Kiwiblog

Vernon Small at Stuff writes:

Labour’s David Shearer may not have been smooth, but he was genuine and a man of substance.

So the spin went last year when he was struggling to sound fluent during speeches and impromptu press interviews. He was, if you like, substance over style. But his address to party faithful yesterday – not a “state of the nation” speech exactly, but a scene-setter for the year – was the exact reverse.

And on the style:

These days Mr Shearer is taking no chances on the presentation front, even using an autocue when talking to about 170 party faithful in a Wainuiomata rugby clubroom.

You are kidding? An autocue to talk to the Labour Party summer school in rugby clubrooms? I knew Labour always look to US and UK politics for their campaign  ideas, but this is ridiculous.

Of course party leaders will use autocues for major events, such as the campaign launch and close, and annual conference speeches. But I have never ever heard of an autocue being used at an event like the Young Labour Summer School.

His speech is here. Some extracts:

The hands-off, simply leave it to the market approach has failed all over the world.

We are on the cusp of a new era – when new thinking and leadership is needed to build wealth we can all share in.

The world has changed. National hasn’t. It’s stuck in the past.

We need a government that recognises times have changed.

We need a Government that finds the courage to act, not better excuses for why we can’t.

We need a government prepared to stand up for hardworking forgotten Kiwis.

We need a smart, hands-on Government. 

As opposed to a stupid hands-on Government?

As I blogged a few days ago, hands on and hands off are labels which mean little in today’s world. The current Government is intervening all over the place in an attempt to help foster stronger economic growth.

What the focus should be on is the details of what each party proposes as inteventions, not stupid slogans from the 70s.

It’s about getting our priorities right, being thrifty about our economy.

Bringing our debt under control.

Which is why Labour has criticised every single spending cut of the last four years.

We’ll make changes to monetary policy so that our job-creating businesses aren’t undermined by our exchange rate.

A more subtle version of the Greens pledge to print more money.

I’ve spoken of a clean, green, clever economy many times.

The focus groups must like that phase.

Not a single specific new initiative. Just a recital of last year’s announcements and a new slogan about hands-on vs hands-off.

Chris Trotter looks as the David Shearer backstory, and while it is one I approve of heartily, he seems less enamoured:

Some political observers have drawn comparisons between Mr Shearer and his chief antagonist, Prime Minister John Key. The young Labour activist, Connor Roberts, summed up the pair’s similarities and differences with his now famous quip: “John Key went overseas and made fifty million dollars; David Shearer went overseas and saved fifty million lives.”

This focus on Mr Shearer’s and Mr Key’s “overseas” experiences has led many to assume that both men were out of the country during the pivotal years 1984-1993. In Mr Shearer’s case, however, this is untrue. For nearly the whole period of the Fourth Labour Government (1984-1990) he was here, in New Zealand, studying, teaching and consulting. If he was a Labour Party member at any time during those tumultuous years, then he was a very quiet one. He certainly wasn’t among the ranks of those who fought against Rogernomics. He has, however, often spoken to journalists about his admiration for David Lange’s speeches.
 

This inability to get worked up about the core elements of neoliberal “reform”: labour market flexibility; privatisation; deregulation; monetary and fiscal discipline; explains his rather odd belief (for a Labour leader) that the contest between Left and Right is “a phony debate”. Such ideological agnosticism – explained away as good old Kiwi pragmatism – does, however, offer us a way into the most unusual and contradictory aspect of Mr Shearer’s entire career: his support for mercenary armies, or, as they prefer to be known these days: private military and security companies (PMSCs).

That impression was intensified by Mr Shearer’s experiences three years later as the UN’s Senior Humanitarian Advisor in the West African nation of Liberia. Just across Liberia’s northern border, in the ravaged state of Sierra Leone, the PMSC known as Executive Outcomes had been employed under contract to the Sierra Leone Government. Shearer was deeply impressed by this mercenary army’s lightning-fast defeat of the Liberian-backed forces assailing the ruling regime.

A year later, in 1996, Mr Shearer was advising the UN in Rwanda. It was here, just two years earlier, that a brutal genocide had taken place while the United Nations watched – and did nothing. Trying to stitch the rudiments of civil society back together after a disaster on that scale cannot have been easy.

