Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Despite the considerable union influence within his party and calls for him to offer support to Maritime Union members, new Labour leader David Shearer has kept quiet on the matter.

Yesterday Labour industrial relations spokeswoman Darien Fenton, who has been spotted on the picket line at the port, said her party was not taking sides in the dispute.

“We’ve been hoping that the parties will settle this, that they’ll find a way through this.”

You’ve been on the picket line, and now you’re saying you’re not taking sides? I think someone has squashed Darien.

Ms Fenton said Mr Shearer had been in regular touch with both sides, “and he’s in contact with me and we’re all discussing it regularly”.

“Our strong view at this point is it’s not helpful for politicians to get involved.”

Apart from being on the picket line?

I suspect that strong view is Mr Shearer’s.

Chris Trotter did an open letter to Shearer yesterday urging him to wade in:

Ultimately, isn’t it about answering the question: “Who is strong enough to stop the stone-throwers?” The men and women who formed the Labour Party in 1916 decided that the answer to that question was the State. If the State could be made to stop working for those who already exercised power, and began instead to work for those who were powerless, then a political party seeking to put an end to poverty, war and injustice would have a fighting chance.

Labour was formed to create a State that wasn’t neutral; a state that never stood on the side-lines when working people were being threatened and abused. Labour was about intervention: constant, massive, intelligent and creative intervention on behalf of the weak and against the strong.

It’s time to bid farewell to the white sands and the Pohutukawa blossoms, Mr Shearer, and come on down to the Auckland wharves. It’s time to cast aside the gathered cloaks of a spurious and culpable “neutrality” and place yourself and your party between the stone-throwers and their victims. It’s time to end the silence.

Even funner than Plunket in Metro, was the column by David Slack. Again well worth buying a copy to read the full thing, but let me share some extracts from Slack’s Captain Log for David Shearer:

Day One: I have had the privilege of meeting some truly fascinating people in my life. Energetic people. Inspiring people. Imaginative people. People whose work fills you with hope. I look around the caucus room again. I miss those people.

LOL.

Day Two: Quietly kicking myself. I’ve dealt with Somali warlords who got along better than this.

He then decides to take the Labour caucus on a bonding retreat to Somalia.

Day 68: Trevor asking awkward questions about the funding for the trip. Quietly kicking myself for taking up Hooton’s offer. Still can’t believe how fast he and his mates came up with the money …

Walk up and down the plane. They all have their gripes. Parker’s complaining he didn’t get his special meal. Street wants a window seat. King wants the same one. Ross Robertson gets sniffy when I don’t recognise him and ask him for ID.

Heh.

Clare Curran wants to show me what she’s read on a blog about “chemtrails“. Sit down next to her and use up three hours pointing out the window, drawing diagrams, explaining sunlight, temperature, wind shear, humidity levels, aeronautics and conspiracy nutbars. Think we’ve got it all squared away but then she says “Bout of course that’s what Fox News wants people to think isn’t it?”

ROTFLMAO.

Then over in Somalia the bus break downs.

Day 71. Arrive back with replacement bus. Shambles. Laundry hanging out of windows. Trevor has a card school going. Do a head count. One missing.

“Where’s Charles?” I ask. Without looking up from his hand, Trevor says: “Flogged down a Mercedes and pissed off back to Mogadishu to look for a four seasons.”

And the wonderful ending:

Just then there’s a toot of a horn and a cheery “Hi-de-hi” from outsid. Look out the window to see what’s going on. Great. Chris Carter.

I’m going to have to read Metro more often!

I love this photo, supplied to the Herald. Very man of the people. A party leader who surfs is a cool look.

Denis Welch blogs:

The Labour Party’s silence on the Ports of Auckland dispute is getting louder. Robert Winter has drawn attention to this in an excellent post: he says the dispute has become, potentially, the first defining moment for Labour under the new leadership of David Shearer, and they have to ‘step up and come out swinging on this issue.’

We wish. What is already remarkable about the dispute is how depoliticized it is, with not just Labour but all political parties keeping well clear of it. It’s a far cry from the days when ministers personally intervened in industrial action and Labour politicians sided with striking workers, even joining them on the picket line.

