Kiwiblog

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.

This transcript is from Marae Investigates after they reveal that 47% of Maori said Shane Jones should replace Phil Goff as Labour Leader, with only 31% disagreeing:

Shane Taurima: Shane Jones, do you like that question?

Shane Jones: I’m reminded of what they used to say about J.T and Winston so every time you talk about leadership ambitions you can rest assured there’s a chain saw behind you cutting you as you speak, so I’ll just Taihoa.

Not exactly the normal “I am loyal to our leader and he is doing a good job” line.

Shane T: OK Tariana Turia, outgoing MP Miti Ririnui said this week that Phil Goff couldn’t relate to Maori and our polls have shown that and Labour needed a new leader.

Tariana: First of all I think they need a remarkable leader that can bind them together in their caucus because that is not happening so they need to consider that.  Whether it should be before the election or preparing for the next election and going for the long Term I think that would be their best bet, 7 weeks out from an election not a good idea to replace the leader, it’s happened in the past with them, they had Palmer, then Moore, then Helen in a short space of time. It’s not a good time for them to be imploding so they do need a remarkable leader (Shane – is that Shane Jones?) I think Shane Jones would make a remarkable leader, he’s intelligent, he’s got all the ability that a Labour caucus would need, he’d do far better if he was in a maori Party (Shane – is that an open invitation … much laughter all round)

Shane J

Thank you Tari but I’m in my waka and it’s called Te Roopu Labour.

High praise for Jones from Tariana.

Shane T: Hone, could you work in a Labour Party led by Shane Jones?

Hone: First of all in respect of Shane, I think he’s the most capable politician there in both Maori and in English, sadly I don’t think that they will want to make him the leader because I know a lot of the gays don’t like him, the women are pissed off with him because of the incident that he got involved with not so long ago and also because I suspect that Labour is still inherently racist and don’t particularly want to have a maori as a leader, however when the day comes, in about 2097, I’d be more than happy to work alongside him. 

And high praise from Hone also.

Dene Mackenzie in the ODT reports:

Prime Minister John Key’s visage will be smiling at voters throughout the country now that election hoardings have started to appear in the lead-up to the November 26 election.

But if voters want to see Phil Goff’s face on a hoarding, they will probably have to visit Mt Roskill, his home electorate.

I wasn’t sure if Goff’s photos were even on his own hoardings but dispatched a spy to Mt Roskill who confirmed it is the one electorate in the country where a Labour sign mentions him, or shows him.

Being seen with Mr Key is regarded as a major campaign asset by National candidates.

Being with Mr Goff is a liability for Labour candidates.

It’s a bit like the 2008 US elections when Republican candidates did not want to be seen with George W Bush as he was so unpopular.

I do wonder here though whether the stated view is that of the reporter, or is based on what people in Labour have said.

Labour MPs … are distancing themselves deliberately from Mr Goff.

The party signs will show the candidate’s photo, a silver fern and a tick to vote Labour.

The MPs believe Mr Goff will hamper their campaigning and want to put as much distance as possible between him and themselves during the campaign.

Well that answers that question. That means one or more Labour MPs have confirmed that it is a deliberate policy to distance themselves from Goff.

Some of the MPs believe Mr Goff will announce his resignation on election night, leading to the real election for Labour taking place on Sunday, when a new leader will need to be identified.

I suspect some MPs are more focused on the Tuesday 29 November election than the Saturday 26 November election.

Neither Phil Goff nor Annette King turned up the valedictory address of retiring Labour MP Mita Ririnui yesterday. It is very rare for the party leadership to not turn up for an MPs valedictory, but the reason in this case may be what Mita Ririnui said on Te Karere on Tuesday.

I’ve observed that MPs often say things on the Maori press, which they don’t say elsewhere. And what Mita said is a pearler. The translation of the item:

Labour MP Mita Ririnui has come out against Goff saying that he doesn’t relate to Maori and that his time as leader is up.

There are seven Maori caucus members and Ririnui says they all want Goff out.

“Of all the names put forward, Shane Jones is our choice.”

“I don’t know of anyone who disagrees.”

