Kiwiblog

Jordan Carter blogs:

I am not yet sure of it, but I think it is possible by the end of this year, the New Zealand Labour Party will have an institutional role for members in choosing the leadership of the Party.  We will, if that is so, be joining our fraternal parties around the world, and will be giving people a big new reason to join the party and be involved.

I’m a fan of giving the members a vote, as the UK Conservatives did in choosing David Cameron.

The process we choose will be important.  My view is that in a country as small as this, we should do our best to keep it deliberative.  We could, as Patrick suggests, have an electoral college model between the Caucus, Members and Affiliates, and that would work for me to a degree with postal ballots for the latter two, and in person ballots for the Caucus.

I’m more a one person one vote person. Jordan’s model (which is used in UK Labour) would see union bosses controlling say a third of the votes.

Why not just have a postal ballot of all members of the party, a member being someone who has filled in a membership form and paid a sub.

But good to see Labour looking at involving their members more.

For those who missed it, the post before this one was by Jadis, one of my guest editors. As it happens I disagree with Jadis on this, and think Shearer will lead Labour into the 2014 election. Hell if Labour didn’t roll Phil Goff for non-performance, then Shearer has nothing to worry about.

I actually think he has a very decent chance of becoming Prime Minister.

I’m on holiday until early January so Jadis will be doing the odd guest post, as well as possibly other guest editors.

I’ll still do a bit of blogging, but will be less regular.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, so what are the different bloggers saying on the Labour leadership.

My view was expressed last week where I basically said Cunliffe is the safer option, while Shearer has the greater potential to grow Labour’s vote more. If Labour had got a result in the low 30s, then Cunliffe would make more sense, but with a result in the mid to high 20s only, then Shearer seems the better course.

• Keith Ng backs David Shearer
• Russell Brown appears to lean towards Shearer
• Imperator Fish is undecided after the Auckland meeting
• Chris Trotter endorsed David Shearer
• Brian Edwards now backs David Cunliffe
• Cactus Kate says it should be David Cunliffe. She also reports that some Auckland members are unhappy their MPs are not consulting them on their decision.
• Homepaddock is not giving a preference, but notes that at the Auckland meeting Grant Robertson refused to give an assurance he would not challenge for the leadership before 2014.
• Most of the commenters at The Standard appear to be backing Cunliffe
• Dim-Post is tepidly in the Shearer camp
• Hard to tell Whale Oil’s position – I think he is like Brian Edward’s – was Shearer, and now Cunliffe
• John Pagani backs Shearer
• Mickey Savage is a Cunliffe supporter
• Lew Stoddart supports Shearer
• Phil Quin is in the Shearer camp
• Morgan at Maui Street defends Nanaia Mahuta, saying she was the standout in the Native Affairs debates

Of course only 34 Labour MPs get a vote. Not sure what happens if it is a tie!

The Herald has an article with short pieces from supporters of David Shearer and David Cunliffe, which I found interesting. The supporters are:

David Shearer

• List MP Jacinda Ardern
• Former Goff staffer John Pagani
• Blogger Lew Stoddart

David Cunliffe

• Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta
• Labour Auckland-Northland Regional Chair Greg Presland
• Former parliamentary staffer David Hawkins

Most generally make their case well for their candidate, and that is not surprising as both candidates are very credible. However David Hawkins was rather aggressive with this statement:

This battle for Labour’s leadership is a choice between obsolete zero-sum politics and a progressive aspirational social democracy.

David Shearer’s a nice paper tiger. He’s just being exploited by a group that don’t respect New Zealand’s verdict. They actually don’t know what normal Kiwis think because they don’t understand modern direct engagement methods.

The Labour Party’s Red Alert website is symptomatic of the problem.

That is a theme I’ve heard quite a few push. Will Shearer be independent enough from the old guard who are supporting him? If he wins, I guess we will see when it comes to his shadow cabinet.

Patrick Leyland blogs at The Progress Report:

In a pretty bold break with tradition the caucus have decided to do things slightly differently this time. While the vote will still rest with the MPs, the candidates have been engaging in a more open campaign than we’ve ever seen. They have been on TV debates, spoken about their merits, blogged, and they have also begun a series of meetings with party members around the country. In my opinion this is the biggest step forward. The idea being that the candidates speak, the members are then afforded an opportunity to ask questions, and then the members are welcome to provide other caucus members with feedback.