Oh I would love to see Labour MPs out on the wharfie picket line. That would be the best Xmas present ever.

But unless David Shearer is a moron, he will not be getting involved in this industrial dispute – especially as public support for the wharfies is confined to the UNITE union and the hard left.

When Denis Welch and Robert Winter urge David Shearer to get involved as a test of his leadership, they are not advocating in the best interests of the Labour Party – they are advocating for their views (nothing wrong with that) which are far to the left of Labour.

I don’t know if anyone has approached Shearer for comment or asked, um, wait a minute, who is Labour’s spokesperson on labour issues? I just looked it up: it’s Darien Fenton. Who knew? She may well be intensely credible on industrial relations but I don’t believe we’ve heard from her yet on the ports dispute.

I presume they have sedated Darien to stop her joining the picket line

The only Labourish public figure to even put a fingertip over the trenches so far is Auckland mayor Len Brown, and he has come down on the woolly side of woofterish by declaring resoundingly that he supports both sides.

There is an unhappy echo there of Walter Nash’s infamous response to the 1951 waterfront dispute when he was Labour’s leader: asked whether he supported the watersiders he said he was neither for nor against them. I have a horrible feeling that Shearer, if he ever does comment, will say much the same thing.

Shearer should choose his words more carefully than Brown, but he absolutely should not come out swinging for the Maritime Union. It would just pigeon hole him as captive to the unions which fund the Labour Party (MUNZ is one of them). Only 25% of NZers voted for Labour. I suspect not even a majority of those 25% have sympathy for militant industrial action from a union representing what must be the most highly paid unskilled jobs in New Zealand.

At the most you might get Shearer saying that he is against contracting out (as this is existing Labour policy), and wants both sides to reach a settlement. But he should resist all efforts to get him involved. He is the leader of the parliamentary labour party and of the opposition – he is not a union spokesman. Clark would have never got involved, and Shearer shouldn’t either.

Talking of MPs with a view though, a good column from Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross. He notes:

Every Aucklander has a stake in the Ports of Auckland. It is not a privately owned company. Nor is it listed on any stock exchange. Each and every share in the company is owned by the Auckland Council on behalf of 1.4 million Auckland residents and ratepayers. The destruction in value in one of our city’s largest public assets is alarming and has to be of concern to us all. …

But numbers aside, it is obvious that losing the trade of New Zealand’s largest company, only a month after losing the business of one of the worlds largest shipping lines, has to be a wakeup call. Yet sadly for the Maritime Union, it isn’t. Sadly for port workers and Aucklanders alike, the Maritime Union continues to be unphased.

This isn’t a story of a greedy corporate hammering the little guy. This isn’t a story of a David versus Goliath battle where workers are being ripped off or paid a pittance. Few could call poverty on an average annual wage for a wharfie understood to be north of $90,000, with a proposed 10 percent hourly rate increase and performance bonuses of up to 20 percent, sitting on the table. To the average person on the street, the latest Ports of Auckland offer to the Union would almost seem generous.

It would be most interesting if the Herald (or someone) did a poll to ascertain the public’s views on the stand off.

The trade union movement evolved through a desire for workers to band together to protect their common interests. This is not a dishonourable goal. But when a union loses sight of its members long term interests and cavalier negotiating tactics start to backfire, the union itself begins putting its own member’s livelihoods at risk.

Unions still occupy a privileged position in New Zealand’s employment law; a relic of the last Labour administration which has not seen significant overhaul for some years. Few non-government organisations can boast clauses in legislation specifically designed for their benefit. Despite only 18 percent of the nation’s workforce being unionised, trade unions can look to whole sections of the Employment Relations Act written exclusively to aid union survival through legislative advantage.

Unions do get many major legislative advantages. These should be reviewed. Take just one – why should employers act as unpaid fee collection agents for unions?

I say unions should be like any other incorporated society – let them invoice their members directly for their membership fees.

UPDATE: It seems Labour Whip Darien Fenton has been spotted on the picket line. No surprise, but will we see other Labour MPs join her?