This was followed by what might be called the John Le Carré phase of Mr Shearer’s career; his two-year stint (1996-1998) as a research associate at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. Like its sister institute – The Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House – the IISS has always laboured under strong suspicions of being a sort of “front organisation” for Britain’s foreign affairs, defence and intelligence “community”. This was most clearly illustrated in 2003 when the IISS released a report strongly favouring the UK’s participation in a US-led invasion of Iraq. Like the infamous “sexed-up” report released by the Security Intelligence Service (MI6) just two weeks later, the IISS also warned against Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) “weapons of mass destruction”. Since 2003 the IISS’s Director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk has been Nigel Inkster – formerly the Deputy Director of MI6.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

David Shearer appears to be weighing up his options for deputy prime minister between Green co-leader Russel Norman and NZ First leader Winston Peters as he looks for ways to reward support partners without letting go of the key finance portfolio.

I have the solution. Make Russel and Winston co-deputy PMs!

Tapu Misa writes in the NZ Herald:

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

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

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

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

Much good that show of unity did them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71 days to go until the next vote!

Jane Clifton writes in the Listener:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She had seen no evidence of disloyalty by Mr Cunliffe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: NZ Herald editorial says:

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

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

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

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

UPDATE2: Zetetic at The Standard names names:

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

This old guard clique led Labour to its worst defeat.

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

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

Oh Chippie is the polling guru!

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

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

Next year’s conference could be fascinating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How unusual!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

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

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

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

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

Possibly more than two months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m generally a fan of nuclear options

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

Patrick Gower at 3 News reported:

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Vernon Small reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They say a picture is worth a thousand words!

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

Photo from NZ Herald. Idea from Keeping Stock.

Camp Cunliffe have done well at the Labour Party Conference.

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

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

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

Vernon Small tweeted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NZ Herald Vice Political Editor Claire Trevett profiles David Shearer and ranks the front bench performance. The scores:

• Grant Robertson 8
• Phil Twyford 8
• David Cunliffe 7
• Maryan Street 6
• David Parker 6
• Jacinda Ardern 6
• David Shearer 6
• Clayton Cosgrove 5
• Nanaia Mahuta 4
• Su’a William Sio 3
• Shane Jones – Hon Mention

When Labour Party members gather in Auckland tonight for the opening of their annual conference, the one topic on everyone’s lips will be the one topic that is not on the agenda paper: David Shearer’s leadership. …

To say Mr Shearer’s first 11 months in the job have been underwhelming is an understatement. Confronted by television cameras and microphones, he is rendered incoherent unless he has previously learnt his lines, no one has got a clue what Labour stands for and his senior MPs are being allowed to idle away their days. It is no surprise, therefore, that supporters of defeated leadership candidate David Cunliffe continue to agitate on his behalf, or that Mr Cunliffe continues to make pronouncements that fuel speculation about his intentions. ….

The choice for Labour is between a green leader who is struggling, a proven ministerial performer who is disliked by his colleagues and two unknown quantities.

The Manawatu Standard headline:

 Shearer worked while claiming sickness benefit

Alas about a shearer, not Shearer

Transtasman this week said:

Having demonstrated how not to have a leader of the opposition, the Labour Party is now demonstrating how not to have a coup to get rid of him. Watch and learn.

For the not having a leader of the opposition bit, the party has pretty much covered all the options this year, with only one exception: party leader David Shearer has never rounded on his party critics and told them to go and do something very difficult to themselves. His response has been more a hurt and injured look. This is novel, but it hasn’t worked. So now Labour, or some elements anyway, are endeavouring to get him to go quietly by using a Labour-aligned, anonymously written blog.

For those who have lives, it’s called The Standard, and it is written by Labour Party members who are also public servants, hence the anonymity. It’s mostly a poisonous waste of time, although if you want an insight into the thought processes of Labour-supporting public servants, it is quite an education.

All this meant was would be challengers David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson had to endorse their leader in public. It was a
highly qualified level of support.

Claiming they have “no immediate plans to challenge the leader” about as lukewarm as you can get.

I think some of the authors also work for unions!

Also worth listening to former Herald Editor Gavin Ellis on Radio NZ Nine to Noon. He says that The Standard authors were obviously used by factions in the Labour Party who want to see a change in the leadership.