Some have quietly complained that they do not get a direct vote in the leadership. This is a valid criticism and one that must be taken seriously by the new leadership team, and the party, during its upcoming review. …

They’ve attracted large crowds of members, many of whom have renewed their memberships just to gain entry and others who haven’t been to a party meeting in many years. It goes to show that an open process can really inspire people to get involved.

Imagine how many more members we would have at the door if they were allowed a vote on the leadership?

I congratulate the caucus and the party for the way they have conducted this process, but I hope they see it as a stepping-stone on the way to something bigger and better.

First of all I agree the public leadership contest has been very good for Labour. I’m pleased they took my advice which I blogged prior to their caucus after the election:

If Labour were really smart they would have the vote in February 2012 just before Parliament resumes and have a two month campaign for the leadership. Have the three contenders talk up and down the country to members and supporters about their vision for the future. It will boost the profiles of all three men, and start to get people to tune into Labour again.

Some have asked whether National will do the same, when it next has a leadership vacancy. It depends. If the vacancy is while they are in Government, then it could be difficult to have Ministers campaigning up and down New Zealand building support to become Prime Minister. Ministers are less able to offer policy alternatives than when you are in opposition.

But if the vacancy occurs when National is in opposition, then yes I hope National does do the same and gives members an opportunity to hear the contenders and question them. In fact members should demand it.

In terms of whether the membership should actually be given a vote on the leadership, I do actually favour that. I think the UK Conservative battle between Cameron and Davis did wonders for that party in terms of increasing membership and relevance.

It is important a leader has the confidence of their caucus, and you would want caucus to be able to veto a leader with minimal support. This could be done by requiring an MP to gain say at least 25% of caucus as nominees (MPs could nominate more than one MP).

I can’t see Labour or National signing up to membership elections of leaders, as the Greens do, anytime soon. But change often comes quickly. Labour’s semi-primary has been a step never done before, and will I suspect become the norm. And that step will lead to demands that mebers one day get more than just a voice, but also a vote. Not necessarily a vote equal to MPs, but some say.

Maybe Labour could take some notice of what is happening with Australia Labor, as they try to make their party more democratic:

Labor stalwarts have warned of a dying party unless major reform is embraced and more power given to the rank-and-file membership. …

She won support for the rank-and-file to directly elect a ”component” of delegates for the party’s future policy-setting national conferences.

The conferences are currently dominated by union and state branch chosen delegates.

Hilarious – the unions get to decide whether or not to let rank and file members directly elect delegates to national conferences, and how much power to allow the rank and file.

The conference also endorsed Ms Gillard’s push for a membership increase target of 8000 for next year, a trial of US-style primaries for some pre-selections – where non-members can vote on selecting candidates – and online membership participation in parties.

Also a good idea.

From today’s Herald

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

Chris Trotter writes:

Now Mr Shearer was a serious contender, but his new front-runner status came at a price. Like David Lange before him, he was no longer his own man. Labour’s spent forces, the MPs epitomised by the politically exhausted figure of Trevor Mallard, were now wrapped around Mr Shearer like supplejack around a totara. And they were clinging to him for only one reason: survival. Their arch-enemy, Mr Cunliffe, had long ago read their use-by dates. That’s why the ABCs couldn’t allow him to win.

But, if Mr Cunliffe cannot defeat Mr Shearer, he can, at least, defeat Mr Shearer’s backers. A rejuvenated, restructured, or, to borrow Labour stalwart Jordan Carter’s term, “refounded” Labour Party cannot be created by a glove-puppet.

Glove-puppet is too harsh a term, but Trotter is right that there is concern that Shearer with his relative inexperience and less alpha male personality could become the front guy for basically the same old group of MPs who entered Parliament under the 4th Labour Government and should have no part in the 6th Labour Government.

If Mr Cunliffe cannot beat Mr Shearer, then he should, over the next 72 hours, think very seriously about joining him. It’s not too late for the best qualified candidate to contact the most popular candidate; set up a meeting; and make a deal. Mr Key and Mr English did it – why not Mr Shearer and Mr Cunliffe?

Together, they’ve more than enough strength to tear off and make a bonfire of all that parasitic caucus supplejack. Together, they could bend the arc of history towards a Labour victory. Together, a new power curve could hurl their fighters skywards heading for the National fleet.

