O'Sullivan on Jones

Fran O'Sullivan has asked some hard question of #Labour'sGotTalent contestant Shane Jones in her Herald column this morning. They are certainly harder questions than his ex-officio PR team of Messrs Garner, Gower and Espiner have asked to date.

And in fact Ms O'Sullivan's piece is such a compelling piece of reading that we are reproducing it in full; we will save our comments for the end, rather than interspersing them; here 'tis:

Why doesn't earthy Shane Jones just come out and say it? "I'm not just another Labour 'soft cock'."
"I'm for big, bold economic policies to grow the economy"; "I'm against hitting 'rich pricks' with new taxes (after all some of my best friends are just that);" "I want new mines in Northland and gas fields in Taranaki - Labour's communist mates in the Greens don't know how to promote jobs ..." You get the drift?
All right, I apologise for the tasteless introduction, but listening to, watching and reading Shane Jones interviews can do that to a "gelding" (as we women are in the Jones lexicon), you know.
Those who know the unvarnished Jones find the political snow job he is currently orchestrating during his extended bromance with TV3 political editor Patrick Gower and 3rd Degree's Guyon Espiner andDuncan Garner is more than simply comical.
None of these journalists have faced Jones with anything even vaguely like the third degree. It's just been roll cameras; lap up the latest smutty porn-related allusions (such as Jones' comment "doing things in a soft fashion has never been really a failing of mine" on Wednesday night's road trip with Espiner to the North) and give the Labour leadership contender the kind of free ride political journalists sometimes do when the politician in question has a reputation for being a prime source.

The public now knows the open secret in political circles that Jones skipped out on his wife and seven kids for his "beauty queen".
But there was no real third degree from Espiner on how his family might have felt at being left behind to bear the embarrassment of him being publicly exposed for using his ministerial credit card to book porn movies, while Jones wandered off into the sunset.
This was disappointing as Espiner has a hard-won journalistic reputation.
Those of us who appreciate real television current affairs tune in to his Wednesday night programme to escape the mindless dross served up by TVNZ's 7 Sharp. But this week's effort did not cut it.
Jones deserves to be strongly grilled on where he really sits on major economic issues facing New Zealand. After all the chances are he will end up with a top slot on Labour's front bench and a prime shadow portfolio as a kiss-off if he doesn't win the leadership race against David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson.
Before politics, he held senior public sector roles in the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. But he was best known for his chairmanship of the Waitangi Fisheries Commission (Te Ohu Kaimoana).
Yesterday's media carried reports on Jones' graphic allusions to what he plans to do to the Prime Minister: "I'm going to tie a bungy cord around a sensitive spot and then I'm going to get those callipers and cut them and then the mercenary of capitalism can suffer what he deserves - a dead cat bounce."
All said with nary a blush that Jones himself could have been described as just such a mercenary back in the day when Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark turned a blind eye while he collected $70,000 a year as chairman of Te Ohu Kaimoana, on top of the $130,000 he earned as a Labour MP and chairman of Parliament's finance and expenditure select committee.
Get under his skin and dig deep enough and the journalists might just expose Jones as a politician of contradictions and considerable subterfuge.
But right now he is simply "too good in the copy stakes" for that to happen.
I was intrigued at how some journalists bought the story that he was the hapless David Shearer's friend and loyal to the previous leader's bitter end. But anyone who had heard Jones morosely talk of his real feelings towards Shearer after the Labour leader stood him down during the Auditor-General investigation which touched on his previous ministerial dealings would have an entirely opposite perspective.
One area where Jones has considerable political utility for Labour is his relationship with NZ First's Winston Peters. Both politicians are social animals.
But New Zealand women? Like former Labour Cabinet minister John Tamihere with his slags against the "front-bums", he could do with exhibiting some respect.
This week he said that he had always found that was very popular with women.
"I've never been at the top of the hit parade with feminists. But the women I want to appeal to are the women that read the Woman's Weekly, not Germaine Greer."
A straw vote of New Zealand women would say different.

There are some fascinating insights in this piece. Despite the fact that David Shearer has endorsed Jones, the MP seems to he holding a grudge against his former leader for his treatment over the Bill Liu saga, from which Jones was lucky to emerge at all.

Jones' position on mining and drilling is at odds with Labour's official stance. A few weeks ago he and Andrew Little met with oil and gas people in Taranaki, and the reported messages coming out of that meeting were very different to what Labour and the Greens regularly recite in the House. Jones is pragmatic enough to see the wealth and jobs that have been created in Taranaki, and want that for elsewhere in New Zealand. That immediately sets him apart from Messrs Robertson and Cunliffe.

