Kiwiblog

Colin Espiner blogs:

So, it seems, is Phil Goff. Labour’s leader has issued a ringing endorsement of his own abilities today at Labour’s caucus meeting in Auckland.

“You’ll have to put up with me for a couple more years,” he told reporters this morning before Labour’s traditional vote on the leadership, which has returned both himself and deputy Annette King.  ”I think it’s a recognition that the leadership team they’ve got is the best team they could hope for.”

Bloody hell. Talk about damning with faint praise. I can almost see Labour’s next election slogan now: “Phil Goff: The best Labour has to offer.” Or maybe “Goff – there’s really no one else.” It’s almost as bad as Dunedin’s ”It’s all right here” or Hastings’ “Take a fresh look”.

Heh. Who is going to be first with the photoshop?

Mind you, it’s probably not Goff who has to worry much this year. As he says himself, there really isn’t any alternative. As long as he can keep the Government honest and score a few points during 2010, he’ll still be there at the end of the year.

Yep, as the alternatives are worse.

No, I’m starting to think it’s our prime minister who has his work cut out this year. When even the Right-leaning business publication the National Business Review starts telling National to get on with the job, you know that the tolerance of National’s natural constituency for its steady-as-she-goes approach is coming to an end.

To be fair to Key and National, it does have some major plans this year, ranging from tax reform to the Whanau Ora policy of allowing private providers (mostly Maori) into the provision of welfare. It’s got national standards to implement in education, energy sector changes to complete, the legal aid system to overhaul, and the Foreshore and Seabed Act to repeal and replace.

But there’s a difference between planning things and actually implementing them, and that’s going to be the litmus test of this administration this year. In 2009 Key proved himself to be a political manager almost of Helen Clark’s calibre. In 2010, we’ll get to see whether he can match her in getting things done as well.

A fair call. People do want to see progress, and a sense of direction.

The Herald reports:

Asked if they would rule out mounting a challenge at any point before next year’s election, Mr Cunliffe answered with an emphatic no. “Absolutely ruled out. Never been interested.”

Mr Jones initially said no comment before returning to say it was a “negative, divisive question”.

Rather different responses.

“Absolutely no interest whatsoever in applying for leadership or doing anything that breaks our unity.”

Which is far from a no.

Elsewhere:

Labour MP Shane Jones has begun the year vowing to drive the Maori Party out of Parliament, saying they had betrayed their own people and lured the Government into funding their policies of “buying favours by giving money to a favoured few”.

The criticism following Labour’s first caucus of the year yesterday was a clear sign that the gentle approach Labour has thus far taken to the smaller party is over.

Shane talks tough but I notice he doesn’t stand himself against Maori Party candidates in the Maori seats. He normally stands in Northland, losing to John Carter by 10,000 or so votes.

I’ve said it before but Labour are making a strategic blunder by attacking the Maori Party – for two reasons. The first is that they have no chance of winning back four of the five seats held by the Maori Party, and if anything are at risk of losing two further seats to them.

At the last election Labour won the party vote in the Maori seats with 50% to 29% for the Maori Party. The November 2009 Marae Digipoll had the Maori Party at 62% (up 33%) and Labour at 23% (down 27%).

On top of this, it is almost impossible for Labour to form a Government without support from the Maori Party. They have lost the Alliance and Winston First. Progressive and United Future probably won’t be there next time, and Labour and the Greens by themselves are incredibly unlikely to win 63 seats.

TV news showed Phil Goff, after being re-elected Leader, saying “I’m afraid you’ll just have to put up with me for another couple of years”.

Did he just concede the election? If he wins, he would be around for another fve to eight years. It is only if he loses that he is only around for another couple of years!

Phil also managed to get his “ordinary New Zealanders” phrase off again. I make his count up to four so far. Will he get to double figures?

Trevor Mallard blogged on 15 August 2009:

The fact that they weren’t sent to prison because they are Maori just doesn’t seem right to me.

Nanaia Mahuta blogged on 18 August 2009:

To criticise the sentence on a matter of race is ridiculous

I don’t think Trevor was being ridiculous, as Nanaia labels him.

In fact I sometimes wonder if Trevor does not have a very cunning game plan. So cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a fox.