Ririnui is adamant Goff does not relate to Maori and Labour needs the Maori vote to govern again.

“The Maori caucus is concerned as we will be the casualties.

“If Shane Jones won’t be leader we’re in trouble.”

Hard to convince voters to vote for Labour when a retiring Labour MPs talks of the total lack of support for the person being put up as the alternate Prime Minister.

Just seven days left to roll Phil Goff, as Whale points out.

The Herald reports:

Outgoing Labour MP Mita Ririnui is backing Shane Jones as the party’s next leader should it lose November’s election.

While Mr Ririnui did not offer names about who needed to go, he was prepared to offer opinion as to who the next leader should be.

“There has been a lot of coverage around three particular people: David Cunliffe, David Parker, Shane Jones, and to be honest Shane Jones is my preference.”

Having incumbent MPs openly tell the media who they back for the next leader is just another sign of the real lack of discipline within Labour. It’s good for Shane Jones though.

The Listener has done a a big five page article on Phil Goff’s leadership, and the problems around it. This is not anything out of the ordinary.

What is unusual is they have profiled the five pretenders to the throne (Cunliffe, Parker, Little, Jones and Shearer) and the five pretenders have all posed for photos for the article.

Boy talk about having your eyes firmly focused on the future.

Talking yesterday with a friend, I came up with a great win-win for the Labour Party.

Julia Gillard is close to being rolled by her colleagues in Labor. Her approval ratings have plummeted, and the chances of her making it through to the next Australian election are slim.

So Julia will be looking for a job shortly.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, Labour are looking for a leader.

So why not offer Julia the leadership of the NZ Labour Party? Let Kevin Rudd take his old job back, and Julia take over here. Labour would bounce back to at least the 34% they got in 2008.

Best of all, Julia actually believes in stuff such as education reform and standing up to the teacher unions, so Labour would get some decent policy also.

Everyone knows Goff would have been rolled by now if any of his colleagues were willing to take the leadership on before the election. Well Gillard will be willing to, so now they have no excuse not to act!

3 News reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff says anyone who suggests he’s facing a leadership challenge is flogging a dead horse.

The party’s caucus is meeting for the first time since reports were leaked that Mr Goff offered to step down at a front bench meeting.

Duncan        And you’re suggesting someone in the caucus has leaked?

Labour Leader Phil Goff is refusing to accept his party’s poor popularity saying its bad polling is because people aren’t focused on the issues.

Phil Goff’s excuse for his latest round of poor polling? “People aren’t focused on the issues”. But before Labour hacks engage in another round of “blame the voters”, I think we should ask: whose fault is that?

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Shane Jones has indicated he is weighing up his future in politics if he does not get strong endorsement from Maori voters in November’s general election.

Mr Jones said on Te Kaea on Maori Television he wanted to win the Tamaki Makaurau seat – currently held by Maori Party leader Pita Sharples – and if he did not he would “reconsider my options”.

Asked to clarify his comments by the Herald yesterday, he said winning the seat would give him a strong platform for “future developments” in his political career.

This is not particularly subtle code for allow him to become Leader. Jones does not want to hang around, if he is not Leader or at least in a top role. If he wins his seat, he will be in a stronger position to become Leader.

I do believe he has shown interest in the deputy leadership before the election. That would make him the front-runner to then become Leader after the election, unless Goff wins the election.

It is also understood that at a caucus meeting a fortnight ago MPs Mr Jones and Lianne Dalziel criticised Mr Goff’s handling of the SIS issue.

The entire caucus should have criticised Goff over that. It was a self-inflicted own goal.

Speculation is also building that other contenders, including David Cunliffe and David Parker, are building support teams to be ready to replace Mr Goff after the election.

One source said Lianne Dalziel, Charles Chauvel and Moana Mackey were linked to Camp Cunliffe.

Camp Cunliffe has a nice ring to it!

There seem to be three contenders – Cunliffe, Parker and Jones. Cunliffe is the only one with an electorate seat, which is an asset.

The latest story on the Labour leadership makes it quite clear someone is telling lies.