Some extracts from the speech:

The Maori Party is right to force poverty into the Government’s line of sight.

And today I repeat my invitation to the Government: Make that committee a committee of this House.

The Prime Minister should know this is not an issue to play politics over.

It sounds very nice to say let’s all work together to fight poverty, just as it sounds very nice to say let’s all work together to reform the tax system. But the reality is that the parties have massive policy differences on these issues. Yes they tend to agree on the desired outcome, but just two weeks ago Labour’s policy of giving beneficiaries an extra $70 a week to be on a benefit got rejected by the electorate, and National’s welfare reform policies for effectively endorsed.

If David Shearer is saying there is a realistic possibility that Labour will support the outlined welfare reforms, support the starter wage to get young people into work, and will drop its $70/week pledge – then there might be some merit in a multi-party approach.

This Labour Party will put growing the pie for all New Zealanders at the front of our agenda.

We cannot be content dividing an ever shrinking pie. It means growing the nation’s wealth.

Labour will grasp the mantle of economic leadership. We will look to expand opportunity for all New Zealanders, wherever they are born or whoever they are born to.

Excellent. A Labour Party which talks about growing the pie is a good thing.

We must build an economy that produces good jobs and decent incomes.

Yes, but for an un-skilled 16 year old seeking some part-time work after school, $12 per hour is a good job and a decent income. It may not be for a skilled 35 year old in full-time work who is the primary income earner, but let’s be careful in our desire to lift wages for the latter category, we don’t destroy jobs for the former. Decent incomes come from increases in productivity – not via legislative fiat.

We need a school system that gives our children the confidence and skills to be leaders in a new economy.

It’s too easy for a school leaver to drift out of school, and they’re lost.

I agree. I look forward to Labour supporting national standards as a first step to identifying those who need assistance before they become lost.

I’m never going to agree with most of Labour’s policies. However there are some glimmers of hope there that there will be at least some things I agree with. The focus on growing the cake, not just dividing it up, is especially welcome.

NZ Herald reports:

“Why should we have another country’s flag in our top corner? I’d rather see a fern [which] for me is the national emblem. How we do that [depends] on how people want to do it.

1/1 I agree on.

“We should be moving towards a republic.”

But he added that it was not a “number one priority”.

2/2

Asked about New Zealand’s relationship with the US, he said: “I think we’ve gone back too much from where we were.

“We have a stronger voice and more respect internationally by being independent. And I don’t think the cost is that great.”

Not sure what he means here. How are we not independent at the moment? 2/3

He said he had no issue with gay marriage or same-sex adoption, and acknowledged that updating adoption laws – which the Government has said is not a priority – was long overdue.

He would have to see the detail of any bill to legalise gay marriage or same-sex adoption before voting for them but supported them in principle.

4/5. What I like about him is that he is willing to say outright that yes he supports gay marriage and same sex adoption. Goff could never quite bring himself to say that, and just would waffle about supporting civil unions and adoption law reform generally.

But he is less liberal on cannabis.

“I don’t think people should go to prison for smoking a joint but I don’t support legalising cannabis.”

He said there was merit in the Law Commission’s recommendation for a mandatory cautioning scheme.

5/6. I like the Law Commission proposed cautioning scheme.

On alcohol reform, Mr Shearer supported a split purchase age of 18 in bars and 20 in supermarkets and liquor shops.

5/7. There is no principled reason to stop a 19 year old buying a bottle of wine at a supermarket.

He said there was some evidence to clamp down on alcohol advertising, but he wanted to research the issue more.

5/8 in total. Not too bad.

Stuff has a profile of new Labour Leader David Shearer. It’s a great read, and shows some of the extraordinary experiences he has had. My favourite is:

His wife Anuschka, Nush, as he calls her, worked with him there. “She is a Mt Roskill girl. I wish it could be more exotic, but it’s not.

“I was her flatmate in a house she owned in Auckland and moved in and then after a few months moved in a little further. We got to know each other over the Cornflakes in the morning.”