He has become the de facto Opposition Leader of the House and appears to lead their parliamentary strategy.Have a look at Parliament some time and you will see Mallard working with Hughes and the Whips to decide what to do.

He also seems to be in charge of their communications, and set up Red Alert without even telling Phil Goff about it.

He is going out of his way to mentor new MPs, and often is delegated to speak on behalf of the party on non portfolio issues.

And we now see Trevor positioning himself to appeal to non-core Labour voters with his blog on this issue.

Now maybe it is all a coincidence, but is it possible that Trevor is planning some bbqs over summer?

Trevor was widely seen as a leadership contender along with Maharey un until a couple of years ago. Suddenly within a few weeks Trevor was out of the running for punching Tau Henare, and Maharey bailed to academia. Phil Goff suddenly became the heir apparent despite never being Clark’s choice.

So is Goff there just to give Trevor time to rehabilitate himself?

I tend to shy away from making firm predictions, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb, and make a series of related predictions:

1. Annette King will stand for Mayor of Wellington in 2010
2. The resulting by-election will see Andrew Little enter Parliament as MP for Rongotai
3. Unless Labour wins the 2011 election, Andrew will become Labour Party Leader shortly after the election, successfully challenging Phil Goff.

Time will tell if I am right or not. I’m quietly confident.

A classic Dim-Post:

Rumours, speculation and wild gossip swirl through the gray streets of the nations capital this week, with businessmen, civil servants and fishwives all speculating on the secret identity of the Labour parties noble and courageous new leader; the only man in Wellington brave – or foolish – enough to defy the terrible might of the Key administration.

The National Party has vowed to seek out and destroy the noble yet unknown politician who has captured the hearts of the political left with his quick-witted press releases and bold opposition to suspending superfund payments – but with his identity a mystery the bumbling attempts of the fiendish Nats are doomed to failure.

Deputy Labour leader Annette King has denied knowing the name of the dashing masked hero but has confirmed that under extraordinary circumstances she can contact him, revealing that she alerts him to a crisis either by wearing a red carnation in her corsage when attending balls, placing a vase of the same flowers in her bedroom window at midnight or messaging his facebook page. …

King laughed merrily at suggestions that her old friend and colleague Phil Goff is the shadowy champion of the left. ‘Poor old Phil? Not in a million years. He couldn’t even make it to Andrew’s press conference because he locked himself in his office bathroom. Phil is sweet and trusting and has a good command of trade and defense issues but he could never match the bold flair and derring-do of our mysterious new captain,’ she said sighing and staring out her rain-streaked office window at the stormcast Wellington skies.

But King’s loyalty to her hapless, bumbling friend may yet pose a threat to Labour’s secret hero; sources within National have revealed that the parties senior strategists are setting a trap for the masked Labour leader, forcing King to lure him out of hiding by threatening to attack Goff in the House if King does not co-operate.

‘She knows that Goff is too naive and good natured to defend himself and that the Nat’s will tear him apart, so she’s trapped into sacrificing her leader to save her friend,’ a senior National staffer said, speaking off the record before twirling his mustache and chuckling darkly.

As of press time the evil scheme appears to have been unsuccessful; Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and senior cabinet MP’s Simon Power and Murray McCully thought they had trapped the Labour leader in a Select Committee hearing but when they entered the room they found only Goff, slumbering gently in the corner.

Danyl really should be given a column in a newspaper. And his ending:

The National MP’s dashed their hats to the ground and swore in frustration. Upon awaking Goff insisted to them that he was Labour’s mysterious hero, at which the men laughed uproariously and clapped Goff on the shoulder.

‘But I’m the leader,’ Goff told them. ‘I’m head of the party goddamn it. Why won’t anyone listen to me?’

The real identity of the opposition leader remains a mystery.

They seek him here, they seek him there …

• Leader: Phil Goff
• Deputy Leader: Annette King
• Finance: David Cunliffe
• Foreign Affairs: Helen Clark
• Shadow Leader: Michael Cullen
• Senior Whip: Darren Hughes
• Junior Whip: Steve Chadwick

Congratulations to Phil Goff for achieving his long held ambition, and without even a ballot. He will be a very happy chap tonight. Annette is probably taking up the Deputy more through a sense of duty than ambition. She will be a key person in keeping people happy.