Mediaworks has certainly given Jones a soft run so far, and we suspect that they see it as a ratings winner for TV3 and RadioLive. They have certainly aligned themselves with the bloke from the far North than with either Cunliffe or Robertson. It was no surprise therefore that Jones did surprisingly well in last night's 3News poll.

Shane Jones would be a theatrical opponent for John Key, but we wonder how deep he goes beneath the surface. And that creates a dilemma for those voting on the Labour leadership. Jones may have the potential to draw people back to Labour, including Waitakere Man and his mates. But is he in it for the long haul, and do the rumours that he has a pretty cavalier approach to detail and long hours of work have any substance?

Fran O'Sullivan has done the right thing by asking the hard questions that others have not. And those "others" might want to reveal what their motives are in promoting Jones so unashamedly.

What does the 3News #Labour'sGotTalent poll mean?

3News has been polling for #Labour'sGotTalent. And the results are interesting; very interesting indeed; check this out:

This is really interesting in many ways. Firstly, no candidate has an outright majority, so the next few days are going to see some horse-trading going on. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, David Cunliffe may not actually be as popular as he thinks he is.

We're really surprised to see Cunliffe at less than 40% support. And when that support is drilled down just to Labour supporters, he only reaches 45.6%.

Earlier this afternoon, but presumably with knowledge of the poll results (he's been dropping hints all day) Patrick Gower posted this on the 3News website:

Shane Jones may be the outsider in Labour's leadership race - but he is also set to be the kingmaker.

The voting system the Labour Party is using for the leadership means Jones will likely end up with the casting vote.

Jones may well decide whether the leader is David Cunliffe or Grant Robertson.

This is the big development in the race right now.

I have new information about what's happening in the behind the scenes machinations.

I have spoken to the key MPs and party hacks "doing the numbers" in all three camps and they all say: "This is all about the 'Jones second preference'."

These people are some of the craftiest and hard-headed political operatives New Zealand has ever seen and they have all zoned in on the "Jones second preference"

But we reckon that all bets might be off now, with Grant Robertson relegated to third place; how does a Jones/Robertson (in that order) ticket sound?

There's one common denominator here; those supporting Shane Jones and those supporting Grant Robertson are united in not wanting David Cunliffe to lead the Labour Party. So what have they got to lose by voting for Jones? If he can steal next year's election, he will be a hero. If not, Grant Robertson can succeed him then.

The loser in all of this tonight is David Cunliffe. If he doesn't lead Labour after #Labour'sGotTalent, he never will. And that is starting to look like a distinct possibility. Mr Cunliffe may even decide that he has bigger fish to fry.

Tonight's poll has really set the cat amongst the pigeons. The ramifications are going to be fascinating.

The Travelling Wilburys

Herald political journalist Claire Trevett has come up with a new monicker for the contestants in #Labour'sGotTalent; check this out:

It is now half way through the leadership roadshow of the three Labour leadership candidates, known as the Three Stooges by National and the Travelling Wilburys by one of their own MPs. Although the voting is well under way, there are still no clear signals as to which of Grant Robertson or David Cunliffe will emerge victorious at the end of the line.
Caucus is split, the members are split and the unions are split, none of which bodes well for the unity that is supposed to be the result of the lengthy process.

Let's be realistic here; the issues that divide the Labour Party are far too deep-seated to be resolved simply by the installation of a new leader. That is especially so when two of the Three Amigos have a track record of actively undermining the former leader.

But it is Ms Trevett's comments on Shane Jones that are the most interesting; read on:

The person creating the most interest is the man least likely to win: Shane Jones. Jones' run has been viewed by some as a kamikaze mission from day one. But there is a certain freedom that comes from being the underdog, and Jones has revelled in it.
While Robertson and Cunliffe have taken the approach that honey catches more flies, Jones has applied the vinegar.
Cunliffe and Robertson have played the fawning courtier to the membership which holds their fate in its hands, promising all manner of sweetmeats to entice votes their way.
Cunliffe has had a dramatic, but possibly short-lived, transformation into a middle-class Che Guevara. He has decried the dirty freemarket, the crony capitalists, and the neo-liberal agenda and promised world domination to the unions and jobs and lucre for all. He has simultaneously, but in rather more hushed tones, also claimed to understand business. Robertson has taken a more subtle approach, but with the same aim and by highlighting the same policies.
Jones has, apparently perversely, gone the other way by insulting the members and pointing out that they are part of the problem. He wrote off a large portion of the membership as out-of-touch intellectuals who were putting off the genuine working class.
In doing so, Jones has focused on the destination rather than the journey. He has pointed out the real aim of the contest is not to be Leader of the Opposition, but to be Prime Minister in a Labour Government. He has also given a brutally honest depiction of Labour's current ability to do that. While the other two pussyfoot around talking about the need for unity and harmony, Jones is talking about the only thing that can secure that unity. That is not personality. It is the polls and power. He wants the party to be polling in the mid-40s by 2014. In doing so, he has pointed out the obvious: that the winner will have to be able to attract more votes than Labour's current core can deliver. So, he says, the members should be careful not to pick a leader who will only appeal to the already converted.
His approach might seem counter-productive at first glance. But Jones' candidacy is not simply the unnecessary, irrelevant distraction some have claimed. He has shown them what Labour needs to do on that election campaign and made them confront something nobody wanted to mention: that it is Labour, not the voters, which needs to change to get back into a strong position.
Jones' message is more than just his jokes, and that is why it has resonated at those hustings meetings, despite the sideshows about whether or not women like him and the history of his credit card use. He is still unlikely to win. But he will have achieved what he wanted, a rise in his own stocks.
His performance may also have ensured he has moved from being completely written-off to doing well enough to stop one of the others getting a majority on the first round of counting. That is why the other two - Cunliffe and Robertson - can't afford to treat Jones as simply the gooseberry on their date, because they need Jones to give a hint to his voters that they should give their second preference votes to them.
So the banter has been as vicious as things were allowed to get. They've each had their clangers. Jones made a few jokey references to Mr Robertson's sexuality in a couple of the first meetings. Jones later reflected and privately apologised to Robertson for it and has kept it out of further meetings. Jones has also copped a few back himself. The Whangarei meeting was held the same day Jones' insisted he could attract female voters from all over the country, in particular those who read Woman's Weekly instead of Germaine Greer. This sparked outrage from Woman's Weekly-reading feminists who didn't like Jones, and Germaine Greer readers who did like Jones. Some took it upon themselves, rather presumptuously, to declare on behalf of all women that no women liked Jones.

That last comment is patently false; you only had to see Heather du Plessis-Allan's piece on Jones on Seven Sharp last night to understand that. Unfortunately for Labour and for Shane Jones though, the women (and the men) to whom he appeals the most have long since abandoned the Labour Party. Or maybe the Labour Party has long since abandoned them, as it has embraced the artsy-fartsy and intellectual types that now seem to dominate the party's rank and file. 

And although Labour Party people hate him for it, Chris Trotter was right on the mark when he wrote his Waitakere Man piece a few years ago.

Jones appeals to a demographic that neither Messrs Cunliffe nor Robertson can reach; one that was encapsulated by Trotter. That is an unfortunate truth that the top brass of the Labour Party needs to confront. It's all very well to talk about concern for the poor from your Herne Bay home or from deep within Wellington Central, but Jones has the warts and the street cred that his fellow contestants do not.

And lastly, Claire Trevett can't resist a gentle dig at David Cunliffe, suggesting that the smiling New Lynn MP might be gaffe-prone:

As for Cunliffe, neither of the others really needed to poke fun at Cunliffe. He was quite capable of doing it himself. He has declared he is the kumara people should want to munch on. In Whangarei, he began by talking to Jones' mother in the audience. He rattled off a rather confusing anecdote about Jones saying he was not her son, but her daughter.
It turned out the audience weren't the only ones confused. Cunliffe had wrongly identified Mrs Jones, and was instead talking to some other woman sitting nearby. That woman was more shocked to discover she was Shane Jones' mother than the audience was at discovering Jones was actually a wahine. The audience laughed, albeit at him rather than with him. Realising his mistake, Cunliffe added things were just getting more and more confusing the longer he went on. Quite.

Shane Jones may have added humour and colour to what would have been a very bland #Labour'sGotTalent without him. But beneath the bravado, there's a none-too-subtle reminder to those who have been in Labour for a while when the party was actually full to the brim with members of the demographic it purported to represent.

Shane Jones will probably not win #Labour'sGotTalent. But if he has not given the party hierarchy cause for deep contemplation as to where it all went so wrong for Labour, he should have.

Tweet of the Day - 5 September 2013

Patrick Gower from 3News tweets about some fence-sitting from on of the #Labour'sGotTalent contestants:

Come on Mr Cunliffe; either Labour will buy the sold shareholdings back, or they won't. How about a definitive statement one way of the other.

If David Cunliffe wants the Labour Party leadership that badly, he needs to remove his backside from the top strand of fence-wire, and state unequivocally whether a Labour Party led by him will make a solid commitment to buy back any shares sold to investors.

Emmerson on the Red Twerkers

Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson's offering last week of the Three Amigos was very, very good. But he has excelled himself this morning as he has brought #Labour'sGotTalent right into the 21st century. 