In Somalia, she was his head of operation. “She’s tough. I remember a bunch of Somalis all came in with their guns and bandoliers of ammunition across their chests and said, `Mr David, could you talk to your wife, she is much too unreasonable’. She said no way they were getting more money, because they were paid enough.

Heh.

John Armstrong writes:

Shearer will bring change by making the party less hostage to the political correctness that still plagues its image. He is interested in things that work, rather than whether they fit the party’s doctrine. Shearer will not fight old battles merely to make the party feel good about itself.

He will make the party’s various groups – union affiliates, Labour women, Labour youth, Maori, Pasifika, gays and so on – start working for the party rather than feeding off it.

He will promote on merit, not quotas. He intends to transform a seriously flabby political institution into a slick political machine.

It sounds great if he can achieve it. Less politically correct, less doctrinaire, and less identity politics with a focus on merit.

And news just broken that the 34 Labour MPs have elected David Shearer as the 13th Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party. Grant Robertson is his Deputy Leader.

Commiserations go out to David Cunliffe, who ran a strong campaign. I hope Shearer retains him in Finance (or better).

I think this is a good decision for Labour. Shearer gives them an opportunity to make a clean break from their past. The challenge will be for that break to be substantive, not just symbolic, so I await his announcement of shadow cabinet and portfolios with interest.

If I was advising Shearer, I would have him read up on the leadership style of Michael Joseph Savage when Opposition Leader. Savage did not spend all his time attacking the Government and blaming them for everything from the weather to global crises, but went up and down NZ speaking of his vision for a better New Zealand.

I think David Shearer is a very decent man. I probably won’t agree with most of his policies (but possibly more than I have with Labour in the past), but I think and hope he will run a clean campaign to be Prime Minister and give New Zealanders a good choice.

UPDATE: Chris Hipkins has been elected Senior Whip, which I suggested was likely a few days ago. Darien Fenton is the Junior Whip. I presume Ross Robertson will be their nominee for Assistant Speaker.

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.

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

A very nicely done video by Whale of a duck counting numbers in caucus. If the numbers are accurate then Shearer would win 19 votes to 16. I presume there are 35 votes as it is not yet known whether Burns or Huo are in caucus.

Whale also has a conspiracy theory that almost all of Shearer’s endorsements have come from those who were at Matthew Hooton’s bbq last Sunday. Of course I wasn’t at the bbq (I was celebrating with friends down at the Viaduct), and have said I think Shearer represents a better chance for Labour to win in 2014.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS of his support for Shearer and mentions others also supporting Shearer. Off hand I count the following endorsements:

• Matt McCarten
• Matthew Hooton
• John Tamihere
• Willie Jackson
• Michelle Boag
• Deborah Coddington
• John Pagani
• Jon Johansson
• Chris Trotter
• Cameron Slater
• Phil Quin
• Lew Stoddart

Now that’s just members of the VRWNLLWC who have endorsed Shearer. Add to that the apparent support of Phil Goff, Annette King, David Parker, Grant Robertson and Trevor Mallard. Has any leadership candidaate ever had such a wide variety of people endorsing them?

However for Shearer to win, he will need more than endorsements. He will need to pick up his game substantially from his performance on Q+A today. Being unable to even name your Climate Change spokesman is embarrassing.

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.

In my NZ Herald column I label David Shearer the right man for Labour. I conclude:

As a National supporter, I know National will not always be in Government. I think a David Shearer led Labour Party will pose more of a threat to National, than any alternative leader. But I still hope that the Labour Caucus will elect Shearer as their leader, as if there is to be a Labour Government, I think the sort of policies we would get under a Shearer administration would be far better than we had under Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, or were offered by Phil Goff.

Shearer is backed by many reformers within Labour. A likely area of reform is around list ranking and candidate selection – specifically the heavy influence union affiliates get in these decisions. Many in the caucus are upset that new MPs such as Carmel Sepuloni, Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash were ranked below longer serving MPs with union backgrounds. They lost some of their most promising talent from 2008. If a Shearer led Labour can reform the party so that it operates on a one person, one vote principle then Labour is far more likely to regain the votes of its former supporters.