Overall looks pretty sensible to me.

We also have the unusual situation where Clark remains as Prime Minister for another week or so, despite no longer being party leader. I don’t thik there has ever before been a leadership change before the new Government has even been sworn in.

The common theme on the left blogs seem to be to try and use Sir Roger as a bogeyman for the new Government, even though he won’t be a Minister in it.

I find this amusing as the new Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party will be two of Sir Roger’s former loyal lieutenants.!

Yes Clark and Cullen did serve in Cabinet with Sir Roger, but they were in the Lange faction. Goff and King were definitely in the Douglas faction. Maybe a journalist could ask them whether or not they voted for Douglas to return to Cabinet in 1989, against Lange’s express wishes?

Personally I hope Sir Roger is made Chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. He would do a good job holding both Departments and Ministers to account for their spending.

The Herald editorial talks about how Phill Goff will be a caretaker or temporary caretaker for Labour.

The decision allows Labour no time to find a promising successor. In the absence of a new face, it will probably elect the capable Phil Goff to lead it for the time being. Mr Goff has many of the attributes of Helen Clark: wide ministerial experience, a good command of all issues, instinctive common sense and a sure political touch. And he is a more forceful public speaker than she is.

But he is not much younger than she is, and as a minister in the 1980s has been on the national scene for just as long. He can never give Labour the fresh image a party normally needs to recover from a long period in power. By the next election Mr Goff would be in much the same position as Bill English was in 2002. As a leading minister in a recently defeated Government, Mr English could not lead National back to office.

Actually a lot worse than Bill’s example. Bill entered Parliament during the 4th National Government and was Leader of the Opposition for the 5th Labour Government. Phil Goff entered Parliament during the 3rd National Government, served as a Minister in the 4th Labour Government, spent nine years in Opposition during the 4th National Government, nine years as a Minister in the 5th Labour Government, and now will become the fresh face of Labour during the 5th National Government hoping to lead a 6th Labour Government to power.

At the next election, Goff and King celebrate the 30th anniversary and 27th anniversary respectively of their first election to Parliament.

So I think Goff and King will struggle to be seen as long-term Leaders. In a way, that is a pity. Goff and King are amongst the more moderate Labour MPs (or have been to date) and should move Labour more towards the centre.  They both are regarded as amongst the more competent Ministers also (even though King’s halo took a beating this year) and should be an effective team working together.

Fran O’Sullivan notes that while Michael Cullen and Helen Clark have been falling over themselves to keep Winston happy, Phil Goff has been hapily overseas working on the US trade agreement.

Up until the last couple of weeks I would have said that Clark, even if she loses, would manage her own departure and delay it long enough for Cunliffe to have the numbers to beat Goff.

But if Labour loses, there could be a significant internal backlash against Clark and Cullen for their appalling judgement over Peters. Some of those Labour MPs were very unhappy about being forced to vote for Peters.

This gives Goff an opportunity to force a leadership ballot earlier rather than later, and campaign on a ticket of needing to remove those associated with the defence of Peters.

Ben Thomas at NBR points something out about the Labour Party List:

Of those, five have worked directly as staffers for Prime Minister Helen Clark: Chris Hipkins (47), Grant Robertson (46) and Ms Ardern (20) are present or former advisors in the PM’s office; Brendon Burns (49) is the former head of the beehive’s communications unit established by Clark; Phil Twyford (26) worked in the Prime Minister’s electorate office in Mt Albert in 2005.

Now I don’t think working for a PM should rule you out of selection. In fact those candidates, if they become MPs, will be relatively experienced in parliamentary processes (although some of them somewhat lacking in life experience).

But the real significance, is what will happen if Labour loses. The leadership is likely to be a fight between Phil Goff and David Cunliffe. And five former Clark staffers will all vote with Helen to support Cunliffe over Goff. In no way does Clark want Goff as her sucessor.

So David Cunliffe should be very happy with the list, and Phil Goff less so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both would bring with them an image problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they have the hugely before the wrong word

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

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

NZPA reports:

Prime Minister Helen Clark says National’s lead in the polls will start to slip when the election campaign starts and she isn’t even thinking about handing the leadership to someone else.

