new base load thermal generation.

There is a now a risk that major local businesses, which are not location-dependent, will shift production offshore unless the Government puts security of future power supply back at the top of its priority list. All this suggests that the Government needs to get to grips with cold reality.

New Zealand does need to address climate change issues. But not in a lopsided fashion where ordinary folk – and smaller businesses – feel the brunt first.

The Government has made it to hard to construct new power generation, that it will not be the rain alone to blame if ther are shortages.

The Government announced yesterday that Iain Rennie has been appointed State Services Commissioner.

I regard this as an excellent appointment. Rennie is held in high regard in Wellington, and is a straight shooter. I can’t think of many people who would have a bad word to say about him. People who have worked with him also say he is very affable and approachable.

His appointment was recommended unanimously by a panel of Jim Bolger, Dame Margaret Bazley, Stan Rodger and David Parker. I think it was wise to not just have it done by the Minister. Hell, we may have ended up with Mike Williams as State Services Commissioner then

As predicted here for weeks, the “independent” Ministers has by pure coincidence turned down approval for the Canadian bid to buy a partial stake in Auckland International Airport.

The Canadians only wanted 40% of the shares, with a reduced 25% voting strength. Ironically many of the current shareholders who wanted to sell are foreign.

It is sad to see a Government so willing to do the right thing with the China FTA and ignore NZ First type xenophobia, yet succumb to it on this issue.

The Canadians have a pretty good chance of getting the Ministers’ decision over-turned in Court as it was obvious they pre-determined the matter before they even considered it. From what I can tell, reading the decision, the neutral officials in the OIO concluded allowing the investment would be beneficial to NZ, but the Ministers substituted their own political judgement.

A massive 63% of shareholders (close to 90% when you exclude the Council stakes) have agreed to sell their Auckland Airport shares to the Canadian pension fund.

Why so many?

Simple.  The Government’s actions have driven the current share price down so much, that it has made the Canadian offer much more attractive.

The next step, assuming over 50% have also voted for the bid, is for David Parker and Clayton Cosgrove to pretend to impartially consider the bid.  They will go through the farce of asking for reports, and taking time to make a decision, and then shock horror they will turn it down.

And then the Canadian pension fund will haul their little behinds into court, and point to massive and compelling evidence they predetermined the matter because persons no less than the Prime Minister (who can sack them) and the Finance Minister (who controls their budgets) has made it very clear they are expected to turn the bid down.

And so the Canadians will get their 24.9% voting share – which is less than the current level of overseas voting strength I suspect.

Audrey Young profiles the leader in waiting for Labour, and also looks at the far more interesting issue of who would be Goff’s Deputy.

First she look at if Labour loses:

Being Opposition leader is one of the worst jobs in politics, especially up against a new Government enjoying a honeymoon with the public.

The leader has to have the skills to prevent the defeated party tearing itself apart – and this is where Goff would be weakest – be the toughest opponent to a Government that has just been given a mandate to do what it is doing, and have public appeal.

It is a job for the toughest. Few in Labour ranks could handle it well.

Clark could but there’s no satisfaction in going backwards. Michael Cullen could but he would be yesterday’s man. Annette King could but does not want it. Mallard would have been a rival to Goff had he not played fast and loose with his own reputation.

Lianne Dalziel revels more in backroom work than public profile these days.

Clark would indeed be a formidable Opposition Leader.  But I can’t see her wanting to have that job for long unless someone like Little was in Caucus who given time could beat Goff.  Cullen and King don’t want it.  Mallard does but has struck himself out literally. Maharey has gone and Dalziel’s sacking from Cabinet for lying would be recalled too often.

If Labour wins, the situation is a bit different:

A return to power by Labour at the next election reduces the alternatives.

Clark could then hand over to a new leader (and Prime Minister) before the 2011 election. Again that could still be Goff if none of the new generation have scrubbed up well enough.

But by then Shane Jones, now in his first term, may have acquired some of the necessary communication skills and party political experience necessary to lead Labour.

Indeed if Labour do win again, some alternatives to Goff will have time to prove themselves.

And then the deputies:

The best the next generation could hope for under a Goff leadership would be as deputy.

David Cunliffe has ambition, is handling the front bench well, and has definite public appeal but his perceived arrogance makes him unpopular in his own caucus.

Maryan Street has ability but, with less than one term, very little political experience. However she may have a rapid rise owing to the thinning ranks of capable women in a party where gender balance is important.

Street fighter Clayton Cosgrove would be invaluable to the party in Opposition but does not have broad enough appeal to make it to the top two.

King it seems does not want Leader but maybe could be persuaded to be Deputy. If Cunliffe survives Health I could well see him moving into Finance – but that may be seperate to Deputy. Street has been effective behind the scenes but too early to know if she move into a public leadership role.  She has been Party President though. Jones as Deputy is a possibility also.

Audrey then sums up all the candidates:

THE NEXT LABOUR LEADER

PHIL GOFF
Best bet since Maharey announced he was quitting and Mallard wrestled Henare in the corridors of Parliament.

ANNETTE KING
More respected in the caucus and as able as Goff, but colleagues know better than to ask. She would refuse. She has found love and will do nothing to compromise it.

AND THE NEXT GENERATION…

SHANE JONES
The perfect candidate on paper, expert in Maoritanga and Harvard-educated, but the first-termer is not experienced enough and not steeped in party culture.

DAVID CUNLIFFE
Has won over the public for his strong leadership in health but has still not won over his caucus, who have as little regard for him as they do for his ego. Could be deputy material.

CLAYTON COSGROVE
The Mike Moore acolyte has won respect from the Left of the party for his ability to put differences aside – but not that much respect.

DARREN HUGHES
Clever, witty and able but needs another six years under his belt to shake off the kid-brother image and show his serious side.

MARYAN STREET
A classic modern Labour MP – policy-driven feminist with a strong human rights bent – not as scary as she sounds. Could be an a contender for deputy to Goff.

DAVID PARKER
Bright, methodical, a details man but has too much of an academic approach to the job.

ANDREW LITTLE
Ruled himself out of Parliament next term but could do a Bob Hawke after 2011 if other leadership combinations have failed.