It will be interesting to see how Cunliffe and Shearer do on The Nation tomorrow.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP David Shearer, who ran against Boscawen in Mt Albert, said he had a reputation for “relentless, single-minded determination”.

“He’s a genuinely straight up guy, a hard worker, and he’s bloody relentless and stays on message.

“He has a slight eccentric side to him, not in a bad way.”

Labour’s Lianne Dalziel, who sits with him on the commerce select committee, said he was a good fit for his new roles as Consumer Affairs Minister and Associate Commerce Minister.

“He will put his heart and soul into it, and doesn’t kowtow to the party line on a lot of issues. He knows we need regulation in financial circles to protect people, so he is not [an Act] purist.

“He’s been a tireless advocate for consumers who has really championed causes around victims of finance company failures.”

Good on David and Lianne for being willing to praise an opponent.

As I blogged yesterday, the chances of there being a Labour-led Government after the 2011 election is very remote. Not just because of the gap in the polls, but also because of their failure to rejuvenate, but more importantly their failure to mend bridges with the Maori Party who might hold the balance of power after the election.

So unless there is some big event such as a second recession, or a major scandal, Phil Goff is unlikely to become Prime Minister. So who will replace him, when and why?

When?

Turning to the when, and I still maintain that Goff is safe until the election – even if Labour stay below 30%. There are three reasons for this:

1. Lack of enthusiasm for the alternatives
2. The shared delusion that the public will wake up to its mistake and restore them to power once they prove that John Key really is a nasty nasty man
3. The impact of MMP, sheltering Caucus more than FPP did

The last point is quite important. Under FPP MPs got more panicked by the polls. If the polls showed they were in trouble in their seat, then they were facing the end of their political career, so they would desperately vote to change leaders to try and hold on to their seats – as Labour did in 1990.l

But under MMP, MPs can be protected on the list, so they do not fear bad polling so much. And even though the polls may show Labour losing as many as seven List MPs, the fact is no one knows which seven MPs may be toast until Labour ranks its list, and by then it is too late.

So I am quite confident that Phil Goff will remain Leader until after the 2011 election. But if they lose, I would expect he will retire from the leadership and politics within 6 – 12 months of the 2011 election.

Who?

I believe the next leader of the Labour Party will be David Cunliffe. And yes, of course I have my money where my mouth is and am backing that stock on iPredict.

Why?

It isn’t exactly a closely guarded secret that David Cunliffe isn’t the most popular MP with his colleagues. He probably isn’t the first choice for Leader of more than a handful of MPs. But he will become Leader, because he is basically everyone’s acceptable second choice.

Being the acceptable second choice can be a better position than a faction’s first choice. Similiar politics happened in the Waitakere selection – one faction was backing Twyford strongly and one faction (union) backing McCracken. Carmel Sepuloni came through the middle as the choice acceptable to all sides who could unify the electorate – either Twyford or McCracken would have left a significant minority disgruntled.

It is also worth remembering that Helen was positioning Cunliffe as a future leader, if she got a fourth term. She wanted to keep Goff out, and after Maharey retired and Mallard imploded, Cunliffe was her favoured candidate to succeed her. The 2008 loss, meant that Cunliffe did not have enough experience to be viable at that stage, so she let the leadership temporarily transfer to the man she she had worked so hard to keep away from it.

Why Not?

Cunliffe is basically the only acceptable alternative to the caucus. One can ascertain this by going through the others known to want the job.

Shane Jones – even before the hotel porn saga, Jones was not going to become leader. The women in Labour would rather slit their wrists than elect Jones, and while they are not a majority in caucus, they are a minority too powerful to ignore. Also Jones hasn’t shown the required hard work to become leader – he overly relies on his (quite considerable) natural talent. He is also too right wing economically to become Leader.

Andrew Little – Andrew has made a tactical mistake by combining the three roles of party president, union leader and aspiring MP. There is considerable resentment of this in the caucus, and he is blamed for the lacklustre fundraising to date. One Labour person commented to me that how can you expect the President one week to be getting donations from CEOs, when the next week he is delivering strike notices to them. Add onto that the resentment from List MPs that Andrew will be automatically given a high list ranking, knocking them down the order.