Miss Clark was asked on NewstalkZB this morning whether she would consider stepping aside to give Labour “a new face” before the election if the polls don’t change.

The last four have shown National’s support at more than 50 percent, and its lead over Labour at more than 20 points.

“That’s a question I’m not even prepared to contemplate,” she said when she was asked about the leadership.

Generally it isn’t leaders who contemplate changes, but their MPs who panic at the thought of losing their seats.

Having said that, a change of leaders would not be credible for Labour and not even uber-ambitious Phil Goff wants to do a Mike Moore and be PM for just six weeks.  They should change nothing at all and keep on doing what they are doing.

More sensible would be to announce a new Deputy or Finance Minister. I respect Michael Cullen’s achievements, but there is little chance the public are going to vote for him to deliver another budget. Put Goff or Cunliffe into Finance and you might have the public think more kindly of the Government as willing to give them back more of their own money.

There have been many articles on what Phil Goff was up to with his comments on Alt TV, and there appears to be an merging consensus (which I stated was my opinion early on) that his comments were not directed at Helen, but at other post-election contenders for the leadership – especially David Cunliffe.

Now a Goff vs Cunliffe contest for the leadership could be fascinating. Neither man is universally popular with his peers, but both are respected for the jobs they have done in their portfolios. Whether there would be a third contender remains to be seen.

So what was said over the weekend. First the Dom Post editorial on Saturday:

Announcing the beginning of the Siege of Helengrad on a television channel that believes it needs to titivate the news to attract viewers is a strange move for would-be Labour leader Phil Goff, The Dominion Post writes.

It’s almost as strange as his admission in the same venue that “sure, we might lose the election”.

Traditionally, politicians wait till the votes are counted before conceding even the possibility of defeat, but Mr Goff has not got time to muck about with the niceties if he wants to be Labour’s next leader.

That’s why it’s doubtful either statement was a Goff goof.

There have been claims that it’s all down to media mischief-making, but they are about as credible as the claims of those who say they watch Alt TV’s naked news to keep abreast of current affairs.

It was not a gaffe. Goff has spent ten years saying he has no ambitions to be leader, and when you change the tune to be no ambition until after the election it means something.

Mr Goff is a man of long experience and it is foolish to believe he unintentionally flashed his intentions.

He is used to the convoluted logic and necessary evasions of politics, and well versed in their practice. After all, he is the man who, as trade minister, has to convince his foreign counterparts that even though New Zealand’s foreign minister fulminates against free trade agreements, the Government that Winston Peters represents overseas is actually very keen on them. …

Instead, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Mr Goff has taken a leaf out of Lewis’ book.

He has decided to begin his own leadership fan dance, revealing enough of a glimpse of his ambition to take over from Helen Clark to indicate his interest and titillate his supporters. …

Or, as Lewis would undoubtedly observe, it’s all about Flirty Phil Goff from Mt Roskill deciding he needs to be out there swinging his tassels before Delicious David Cunliffe from New Lynn has even tied on the G-string.

Goff seems to have detected a 9th floor led campaign for DC to be her natural successor. He is of course not happy having been so quiet and loyal for the last 12 years, and having seen off Maharey and Mallard.

Fran O’Sullivan also writes on the issue:

Goff knows that Clark does not want him to inherit her mantle as Labour leader. The Prime Minister has been less than discreet in signalling her preference for a generational switch to take place after her 15-year reign as Labour’s leader ends. Those who have been treated to her gossipy confidences believe she favours Cabinet rising star David Cunliffe to take over from her in a carefully stage-managed post-election transition of power.

That sounds like some well placed sources.

Goff would have heard the gossip. He would also have felt rather miffed that his loyalty to Clark – which has not been in question since he and Cullen led a deputation asking her to stand down as Labour’s leader in 1996 – has not being openly returned.

Goff-watchers believe he lacks the bottle to openly challenge Clark, even after an election defeat.

This is Goff’s problem. If Labour loses (and it may not of course) and Clakr steps down immediately then Goff has to be the favourite. But what if Clark stays on as Opposition Leader for a year, and then stands down. By then Cunliffe (or others) may have gained enough support to beat Goff in a ballot.