Cunliffe has gone out of his way to say that Shearer would be on his front bench, but Shearer won’t make the same commitment (on the basis he won’t commit to anyone). However media reports have made it pretty clear that the intention is if he wins, that Parker is Finance Spokesperson and Robertson Deputy, hence demoting Cunliffe. I think this would be a mistake.

I’m not saying that if Shearer wins that Cunliffe should be his Deputy. But I am saying he should at a minimum keep him on as Finance Spokesperson and have him part of the inner team. They would be a good combination.

Most of the focus has been on the leadership contest for Labour, but the battle for Deputy Leader is also interesting with Grant Robertson and Nanaia Mahuta both standing for it.

Effectively they are both standing on tickets with Shearer and Cunliffe respectively except that in the former’s case they are pretending it is not a ticket by not calling it that. I tend to subscribe to the theory that if it looks like a duck ……

The caucus though will have two separate votes for the positions, and will only vote for Deputy Leader when they know whom the leader is. It is possible at that point, one of the contenders would pull pull out, so there is no risk of the Leader ending up with a Deputy who was not backing them.

The conventional wisdom is that Shearer is ahead of Cunliffe at the moment, so Robertson one can assume is also more likely to become Labour Deputy Leader. If this eventuates this overall could be very powerful for Labour. But first the negative.

I’ve blogged before that the ideal deputy leader is one that doesn’t want to be leader, and I stand by this. Now this does not mean that I think Grant personally is a disloyal person who would be sitting there from day one plotting to undermine the leader and become leader. I don’t think that is Grant’s style or record. Also Grant is a relatively young guy with a pretty safe seat, and knows his best route to the leadership is to be part of a winning team, where his support for the leader is unquestionable.

However events can mean things are not that easy. If for some reason (assuming Shearer is Leader), Shearer fails to fire and after 18 months is struggling in the polls, then media will focus on the deputy leader and ask whether or not he should be leader. They will every week ask the deputy if he rules out a challenge, and of course no person can ever totally rule out a change, so a response with wriggle room will be given, and the media will note the wriggle room and the speculation becomes destabilising. I saw this first hand when Jenny Shipley was National Leader and Bill English her Deputy. I even recall the press secretary who had to go between the two of them negotiating a wording for his denial of plans to become Leader, but one that does not make you a liar should a change become necessary – which it eventually did. Very rarely will a Shermanesque denial be given which includes the statement “If nominated I will not accept”.

So the risk if Grant is Deputy is not that Grant will be disloyal. He is a team player. It is that if the leader does not perform as expected, that he will be promoted as a viable alternative – especially is as Deputy Leader he is seen to be performing better than the Leader.

Goff survived as Leader to contest the 2011 election because no one else in Labour wanted the job before the election. They were prepared to lose this election. However the caucus will be more hard headed going into 2014. The thought of a third term for National and nine years in Opposition for Labour will be deeply horrific to them. So if a Leader is not performing, then a change before 2014 would be more likely to occur. However I should state that it is not my expectation that either Shearer or Cunliffe would not perform well, so this scenario is a possibility not a probability.

Somewhat unfairly to Grant I’ve written more than I intended on the possible downside of his deputy leadership. The upside is not so long, but it is more powerful. It all relates to what the role of a deputy leader can and should be in a successful leadership team.

I think the best combinations of leader and deputy are like those in a great school. The school principal provides the leadership to the staff and students, while the deputy principal effectively manages the day to day running of the school.

A good deputy will, on behalf of the leader, help manage the caucus and the leader’s office. They will provide political management and sort out all but the biggest issues, freeing up the leader to lead and focus on convincing 400,000 more New Zealanders to vote for the party.

Robertson should be incredibly effective as this type of political deputy leader. His background in NZUSA, working for Hobbs and then as H3 to Clark gives him a wealth of experience in political management. Every day a parliamentary team has to decide what questions to be asking in Parliament, what press releases to put out on what issues etc.

So overall Robertson should be a very effective Deputy Leader for Labour if he gets elected.I would take one issue with his statement at Red Alert:

I know that I can hold my own and best any of the National frontbench in Parliament and on the hustings.

I’ve often blogged in the past about my respect for Grant’s skills and certain higher ups in National tease me relentlessly about a statement I once made that Robertson will give Ryall a much much tougher time in health. I’d even go so far to say they mock me for that statement, as the reality is that Ryall hasn’t even been mildly nuzzled by Robertson in the House, let alone savaged.