So Andrew will enter caucus with a degree of pre-existing hostility. While he may one day become Leader if he proves himself, he will not be given a Bob Hawke type coronation after just a year in Parliament.

Ruth Dyson – John Key would start going to church (to thank God)  if Labour elected Ruth Dyson as Leader. Nothing against Ruth’s skills, but she is a polarising figure strongly associated with the former Government.

Maryan Street – I rate Street as one of the smartest MPs, and she has the ability to be a strong Minister and maybe even Deputy Leader.  But I don’t see at all the charisma to become leader or prime minister. Maryan being elected as Leader would also see John Key, if not start attending church, at least sending his kids to Sunday School!

Grant Robertson – Grant is a very smart political operator. Too smart to try and become leader after just one term in Parliament. He has what I expect will become a fairly safe seat for him, and time is on his side. I think the bastard might even be younger than me! If Grant stood in 2012, he might do surprisingly well, but I think he knows he is better to wait his time and get more experience before he tries to ascend.

Ashraf Choudhary – just kidding

Then what?

It is dangerous to look too far ahead, but my best pick at this stage is David Cunliffe become Leader in 2012, and he contests the 2014 election.

Labour will have a challenge in replacing him as Finance Spokesperson, with a so few MPs having the necessary skills or background. To my mind, the only credible option would be David Parker. So the leadership team could be Cunliffe as Leader, Street as Deputy and Parker as Finance.

Like Goff, Cunliffe will probably be a one shot leader unless he wins the election. They call this the Mike Moore slot. He doesn’t have (at this stage anyway) the loyalty of enough MPs to keep him in the job if he loses.

If National wins the 2014 election (and no predictions this far out), then Labour will have another leadership change. I believe their post 2014 leader will be their long-term leader – like Clark they will be in the job for 10 – 15 years or so, and they will become Prime Minister.

This could see a Grant Robertson vs Andrew Little battle. That would be very interesting. I’ve been pretty impressed with David Shearer also, and wouldn’t rule him out as a contender also. Kelvin Davis has potential also – but I see him more as a future Education Minister.

Of course a John Key or Don Brash type candidate may enter Parliament for Labour in 2011, and also by 2014 become a potential leader. However the fact almost all their Caucus is standing again, makes it harder for them to parachute any stars in.

Time will tell if my predictions come true.

Tomorrow, I will blog on how I would “sell” David Cunliffe once he is Leader.

The final result is in for Mt Albert and David Shearer almost cracked 10,000. His majority of 9,718 is (off memory) the second largest for Labour in any seat.

Turnout was a very low 47.8%.

David Shearer should be declared elected on Monday 29 June, and presumably sworn in on Tuesday 30 June.

The final list of votes in order was:

1. David Shearer, Labour 13,260
2. Melissa Lee, National 3,542
3. Russel Norman, Greens 2,567
4. John Boscawen, Act 968
5. Ben Boyce, Bill and Ben 158
6. Dakta Green, ALCP 92
7. Simonne Dyer, Kiwi 91
8. Judy Turner, United Future 89
9. Julain Pistorius, Libertarianz 39
10. Jim Bagnell, Independent 24
11. Ari Baker, Independent 15
12. Anthony van den Heuvel, Human Rights 13
13. Malcolm France, Peopel before Profit 13
14. Jackson Wood, Independent 9
15. Rusty Kane, People’s Choice 5

An interesting interview on TV3, where David Shearer agrees Phil Goff is not internationally successful, and in response to whether he wants to be leader, said “not right now”.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

The SST reports the words of the new MP for Mt Albert:

New Mt Albert MP David Shearer has wasted no time in sending a clear message to his party that it must move with the times, generate new ideas, recruit fresh talent, take risks and listen to New Zealanders.

With all the votes counted, Shearer had 62 percent, Melissa Lee trailed with 17 percent and the Greens Russel Norman had 12 percent.

It was a huge victory and Shearer should be very happy with pretty much a fault free campaign.