It occurs to me that if it is Goff vs Cunliffe for the leadership, then the winner would be sensible to make the other their Finance Spokesperson. The two of them together would actually be a pretty strong team, and would give Labour a decent shot in 2011 (especially with Cullen’s poison pill budget).

The good folk at Fairfax have informed me that there was no change to their poll on Stuff as I blogged yesterday, and no complaint from the 9th floor. I was confused ((c) Mike Williams) between a poll on the main Stuff site and a poll on The Press site. Now The Press’ site is part of Stuff with the same look and feel but it is editorially independent.

So both polls were on Labour Leadership. I saw one which merely had Goff vs Clark (The Stuff one) and then the other one which had references to this being hypothethical (the Press one) and did not realise they were different polls, and assumed it was the one poll which had been changed.

So my stuff up, but in my defence it can be confusing. Look at the front page of Stuff today and their poll is “Did Michael Cullen’s tax cuts meet your expectations?” with a “Yes” and “No” option. Then go to The Press front page and their poll is “Hooray – tax cuts are here. But is Finance Minister Michael Cullen’s generosity enough” with options of “Yes”, “No” and “I didn’t want a tax cut anyway. I’ll send it back.” They are asking (again) similar questions but in a slightly different way.

Fot those interested the Stuff poll had:

Goff 4,398 56.2%
Clark 3,433 43.8%

And The Press had in relation to would Goff be a good sucessor:

Yes 1,510 75.4%
No 316 15.8%
Your hypothetical question is not welcome 177 8.8%

I’ve amended the original post to make it clear it was wrong.

Stuff have been running a blog poll on whether Phil Goff would make a good successor to Helen Clark. A few people suggested yesterday I should promote it but I didn’t because they are very unscientific and no one should take them too seriously.

However I noted with amusement today that obviously the 9th floor was taking it seriously as the poll has now been amended to include the words “(This is a hypothetical question)”.

Ha ha ha – so precious. Demanding that it be made clear it is hypothetical, just in case readers thought the PM was dead or had resigned and no one had noticed I guess.

Even better Stuff then added on a third voting option – ” Your hypothetical question is not welcome”.

Sadly for the complainers the results to date are:

Yes (Goff would be good sucessor) 81% (1,359 votes)
No (Goff would be bad sucessor) 12% (198 votes)
Your hypothetical question is not welcome 7% (124 votes)

UPDATE: I was wrong. There were two different polls. See here for an explanation.

The papers this morning look at Goff’s positioning. Tracy Watkins at the Dom Post reports:

Helen Clark’s heir apparent, Phil Goff, appears to be positioning himself for a leadership tilt if Labour loses the election, dropping his previous denials that he had ambitions for the job.

Mr Goff, Labour’s third-ranked minister, has also conceded Labour could lose the election as it battles a mood for change. …

Though he is widely accepted as Miss Clark’s successor should she step down after a Labour loss, his opening the door to that possibility now is likely to spark damaging leadership speculation. …

In response to further questions, he said being prime minister was “not an overwhelming ambition”.

That contrasts with a comment in February when, asked if he had ambitions to be prime minister, he said: “I have absolutely none.”

Goff claiming to have no ambitions to be Prime Minister could almost be called perjury. Even his statement about no “overwhelming” ambition probably rests on a Clintonian type definition of “overwhelming”.

The Herald also looks at his answers:

Mr Goff did little yesterday to make amends for his public admission that he wants Helen Clark’s job if Labour loses the election.

“There is no question about leadership at the moment,” he said yesterday when questioned about his pre-recorded television interview.

A seasoned politician who wanted to end discussion about leadership would usually give such an answer unconditionally, without qualifications such as “at the moment”.

It is no secret that Mr Goff wants to be Labour leader, but it is the first time he has acknowledged it publicly and it is the first time a senior Labour MP has openly contemplated defeat.

The qualification is unnecessary because people always know that the statement doesn’t imply forever. So by stating the obvious “at the moment” tends to be for a reason.