And finally The Press editorial:

The loudest muttering against Shearer is being led by bloggers and columnists from the liberal Left. For the moment the caucus appears loyal, all possible contenders insisting they are 100 per cent behind him. That, however, should be regarded with considerable scepticism.

For a start, when Shearer got himself into a horrendous tangle with unsubstantiated allegations against Key over the Government Communications Security Bureau fuss, his colleagues took an awful long time to come to his defence. Further, if any plot to unseat him were going on, the plotters would obviously stay clandestine for as long as they could.

A factor inhibiting a coup is the lack of an alternative with predominating support. Of two possible contenders, David Cunliffe lost against Shearer last time and is widely regarded as too satisfied with himself by half and Grant Robertson is, for now at least, a Shearer loyalist.

It was lack of an obvious successor that kept Phil Goff in the leadership until the last election, but not many in Labour would regard that as an entirely happy precedent.

What surprises me is they gave Goff three years, yet some appear unwilling to give Shearer even 18 months.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Labour is proposing to make future leadership contenders take a “behaviour pledge” to try to prevent messy cannibalistic attacks on each other during leadership races.

The change is among changes party delegates will consider at its conference this weekend following a major review of the party.

A change to give the party members and affiliated unions a vote on the leadership will include new rules under which a leadership contest is held – including a “behaviour pledge” for contenders and a spending cap on any advertising in a leadership contest.

Will the oath include angry bloggers trying to force the current leader out on your behalf?

The Herald editorial:

 Those calling time on Mr Shearer blame him for the fact that the present Government is clearly not on the wane. It has endured a difficult year. There has been the Dotcom saga, the setbacks over partial asset sales and the pokie deal, privacy breaches, the resignation of two ministers, not to mention the Prime Minister’s “brain fades” and occasional careless remarks. Yet National still polls at around 47 per cent, a dozen points ahead of Labour, and Mr Key seems as popular as ever.

Mr Shearer’s critics cannot understand this. They know there are only two explanations: either the Government is genuinely popular and they are out of touch with the country’s mood, or the mood has changed and Labour’s leader is failing to capitalise on it. Naturally they prefer the latter view but they are wrong.

This is spot on. Many of the critics are angry. They even blog proudly how angry they are. They detest John Key. They hate National. All their friends hate National also. They don’t know anyone who doesn’t hate National. So it is a huge mystery to them that National remains ahead in the polls. Hence someone must be to blame, and they have decided it is David Shearer. Never has the possibility dawned on them that they live sheltered little lives where their only friends are fellow political activists or unionists, mean they are not in touch with the majority of the country.

He was thrust into the limelight too quickly and he still sounds diffident. But his judgment on policy so far has been good. He appears to be a moderate, responsible decision-maker and a personality the country would like when Labour’s time comes. That cannot be said for some of his possible replacements. All he may need is time.

Shearer is moderate, and I think that is a strength. But party activists are not moderates.

I’ll let the article speak for itself:

Yesterday the three MPs regarded as having leadership goals – Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe and Andrew Little – all ruled out any immediate challenge and rejected suggestions they were involved in any attempt to undermine Mr Shearer.

Not exactly Shermanesque denials.

Video from interest.co.nz of David Shearer outside Caucus this morning. A good performance by Shearer.

My understanding of the strategy in play, is that those in Labour wanting a change do not want an actual leadership challenge to Shearer. They are deliberately piling pressure on to force him to quit, so no one has blood on their hands.

I find it baffling that Labour gave Phil Goff three years as Leader, when it was obvious he could never be elected (not due to any personal qualities, but the fact he had been in Parliament since Muldoon was PM). Goff saw Labour consistently poll under the result he inherited in 2008.

Shearer has not even been leader for one year. Labour is polling on average 4% higher than at the 2011 election. Yet people are determined not to give him a fair chance. Why the unseemly rush to kneecap him before he even gets to to his first conference as leader?

Brian Edwards has blogged:

A quite remarkable thing happened this morning. Herald columnist Tapu Misa gave it as her view that David Shearer should stand down as leader of the Labour Party.

Misa is the finest columnist in the country – intelligent, informed, rational, considered in her judgements. More importantly, she is never cruel or unkind. Unlike most other columnists, including myself from time to time, she never sets out to wound. In keeping perhaps with her strong religious beliefs, she is ever a charitable critic.

Her politics are to the liberal left.