Labour needs fresh ideas and needs to reconnect with the people. As you stay in government there’s a tendency to lock down and not take risks as you go on,” Shearer said.

“I think what you’ve got to be constantly doing is refreshing and taking time to get new ideas and continuing to listen. I think otherwise you end up hunkering down and fighting battles, and then people get tired.

He is right on the reconnection and new ideas. Hopefully we will get to see some new ideas from Labour as times goes on – at present they seem to still be fighting yesterday’s battles.

The Herald does a lengthy article on David Shearer.He won’t be unhappy with it.

NZPA report:

Ms Lee said she was “feeling great” about the campaign, and had already started door knocking.

“We are in the rain and cold to meet the people in Mt Albert to see what they are concerned about,” she said.

Residents were concerned about the same things the rest of New Zealand was, she said.

She believed law and order was a big issue for people in the area.

“As a victim of a home invasion myself I understand exactly how they feel. I want to feel safe in my own home and on the street.”

Few would disagree, would they?

He said the big issues for the electorate were the Waterview Connection motorway, the “super-city”, which people didn’t understand, and the economy. Mr Shearer said he did not believe crime was such a big issue, but people did want “strong, safe communities.”

So crime not such a big issue. Putting aside the unfortunate timing in such a statement, I doubt few many Aucklanders would agree.

Today’s Dom Post editorial:

For once Labour has got its selection right. By standing a candidate who is not a list MP it has averted the nightmare scenario of perennial time-server Judith Tizard returning for another 2 1/2 years on the public teat as a list MP. And, if he is successful, David Shearer a highly regarded international aid specialist who resigned as United Nations deputy chief of mission in Iraq to contest the by-election will add greatly to Labour’s talent pool. In fact, he would be part of that pool already were it not for the determination of the union movement to use its muscle to turn the Labour side of Parliament into a rest home for tired union officials.

Ouch.

In 2002, Mr Shearer was edged out of what was then the safe Labour seat of Waitakere by Engineers Union organiser Lynne Pillay and bumped out of a winnable position on the party list by another Engineers Union organiser, Dave Hereora. Neither Ms Pillay, who remains in Parliament, nor Mr Hereora, who was ousted last year, have ever done anything that suggests they are an answer to any of Labour’s problems.

No wonder Phil Goff intervened in the selection, rather than leave it to Andrew Little.

I read this exchange in the Herald:

White-haired Mt Albert pharmacist David Baird met his first living, breathing politician yesterday – and gave her an earful.

“Hi, I’m Melissa Lee, National candidate for Mt Albert,” said the politician.

“Well you won’t be getting my vote because I don’t think we need any Asians in Parliament,” the pharmacist shot back tartly.

Or Jews. We don’t need any Jews either.

Korean-born Ms Lee, a former journalist who has been in New Zealand for 21 years, asked brightly, “Why not?”

Mr Baird said he had his reasons. “They are very difficult people to deal with. They don’t spend any money. I don’t see that they bring any money into the country. Another problem is their English is very bad.

Good on Melissa for not taking offence. Not sure I would have been as reasonable.

As I read this, I thought to myself that this guy sounds like a NZ First voter. And later on we read:

Mr Baird voted NZ First last year and has not decided whom to support in the June 13 byelection, caused by Helen Clark’s departure to the United Nations.

Will NZ First stand a candidate? If so, who will they take votes off?

And a Pakeha mother who declined to be named turned out to be as “red” as Mr Baird’s wife. Her simple verdict: “I’m going to vote for him – he’s the right colour.”

So is she voting Shearer because Labour is “red” or is she voting Shearer because he is white?

Heh after a year or two of National being called Labour-lite, the Greens are calling David Shearer National-lite.

Dr Norman played up the link, saying it meant he himself was the only “progressive” candidate on offer.

“The right of the party – the Goff faction – have got their man. Labour have chosen the grey machine man. I’m sure he’s a very nice guy, but it means we’ve got National versus National-lite versus the Greens.”

Actually in terms of privatisation, he could be called ACT-lite or even Libertarianz-lite