There is of course no chance Goff will challenge. But what he may be signalling is in the event of a loss, he wants a quick change. He doesn’t want Clark to stay on for 18 months, giving other contenders the time to build up support and get the job ahead of him.

John Armstrong also reads the tea leaves:

The body is still breathing – just. But some of the family already seem to be fighting over the corpse.

It is a sure sign that a Government is on its last legs when its members admit they might lose the coming election and discuss – even in passing – what might happen to their party afterwards. …

He may have stated the obvious in saying “there’s a prospect we might lose”. However, no matter how dire things might be looking – and they do look pretty dire for Labour right now – no politician worth his salt admits the possibility of defeat. Never. Full-stop. Period. And certainly not a politician as smart, seasoned, politically wired, competent and ultra-careful as Goff.

Goff is known as ultra-careful. He has been in Parliament since before most university students were born. He has especially been careful on issues of leadership as for the last 12 years he has been the focus of attention. Not once in 12 years has he said what he said last night.

This is the first time Goff has ever opened up on the possibility of his leading the Labour Party. Even if he did not say that much, it was in marked contrast to his line back in February. When he was asked then if he had leadership aspirations, he replied “absolutely none” and instead heaped praise on Helen Clark.

Those who argue this means nothing at all, have no experience with how leadership contenders position themselves. Now trust me, one thing I know about is leadership contenders and coups. I’ve seen MPs and leader’s press secretaries negotiate words so they can express confidence in the leader, yet keep their options open. The language around confidence in the leader is very precise and deviations from it are well understood.

Again this does not mean Goff will try anything before the election. He does not want to be Mike Moore, and he would not win anyway. But it is a signal that post-election he will vigorously contest the leadership and on his timetable, not necessarily Helen’s.

Two different takes on Goff’s comments from the gallery. Colin Espiner says they are no gaffe at all, while Audrey Young calls them an extraordinary lapse. Taking Colin first:

Fourth-ranked Labour Cabinet minister Phil Goff has really put the cat amongst the pigeons this morning by admitting he’s interested in the leadership.

Granted Goff didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know already. You’d have to be deaf and blind to not know the Mount Roskill MP has been grooming himself to take over from Helen Clark ever since the pair left university.

Heh harsh, but true.

It’s also true that Goff has never denied he was interested in taking over, either. But I can’t recall him ever being quite so explicit as he was in a partial transcript of an interview he gave to Alt TV, which airs tonight.

Ues it is normally done by nudge nudge wink wink.

Given the opportunity to explain himself to reporters this morning, Goff didn’t resile from his remarks – in fact he said he stood by them. He added that Labour was the underdog going into the election, and that clearly some people felt it was time for a change.

So is Goff saying people think it is tme for a change of government, or a change of leader?

Now, full marks to Goff for honesty, but it’s a well-known political convention that senior ministers don’t upstage their leader by talking about defeat in an election year, particularly when the party is staring down the barrel of a walloping.

And they most certainly don’t start speculating about the process involved in a leadership change, bloodless or not, should that party be defeated.

The question, then, is was Goff simply having an off day or was he being disingenuous? Did he make a faux pas or is this part of a wider game plan on his part?

I’m going with the latter option. Goff has been in politics almost as long as Clark. He knows the score. There is no way he would have made these remarks without an end-game in mind.

That’s a big call, but Colin is right that Goff is no novice. As Foreign Minister Goff is well trained in never saying anything without careful thought. And if you look at the actual video of him on Alt TV, he seems very clear with what he is saying – it was not something “tricked” out of him.

Consider also his track record. Goff was one of the gang of four who went to Clark’s office in 1996 to ask her to step down. He held an infamous barbecue at his house in 1999 to which Clark was not invited and rumours have persisted ever since that it was to canvass leadership options.

I seem to recall some “BBQ at Phil’s place posters going around Wellington at the time!

So what’s Goff’s end game? I’m not for a minute suggesting he would sabotage his party. Nor do I think there is even the remotest chance of a leadership spill before the election.

But it is clearly in his interests for Labour to lose, and lose badly. That would prompt a clear-out of the current leadership and its allies and give him the opportunity and the mandate to rebuild Labour and take it in a new direction.