Now I think most would agree that a blog post from Matthew Hooton on the Labour leadership should not be taken as automatically accurate. Of course neither does it mean it is automatically wrong either.

But Trans-tasman reported on Thursday :

Meanwhile Goff questioned his front bench colleagues last week as to whether he should resign as leader. The questioning took place at a pre-caucus meeting of the front bench group. It followed publication of at least three opinion polls showing Labour slipping heavily in electoral popularity.

Caucus sources says the response to the question was muted, with one senior MP saying

“it’s up to you Phil.” There was no disagreement. The catalyst for a leadership discussion is the realisation if Labour slips further respected list MPs like Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash may lose their places.

This has greater credibility. It references to a specific meeting on a specific date, involving a specific group of people. It refers to multiple sources and uses a quote from one of the sources, who by definition must be a frontbench MP or a senior Labour staffer.

Then we have today’s Dom Post:

An increasingly angry Labour leader Phil Goff is again facing leadership speculation after conflicting accounts over a meeting with some of his closest and most senior colleagues.

He furiously denied reports in political newsletter Trans-Tasman that he asked his frontbench MPs whether he should quit.

Several frontbench MPs backed Mr Goff, either describing the report as “bollocks” or insisting the discussion never took place. Others refused to comment.

But one senior Labour MP said the conversation did happen. “[Phil] did consult the front bench over whether he should go.”

Now I don’t think anyone really thinks that both Trans-tasman and Tracy Watkins are simply inventing stories and specific quotes.

This leaves two possibilities:

1. Goff did consult the front-bench on whether he should go, and is now lying about it
2. A member of the Labour front-bench has invented this story and fed it to the media in order to destabilise Goff

It goes without saying that neither scenario is particularly good for Goff and Labour.

I suspect the conversation did happen. I don’t judge Goff harshly for lying and denying it, because it is a reality of politics that you have to deny stuff like this, otherwise you are fatally wounded. Goff probably never imagined that one of his front bench colleagues would leak that he asked his senior colleagues if he should quit.

One Labour source has described the polls as “OK Corral” territory for Mr Goff, with a number of well-respected MPs set to lose their seats should Labour’s support drop any further.

But another MP said Mr Goff’s leadership should be safe – even though there were probably the numbers to roll him should any of the contenders put their hands up.No one wanted the leadership because it was such a “a poisoned chalice” this close to the election.

This sounds like at a minimum three different Labour MPs are talking to the media about Goff’s leadership, so I don’t think one can blame all of this on Matthew Hooton. What is interesting is the assertion that if someone stood, they would have the numbers to roll Goff.

Transtasman reported yesterday:

Meanwhile Goff questioned his front bench colleagues last week as to whether he should resign as leader. The questioning took place at a pre-caucus meeting of the front bench group. It followed publication of at least three opinion polls showing Labour slipping heavily in electoral popularity.

Caucus sources says the response to the question was muted, with one senior MP saying

“it’s up to you Phil.” There was no disagreement. The catalyst for a leadership discussion is the realisation if Labour slips further respected list MPs like Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash may lose their places.

They’re just all waiting for Goff to lose, so they can axe him after the election instead and let him take the blame for the loss.

UPDATE: Stuff reports Goff denies he offered to quit. But of course you have to deny such stuff.

Danyl McL at Dim-Post quotes IrishBill from The Standard:

I’ve heard rumours that there will be a Mallard/King deputy/leader ticket bid shortly after the election. If that’s true then god help the Labour party.

Danyl comments:

See, I have this optimistic view of the medium-term future, in which Labour is defeated in November, there’s a leadership coup and a new post-Clark leader, and the majority of their front bench announces their collective retirement to make way for the next generation of MPs, and that this rejuvenated party is voted into power in 2014.

But there’s an equally plausible alternative in which Labour spends the next ten to twelve years shuffling different combinations of Clark-era former Ministers around in various leadership teams (‘Mallard-King didn’t work? Let’s try Mallard-Street! No? Then how about Dyson-Cosgrove!’) while National sleep-walks through one election after another, campaigning on and then implementing a steadily more right-wing policy agenda.

It could only get better if they bring Benson-Pope back out of retirement!