For these reasons I believe she will have thought long and hard before sending this morning’s column to theHerald for publication. It will not have been an easy decision. I can only assume that, after long deliberation, she concluded that this was something that, in the interests of the Labour Party and the country, just had to be said.

So why now?

Misa’s message is by no means new. The opinion that Shearer, however decent, however nice, is the wrong man for the job, is now regularly expressed by both right and left-wing commentators. Shearer claims not to be bothered by this groundswell of disfavour, but he is either in denial or putting on a brave front. It must be a dismal experience to be subjected day in, day out, to such relentless public humiliation.

And I think the strategy is to force him to quit, because he is a decent man.

What is both new and remarkable is that Misa, albeit reluctantly, has joined the chorus of opinion that Shearer is harming rather than helping Labour’s cause and that he cannot continue to lead the party. The writing on the wall could not now be clearer.   

It has been my view, expressed in numerous posts on this site, that the Labour caucus made a serious mistake in selecting Shearer as leader in preference to David Cunliffe. They are now paying the price for the infantile thinking of the ‘Anyone but Cunliffe’ brigade.

But if Shearer goes, will it be Cunliffe who succeeds him?

As an advisor to Helen Clark during the 2008 election I learnt to my cost the danger of underestimating Key as a debater. My view and the view of Helen’s other advisors was that Key would be no match for the Prime Minister. He was a new boy and she was a seasoned practitioner. She was ’Minister for Everything’ and had an encyclopaedic knowledge of every portfolio. She would make mincemeat of this upstart. Key, it turned out, had been hiding his light under a bushel. He was aggressive, interruptive and in his element. Helen lost the first debate and we had to regroup.

Why is this relevant? Because David Shearer could not hold a candle to Helen Clark as a debater. That is why I say Key will crucify him in any face to face debate. It’s already happening in Parliament.

So here’s what I think should happen: Shearer should announce at the Labour Party Conference that he has told caucus he wishes to step down as leader and will do so as soon as a replacement has been chosen.  To avoid the inevitable chaos (and possible collapse of the Labour Party) which will  result from the implementation of their proposed new rules for choosing a leader (which could be tested as early as February of next year), caucus should quickly select David Cunliffe to take them through the next election. Cunliffe is the only person for the job. There is no-one else.

I’d be interested to know why Brian thinks it couldn’t be Grant Robertson or even Andrew Little?

UPDATE: Lynn Prentice has also called for Shearer to go.

I should clarify something relating to my earlier post. I never suggested The Standard has a group view on Shearer. I know each author is independent. What I focused on is the fact that two (now three) of the most longest serving and prolific authors have all called for Shearer to go – BEFORE he even gets to the first party conference. The fact a couple of other authors have disagreed does not change the significance of this.

My statement that this was no coincidence was not referring to a co-ordinated effort between The Standard authors as a bloc. I meant that it was being co-ordinated by one or more MPs who have chosen to try and force the issue before conference.

Andrea Vance writes:

Here’s not what’s going to happen at Labour’s annual conference later this week. David Cunliffe is not going to rugby tackle David Shearer to the ground while Grant Robertson sits on his head, with Andrew Little shouting “bags be leader”.

Irritatingly, leadership spills don’t happen that way. If only.

I think having Grant sit on your head is an offence under the Crimes Act

Labour is especially good at the nasty, tortured coups – so if the party is going to roll Shearer, expect it to be beastly. But don’t anticipate blood on the floor of the Ellerslie Racecourse come next Sunday night.

All an opposition party leader has to do at his annual conference is suggest he might do a better job than the bloke presently in charge. Unfortunately in Shearer’s case, it’s not the incumbent prime minister, but himself.

For when he stands up to deliver his keynote speech, the 500-odd delegates will be staring at a bloody great leader-shaped hole. He’s got about 20 minutes to convince a disillusioned party faithful that he’s not invisible, hasn’t got a speech impediment – and that he’s got a cunning plan to convince the voters that Labour can deliver a costed, credible alternative to National-omics.

Of course, while he’s doing it, the commentators and the pundits will have one eye on him and the other scrutinising the wannabes and couldvebeens.

And say Shearer doesn’t give a whizz-bang, tub-thumping speech? His performance this year suggests it’s not going to be a belter. This far out from a election he’s not going to be unleashing any astonishing new policies to distract watchers from the leadership question.