So I think it is a wee bit premature to be claiming you can best any of the National frontbench in Parliament. The evidence to date hasn’t shown that. However I think in National’s second term it will be easier for Labour MPs like Grant to land some blows.

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

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

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

Brian Edwards blogs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’d forgotten that Mickey Savage  doesn’t just comment here and his own own blog. But someone pointed out this post on Monday 28th Nov where he says:

A third mooted candidate, David Shearer, is extremely unlikely to even stand, despite media speculation to the contrary.

Hmmn. And further.

David Shearer has also been mentioned as a possible leader.  He is a decent talented person who will contribute significantly to the party in the future but he is not leadership material at this stage.

The rumours about Shearer and Little were originally started by David Farrar and have been continuously mentioned by Cameron Slater.  The media should discount anything Farrar or Slater says about the Labour Party.

Of course the following day David Shearer announced his candidacy for leader, and is now considered the front runner.

But here is what is hilarious. Mickey Savage is in fact the Auckland Regional Chairman for the Labour Party. So myself and Whale were far more accurate, perceptive and informed on the issue of the Labour Party leadership than Labour’s own regional chairman where the two leadership candidates come from!!

That has to hurt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuff has just tweeted that David Parker has suddenly pulled out of the race for Labour Party Leader. This is a huge boost for David Shearer, and I suspect Shearer is now the favourite.

No word yet on why Parker pulled out. It seems he has endorsed Shearer. I presume if he had stayed in that Labour requires the leader to get 51% of the caucus vote so in a three way contest, the lowest polling candidate would drop out and then have a second vote between the remaining two if none had got 50%.

Analysing the prices of the stocks for the next Labour Leader, and for being PM before 2015 shows us some fascinating insights into how the market views the electability of the various candidates.

The market says there is currently a 55% chance of Labour winning the 2014 election. So in theory the odds of a Labour contender becoming PM by 2015 should be the probability of them winning the Labour Leadership x 55%. But let us look at the actual prices.

David Shearer is at 34.0% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 18.7%. However it is at 23.2% which indicates the market thinks Labour has a better chance of beating National in 2014 if he is Leader.

David Cunliffe is at 38.5% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 21.2%. However it is at 14.0% which indicates the market thinks Labour has a worse chance of beating National in 2014 if he is Leader.

David Parker is at 31.0% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 17.1%. However it is at 7.8% which indicates the market thinks Labour has a much worse chance of beating National in 2014 if he is Leader.

Grant Robertson is at 1.7% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 0.9%. However it is at 9.4% which was initially a mystery to me. The only way to reconcile his far far higher price for being PM by 2015 than being the next Labour Party Leader, is that the market thinks there is a significant chance that Robertson will roll whomever is elected Leader before the next election, and that Robertson will then become Prime Minister after the 2014 election.

So the market thinks Labour is most likely to win if David Shearer is elected Leader, and if Cunliffe or Parker is elected Leader, they are more likely to lose or be rolled by Robertson before the 2014 election – which Labour is favoured to then win.

Today’s Waikato Times editorial:

Over the next few days the caucus and wider party must articulate a new vision for the party.

But that gives no time to establish why Labour’s share of the vote dropped 7 percentage points from 2008, an 85-year low point for the party. Fairfax blogger David Farrar contends the question Labour should be asking and answering before naming new leaders is why it lost that much support. He notes that in 2002 National dropped 9 percentage points from its 1999 result. It did not replace its leader immediately, but commissioned a review to ascertain where it had gone wrong. The results of the review triggered significant change for the party.

Labour is bound to baulk at taking advice from a Right-wing commentator. But it looks like good advice for any well-beaten party, no matter the colour of its stripes.

It is good advice. I never deliberately give bad advice when I blog, in some sort of psychological trick. Labour would do better to delay their decision. The new leader will get a brief mention before Christmas and then disappear over the summer. Far better to keep the contest going over January and elect the new leader just before Parliament resumes in February, to heaps of publicity.

I can understand Phil Goff not wanting to stay on as Leader for longer than necessary, but there is a sensible solution. Appoint an Acting Leader for two months or so, as they do in Canada. The Acting Leader could be Annette King or even Trevor Mallard.