I think his comments to Alt TV, repeated again this morning, were a reminder to his supporters and the wider public that Phil Goff is still in the frame, biding his time, waiting for his opportunity.

When you are 27% behind in the polls, it is normal and natural to start thinking of post-election positioning. Certainly there will be no moves before the election at all, but the list ranking for Labour will be very interesting to watch.

Now Audrey Young has her take:

Phil Goff has breached political convention and openly admitted that not only might Labour lose the election but, if so, he could be interested in the leadership.

While both those things are widely known, it is not done speak aloud about alternative leadership or admit the possibility of defeat. That is politics 101.

Goff’s offending comments were made a couple weeks ago to Oliver Driver’s niche TV show Let’s be Frank and will screen tonight on Alt TV.

They are an extraordinary lapse for such a seasoned politician and canvassing the issue of defeat and leadership is the last thing the Labour Government needs in Budget week of election year.

Yes, an unusual pre-budget announcement – ‘We might lose and if so I want to be leader’.

He reiterated his comments that Labour could lose. He used a little more discretion today on the leadership question, but still implied it could be up for debate soon: “There is no question about leadership at the moment,” he said. “There is 100 per cent support for Helen Clark and I have been 100 per cent in support of her right through this office.”

The use of the term “at the moment” is very significant. It is the traditional phrase used to send a signal.

After being caught unawares in the stand-up outside the caucus room Goff could be heard having strong words with his press secretary.

Dr Cullen’s office has also been having staffing issues. It can get very stressful there when things look grim.

Ben Thomas from NBR reports that Phil Goff has confirmed that he will be a contender for the Labour Party leadership if Helen Clark stands aside, if they lose Government.

Mr Goff made the comments in an interview with Oliver Driver for the Alt TV show Let’s Be Frank two weeks ago. The interview will air tonight at 8.30 pm.

Trade minister Mr Goff said he would look at the leadership in the event of an election loss “If I felt that I was the best one [candidate] in that position and that Helen had stood aside voluntarily.” …

The comments are pragmatic, even banal, and reflect recent polling. But it is rare for a government minister to depart from the strong media lines out of the Beehive that polling under-represents government support. …

When asked earlier in the interview whether he was the leader in waiting Mr Goff said “I don’t know – that’s a decision made by caucus.”

Asked by Mr Driver if leadership was an ambition, Mr Goff responded “It’s not an overwhelming ambition.”

“I like the job I do. I’ve done it for the best part of 25 years. That’s been a very long sentence, that one.”

Did Phil Goff just say something along the lines of just being happy being the MP for Mt Roskill?

Dominion Post Political Editor Tracy Watkins looks at Labour’s plight:

And, finally, the desperate knowledge that even hitting the panic button probably won’t work. That, barring the heavens answering their prayers for an election-losing blunder by John Key, the two most likely scenarios now are to lose or to lose badly.

I like that – a choice between losing and losing badly. It is at times like that you start looking forward to the next election, and start debating whether one should not spend all (or too much) of their money on the 2008 campaign, or keep some in the kitty for 2011.

There are early signs that the mood in the caucus is already swinging in that direction: resentment is now brewing over the MPs who have refused to give up their safe seats – George Hawkins and Harry Duynhoven among them – to clear the decks for the generational change that will be forced on Labour in the event of an election defeat.

Both Harry and George have been reselected and control their local electorates. But there will be immense pressure to put the party first and step down, so that some of the new talented MPs such as Lousia Wall have a chance of retaining their place in Parliament.

But the party hierarchy faces a pincer movement as pressure builds on two fronts: the first, the desperation of sitting MPs for winnable list slots; the second, the rising pressure to preserve the best and brightest in Labour’s current ranks and make room for some up-and- comers to slot into Parliament post-election should there be an exodus in the event of a defeat.

Since Miss Clark and Dr Cullen are likely to lead the pack, the subterranean- level jockeying for post- election leadership scenarios may have already begun.

There are whispers that the campaign against Maryan Street, a possible deputy leadership contender from the Left of the party, is already in full swing.

The signs of panic, then, may be in their infancy – but they may also be a sign of things to come.

Street as Deputy Leader would be very resisted by Goff and the more moderate faction. Gof would rightly suspect he would be being setup to be interim Leader, and then rolled by the same forces which rolled Moore in 1993.