As I said previously, I expect Shearer to give a good speech, His challenge is not delivering speeches, but handling questions.

The risks in rolling him are inherent, but the party appears to have gone past that now. Shearer could give the speech of his life but for many it will be too little, too late. Labour have floundered in opposition, they are impatient for power and can’t afford him any more time.

He’s had more leeway and more time than most would have got (from the media pack and party members) simply because he’s such a nice man.

But, sadly, it seems Labour are facing that awkward conversation: “David, we’re sorry, it’s not us, it’s you.”

Ouch.

Vernon Small writes in Dom Post:

Just short of his first anniversary as leader, David Shearer delivers his first speech to a Labour Party conference next week.

But as storm clouds gather over his leadership, it is shaping as possibly his last.

Members, activists and unionists contacted for this article said over and over that the speech at the Ellerslie racecourse conference centre next Sunday was crucial to Shearer’s grip on the leadership.

His first priority is to convince the party rank and file that “he has what it takes” – and those grassroots members will be looking for a hard-hitting address taking the fight to the Government while outlining a clear and personal view of where he intends to take Labour.

Unless he can carry that off, the groundswell in the party is set to break into the open with a push for a leadership challenge, most likely when the caucus meets in February – or even sooner, according to one business lobbyist in close contact with the party.

That’s a big call.

Personally I think Shearer will do fine at the conference, which will subdue the talk. I’ve seen him do speeches, and he has few problems there. His weakness is press conferences and interviews, which are a very different challenge.

According to a senior MP, who backed Shearer in last year’s leadership vote, most inside Labour are withholding judgment until they see his performance at the conference.

But there is wide agreement Labour and Shearer will not be able to avoid a focus on his performance, not least because key business at the Ellerslie conference centre includes a revamp of party rules.

At issue is how candidates are chosen and ranked on the list – a potentiality explosive matter inside the party given the power of its union and sector group blocks.

But delegates will also vote to give unions and members a say in leadership votes. That has previously been the sole preserve of MPs in the caucus.

The draft proposal would require a two-thirds majority of MPs to trigger a leadership vote – a move that would be seen as entrenching the leader between general elections.

A rival option – to put the leadership to a vote if 40 per cent of MPs call for it – is seen as too destabilising and the party is likely to settle on the compromise of a 55 per cent threshold.

40% is too low and 67% too high, so the compromise looks sensible.

If the new rules get put in place, and then in February 55% of caucus say they want a change, we’ll see Cunliffe v Robertson for the leadership. Possible Little could stand also – not so much to win – but to become a powerbroker.

The members seem to most support Cunliffe, the unions Little and the caucus Robertson. The union support can be delivered pretty much as a bloc, so Cunliffe and Robertson will need to make some pledges to the unions to gain the leadership.

3 News reports:

Voters think Labour leader David Shearer is the most effective opposition leader, but only just.

A TV One opinion poll released on Monday night showed Mr Shearer favoured by 25 percent of respondents, with NZ First leader Winston Peters just behind him on 24 percent.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman rated 18 percent and Mana’s Hone Harawira six percent.

The Green Party’s other co-leader, Metiria Turei, was on five percent while 10 percent of those questioned didn’t think any of them were effective.

Not a huge surprise that Peters is high. Few doubt his capacity to oppose. What should worry Labour is that 23% name one of the two Green co-leaders as the most effective opposition leader and 25% their own leader.

Not a headline I thought I’d write often. But two items worth a read.

Queen of Thorns has done her own “Shearer Says” template:

This week I’ve been in [ insert location].  The people there are [hard-working/real] New Zealanders with a great sense of [fairness/justice/community/family].  But they’re [having a hard time/losing their jobs/worried] because of [insert recent National policy implementation].

This isn’t [good/just/fair/helpful].  This is [bad/stressful/unjust/unconstructive].  Labour will stand by the people of [insert location] and help them through the tough times ahead.

National was elected on a promise to [insert promise here].  Instead they’ve [insert policy here].  This isn’t [the way forward/the right thing for New Zealand/what they promised].  As the Leader of the Labour Party, I will do something to fix this [optional:  and will shortly be announcing our policy in this area].