Vernon Small reports:

Labour’s “three Davids” will put their case to party members before MPs pick a new leader on December 13 as the two main players court the pivotal vote of Shane Jones.

Party president Moira Coatsworth said the unprecedented meetings were planned in Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, Christchurch and possibly Dunedin.

“Constitutionally it’s MPs’ vote at caucus but I am really keen we have member feedback and input into it,” she said.

The meetings would be closed to the public and media.

It’s a good idea to have meetings around the country. I can understand wanting them members only to allow more candid discussion, but think it would also be a good idea to have at least one open to the media, to boost their public profiles.

David Cunliffe, David Parker and David Shearer are lining up to contest the leadership, with Nanaia Mahuta running on a ticket with Mr Cunliffe, as his deputy.

Having Nanaia Mahuta on the ticket may help win the caucus vote, but I am unconvinced it would help Labour win an election. The deputy leader is your party’s candidate to be the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and I have to say I’ve never seen any sign that Nanaia can perform at that level. She held very junior portfolios as a Minister and has been near invisible in Opposition. People can exceed expectations, but the choice of Mahuta does seem risky.

Grant Robertson is running as deputy on a ticket with Mr Parker, but has not yet been specific on whether he will also seek the leadership.

This isn’t personal against Grant, but I’ve said many times do not have as your deputy, someone who sees it as a very temporary stepping stone. If Parker/Robertson wins and Labour does not go up in the polls, there will be constant speculation about whether Robertson will roll Parker – even if Grant is 100% loyal.

One possibility is Mr Jones, a list MP, who is yet to make a final decision but is thought to be considering a tilt as deputy.

He may be using the option as a negotiating ploy to secure a plum portfolio such as finance.

Cunliffe is the logical choice for Finance if he is not Leader, and Parker the logical choice if Cunliffe is the leader. Jones would be credible for the role in terms of background, but the question mark would be over his work ethic. As Jones has considerable natural talent, he tends to glide somewhat in his portfolios. Now you can do that in some portfolios, but not in Finance. If he did get Finance, it would probably be a very good discipline for him.

Sources said yesterday that both the Cunliffe and Parker camps had offered Mr Jones the third slot on their front bench; a move seen as a way to bring swinging voters on board.

It will be a very interesting contest.

Sent in  by e-mail:

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

 A .Because Ross Robertson was busy.

Heh.

Whale reports:

Labour are just lacking even the most basic discipline. Every MP should know that you never offer an opinion as to whom the next leader should be, let alone doing it 18 days before the general election.

And this wasn’t even an oral interview, but one where Kelvin would have typed out his answer.

Someone should have asked a follow-up of whether the vote will be in December or in February.

Andrea Vance at Stuff blogs:

Camp David Cunliffe must be a pretty lonely place right now.

Labour’s lost the argument on the numbers. Phil Goff was allowed to front up to the public woefully unprepared on Labour’s economic policies.

That was one of two things: incompetent or a deliberate undermining of the leader.

Now we have the numbers, they are not so convincing.  Labour appeared to be hiding $6 billion of extra borrowing to restart contributions to the Super Fund. And it seems they have overstated the revenue stream from SOE dividends.

On top of all this Cunliffe looked nasty and sexist with his snide comments about police minister Judith Collins (who I’m pretty sure doesn’t want to breed with him either).

He’s been in parliament for more than a decade – but he’s a little short on allies within the caucus.

Saying all his, he was impressive – and confident – in a head to head debate with finance minister Bill English yesterday. He was also well-received on his last appearance on TVNZ’s Q+A a couple of weeks back.

David will never be accused of lacking in confidence!

I also rate his abilities. He was a good Minister, and if there is to be a Labour Government again at some stage (which is inevitable), I think he would be a better choice for  Finance Minister than any other alternatives. Whether he has the skills to be leader is not yet known.

iPredict has markets on who will be the next Labour Party Leader. The current probabilities are:

1. Cunliffe 35%
2. Parker 32%
3. Shearer 13%
4. Robertson 5%
5. Jones 5%
6. Little 4%
7. Mallard 2%
8. Street 0%

The only thing that looks certain is the next leader will be a bloke!

This is in some contrast to National. If Key retires around 2016, then I suspect we could have three women as realistic contenders for National’s leadership.

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

The answer is David Parker.

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

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

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