So who are the contenders for the three top spots. First Leader:

1. Phil Goff
2. David Cunliffe
3. Shane Jones

Goff has to be favourite at this stage. With Maharey gone and Mallard in the sin bin, there is no credible contender from the left – Goff, Cunliffe and Jones are all from the more moderate side.

Deputy has a range of contenders:

1. Maryan Street
2. Clayton Cosgrove
3. Shane Jones
4. Chris Carter

Maybe Dyson or Dalziel also, but both would be challenging choices having both been sacked from Cabinet for indiscretions.

And then Finance Spokesperson:

1. David Cunliffe
2. Trevor Mallard
3. Shane Jones

Cunliffe is the logical choice, but logic does not always come into it.

With the polls going seriously South for Labour, there is a focus on who will survive. Ruth Laugeson in the SST takes a look:

Under the poll results Labour would lose 14 of its 50 MPs, many of them list MPs. With the list already carrying several MPs who lost their electorate seats last election, competition for the winnable top spots is likely to be fierce.

MPs who now risk relegation to unwinnable places on the list include former Napier MP Russell Fairbrother, Maori MPs Dave Hereora and Mita Ririnui and newcomers Moana Mackey and Lesley Soper.

Matthew Hooton also looks at their challenge:

Its problem is that if it is down to, say, 36 MPs, its caucus will be dominated by tired old faces lacking strong national appeal.

George Hawkins, Ross Robertson and Harry Duynhoven will all win their seats. You’d probably bet on Cunliffe and Chris Carter saving theirs and there’s a chance Mahara Okeroa, Nanaia Mahuta and Lynne Pillay might also scrape home.

Winnie Laban, Lianne Dalziel, Ruth Dyson and the Progressive Party’s Jim Anderton should all be safe, as should the unpopular Trevor Mallard and Pete Hodgson.

Obviously Clark will win Mt Albert and Cullen will be back on the list. Goff and Annette King are completely safe.

These people would be half Labour’s caucus. Some have been important and successful ministers going all the way back to the days of David Lange and Roger Douglas, but with the best will in the world they can’t be called a team for 2011 or beyond.

Some new talent is on the way. Wellington Central’s Grant Robertson is from the party’s powerful lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, takataapui, fa’afafine and intersex sector, but is just as comfortable at a rugby club.

He should go straight to the front bench. Dunedin South’s Clare Curran enhanced her reputation by the competent way she handled the scandal surrounding her role at the Environment Ministry. Louisa Wall potentially has appeal.

Beyond these three, Labour’s rejuvenation programme has largely failed.

Laugeson also looks at post-election leadership:

Labour leader Helen Clark’s position is considered unassailable but interest is building in a successor if she is defeated in the end of year election.

New frontbencher David Cunliffe, who is seen to have taken a firm grip of the health portfolio, is now strongly in the running alongside Phil Goff.

Goff vs Cunliffe would be interesting. Could Jones also stand?

The Hive has been running a series of posts suggesting Cullen will roll Clark.  I offer no opinion on that probability of that scenario, but they have asked me for my thoughts on who would be the best Deputy to a PM Cullen.

It would have to be a woman, to keep the gender balance happy.  Labour’s rules are full of gender balance requirements. If an electorate turns up to their national conference with more men than women, they get hauled before some sort of Spanish inquisition where they have to justify their lack of gender balance, and if they can’t do so thhey lose most of their voting rights.

Annette King has always been the logical choice, but recent events are damaging her star. And the rumour is that she plans to resign in late 2009 or eary 2010 to bring Andrew Little in through a by-election.

Lianne Dalziel has been a very solid performer, but Deputy would be a stretch. Maryan Street is a possibility one day, but has not been in Cabinet long enough. However if one wanted a dark horse to bet on, it would be Street. Dyson is too polarising, even though she is on top of her portfolios.

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

First she look at if Labour loses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Labour wins, the situation is a bit different:

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

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

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

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

And then the deputies:

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

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

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

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

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

Audrey then sums up all the candidates:

THE NEXT LABOUR LEADER

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

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

AND THE NEXT GENERATION…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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