Labour knows that [jobs/children/the environment/the economy/the heartland/our communities] are important to New Zealanders.  Under National, [insert previous] is [suffering/in decline/living below the breadline/spiralling out of control/neglected] while they [insert policy implementation].  As Leader of the Labour Party I’m committed to fixing this [optional:  and will shortly be announcing our policy in this area].

Warm regards,
David Shearer
Leader of the Labour Party

The commenters seem to feel that QOT version is better than the actual thing, and that she should be hired as a writer for Labour!

Michael Valley assesses the Labour front bench. He comments:

Comparing them to the winning Labour team in 1999 really hammers home how awful our guys today are. I pitted each of the frontbenchers today against their 1999 equivalents. Out of the 9, only 2 of the 2012 crop come out on top. And only 3 (Parker, Cunliffe, Cosgrove) have done the job they’ve been put there to do.

Some of his assessments:

Leader
David Shearer (2012) vs Helen Clark (1999)

No contest. Whatsoever. None. Clark looked like the next Prime Minister. Shearer’s minders wouldn’t even let him front on Q+A this morning for fear he would be shown up by Norman.

Deputy Leader
Grant Robertson (2012) vs Michael Cullen (1999)

Grant is better than his leader. Without a doubt. But he just doesn’t shape up compared to Cullen. While Cullen gave excellent support to Clark, oversaw a brilliant house strategy, and kept on top of every portfolio he was ever given (finance, tertiary education, attorney-general, acc etc.) Robertson has failed to fire. His strategic genius has put Labour in the shit they’re in now, and Labour are virtually invisible in the Tertiary Education and Environment space. …

Social Welfare

Jacinda Ardern (2012) vs Steve Maharey (1999)

Maharey was a brilliant advocate and really held the government to account. Remember Christine Rankin hiring a plane for WINZ executives to visit an exclusive Taupo resort? Maharey uncovered it. Ardern on the other hand has been invisible, even after being gifted the MSD privacy uncovered by Keith Ng the Greens outshone Labour. She does not deserve the portfolio nor being put at number 4. New Zealand’s most vulnerable deserve better. …

Health

Maryan Street (2012) vs Annette King (1999)

While now past her use-by date, 1999 Annette was a brilliant opposition politician. While no one even knows who Maryan Street is, in 1999 Annette was ripping Wyatt Creech to shreds. Barely a day went by without health making the news and Annette always stood strong against good healthcare for only the rich. Street on the other hand is awful. She must go.

Education
Nanaia Mahuta (2012) vs Trevor Mallard (1999)

Trevor used to be good. Bloody good. This really is no contest. Nanaia hasn’t performed. Putting out a press release after getting hints she might be dumped doesn’t cut it. She ought to be slaying Parata. To be fair she’d probably beat 2012 Mallard. But how hard is that? Yesterday, Mallard thought it would be a good idea for a senior Labour MP, him, to publicly attack the head of Treasury after he made comments widely welcomed as open-minded and turning away from dry neoliberalism. At least Nanaia keeps her mouth shut rather than putting her foot in it.

It’s going to be an interesting Labour Party conference in two weeks time.

3 News Political Editor Duncan Garner blogs:

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

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

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

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

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

However Labour is up in the polls from the election.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour Leader David Shearer announced earlier this year a bill that would have restricted the sale of land to foreigners. It was incompetently drafted as the Herald reported. Almost every Labour bill or SOP this year has been appallingly drafted. The adoption bill, the lobbying bill sop, this bill. There’s really no excuse for using draft legislation as slogans rather than actual possible laws.

Any Shearer has very quietly dumped the bill, which was capitalising on xenophobia over the Crafar Farm sales, which Labour wanted to go to Sir Michael Fay as a discount instead. The bill was hyped as his first major policy release. Well it has been buried it seems.He’s now done a Food in Schools bill, but hasn’t handed the investment bill over to another MP.

The second u-turn is the Kapiti Expressway.

Labour has campaigned non-stop against the Kapiti Expressway. In the Mana by-election Kris Fa’afoi was out there campaigning with protesters against it.

A couple of months ago, Shearer was still firmly  against the roading upgrade.

 Labour leader David Shearer says his party still opposes building the Kāpiti Expressway and will ‘mothball it’ if it gets the chance.

Now he’s changed his mind on it.

Labour will not rule out continuing National’s Kapiti expressway all the way to Otaki, leader David Shearer said today.

That’s quite a transformation – in six weeks he went from strongly opposing the project, to we’ll see how the case stacks up!!

As it happens I support both u-turns by David Shearer, but it doesn’t help him being seen to stand for something.

UPDATE: And the policy has changed again. Shearer has now been over-ruled by Phil Twyford who now says it must be scrapped!

I for one like the current policy of a four lane corridor from the airport to Levin. It will make a huge difference to travel in the region. And giving in to some NIMBYs would be idiotic because you lose a huge amount of the value of the entire project, if you have a few kms which remain single laned – this means traffic moves at the speed of the slowest car.

Gordon Campbell writes in The Wellingtonian:

All year, David Shearer’s strategists have been claiming that as New Zealanders gradually get to know him, they will come to like what they see.

Instead, what seems to be happening is that voters are going through periodic fits of disenchantment with the government and then looking more closely at the alternative, only to rebound in alarm.

So far, Shearer has simply failed to make the case that he could lead a credible alternative government.

And it would be a very complicated Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana Government with the major party being weaker in electoral terms than in any other Government. This means diminished ability to impose or even negotiate an agenda.

Yet by the same token, every time the Key government has got itself into trouble this year, a few rogue elements in the Labour caucus (eg, Trevor Mallard, Shane Jones) have proceeded to score an own goal, and create doubt about Labour’s competence and coherence.

This would suggests that Shearer’s flaws go beyond his public failure to be forceful and articulate, and extend to an inability to devise a consistent opposition strategy and ensure that his team sticks to it.

Recently, the Labour-leaning website The Standard listed the year’s roll call of self-inflicted damage: from Mallard’s ticket scalping debacle, to Shearer’s speech about the beneficiary on the roof, to Jones’ recent attacks on the Greens on behalf of his campaign donor, Sealords.

It was an impressively long list.

Merely replacing Shearer with his deputy Grant Robertson would seem unlikely to improve matters.

Robertson and his electorate team are already well represented among Shearer’s advisers, and thus seem more part of the problem than the solution.

So Gordon Campbell seems to be in Camp Cunliffe.

The NZ Herald editorial yesterday:

Labour’s xenophobic employment restrictions will not resonate with most.

Appeals to patriotism seek to tap the most accommodating of instincts. They can also be the most dangerous of tools. Too often, politicians talk of it when they want to beat the populist drum without much regard for the potentially dire consequences. So it was with a speech by Labour leader David Shearer last week, during which he set out policies that promised to give New Zealanders the first crack at jobs by making it harder for businesses to bring in migrant labour. Helpfully, Mr Shearer underlined the dismal nature of this approach by using the word “patriotic” as many as five times.

It must have tested well with a focus group!

The Labour leader said the current requirements for employers to try to find New Zealand workers before migrants were lax, often requiring a boss to show only that a job had been advertised. Labour would require companies to work with agencies, industry groups and Work and Income before approval was given to employ a migrant.

What this means is more hoops and bureaucracy for a business just wanting to get the best person for a job.

Mr Shearer placed his policy in the context of the rebuilding of Christchurch. This was an opportunity to employ and train New Zealand workers but there was a risk it would be squandered because of cheaper migrant labour, he said. Such talk may impress those still harbouring xenophobic tendencies, but Mr Shearer is mistaken if he thinks it will strike a chord with most New Zealanders. Least impressed of all will be the business community. It will be appalled by Labour’s intrusiveness and red tape that will serve only to stifle initiative. It will also point out, quite rightly, that government has no business interfering directly in staffing, as would be the case under a policy requiring companies with government contracts to train one apprentice for every $1 million investment.

Appeals to patriotism are usually a port of call for politicians desperate to win popularity. But the changed face of New Zealand and an appreciation of the important economic role of immigration has deprived this approach of much of its impact. Making it harder for migrant workers to enter the country will only hinder development. Most New Zealanders understand that. So should Mr Shearer.

Imperator Fish blogs:

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

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

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

David#2: I don’t see the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

David#2:  Oh?

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

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

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

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

David#1:  Ah… no.

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

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

And the fictional conversation continues:

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

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

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

David#1:  This will destroy John Key.

David#2:  It will certainly be very destructive.

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

David#2:  I’m certainly hoping so.

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