We do however urge caution in viewing for those with delicate stomachs, especially when looking at the Twerker on the right!

This is a stellar piece from our favourite cartoonist. Here's hoping that the Three Twerkers are in Parliament this afternoon to bust out a move or two!

The Dom-Post on #Labour'sGotTalent

The Dominion-Post editorial this morning is devoted to the talent quest for the Labour Party leadership. Around the traps, the quest is rather unkindly being referred to by the hashtag #Labour'sGotTalent. Readers can judge for themselves the validity of that hashtag!

But the Dom-Post is not overly impressed with what it has seen to date; the editorial begins thus:

Well that didn't take long. Labour's American-style primary contest is only days old, but already it is apparent that in terms of policy none of the three contenders for the leadership has any more to offer than the departing David Shearer.
Caucus favourite Grant Robertson's big idea - one quickly signed up to by party champion David Cunliffe - is to introduce a living wage of $18.40 an hour for all government workers. Meanwhile, Shane Jones, the outsider in the contest, is threatening to pass laws to regulate how much supermarkets can charge for food.
Both ideas sound great. Who doesn't want lowly paid workers to get greater reward for their efforts? Who wouldn't welcome a reduction in food prices? The problem is that neither proposal is remotely deliverable.
Labour's leadership candidates are employing the rhetoric of old-fashioned class warfare. Soak the rich to feed the poor. Unfortunately for them, the world has moved on from the days when governments could change the rules of the game and the players had no choice but to comply. 

The Dom-Post leader writer is dead right; as Labour lurches even further to the Left than the Greens (and almost as far as Mana), some of the policy promises that are coming from the mouths of the Three Amigos are getting completely over the top.

And the leader writer reminds Messrs Cunliffe, Jones and Robertson thet economically speaking, New Zealand is a very small fish in a very large pond; read on:

New Zealand is not a fortress economy, but a tiny player in a global market in which every action has a consequence. In their heart of hearts Mr Robertson, Mr Cunliffe and Mr Jones know this. They were all part of the last Labour-led government, which, despite its socialist credentials, quickly came to the realisation that the interests of employers and employees were inextricably intertwined. The government could not impose extra costs on business, without putting at risk the jobs of vulnerable workers.
Mr Robertson will say his proposal applies only to government workers and contractors, but limiting its application only creates inequities of another sort.
Why should a cleaner mopping out a privately owned building earn several dollars an hour less than a cleaner vacuuming a government building? Why should a worker in a privately owned rest home receive less government support than would otherwise be available, because the Labour Party has decided to advantage a subset of all workers.
Mr Robertson and Mr Cunliffe may also point out that their proposal is to introduce a living wage "over time". However, the caveat either renders the proposal meaningless or recklessly irresponsible. Meaningless, if by "over time" they mean the amount of time it would take the minimum wage to rise to that level under the present system. Recklessly irresponsible, if they are actually intent on establishing an elite class of privileged workers.
New Zealand is a global price taker, not a price setter. The country prospers when it is nimble and flexible. It suffers when it is rigid and flat-footed.
Governments can no more raise living standards by decreeing higher wages, than they can by telling supermarkets how much they can charge for a leg of lamb or a box of cornflakes.
If Messrs Robertson, Cunliffe and Jones are serious about running the country, they should advance serious policies. 

We could not agree more. Pork-barrel politics and simply telling people what they want to hear does not bode well for good, sound policy should Labour ever get elected to govern again.

Quote of the Day - 2 September 2013

We're still catching up on news, opinion etc on this side of the ditch. But we had to laugh when we read Paul Little's take on #Labour'sGotTalent in the Herald on Sunday:

Which brings us to the Labour leadership selection and the figures - in strict alphabetical order - of David Cunliffe, Shane Jones and Grant Robertson.

Never have three bald men fought more fiercely over possession of a comb than this trio is doing over a prize no one in their right mind could want.
As soon-to-be-redundant jobs go, leader of the Labour Party is up there with sales manager at the electric typewriter factory and cinema projectionist.
But when another friend asked breathlessly: "What about David Shearer resigning?" I was reminded that there are still some liberals out there who take Labour seriously as a political force.
The media have been trying very hard to add some oomph to the Labour leadership campaign and good on them because you'd be waiting a long time for any of the colourless candidates to set the electorate's pulse racing.
They will march forward to September 15, humming the old refrain about restoring a fair go for the average Kiwi - just as the other side does - without a clue as to how to bring that about.
But imagine a world in which you looked forward to hearing what a politician had to say on an issue because it would be practical, sensible and inspiring, a world in which leaders actually led.
Not easy, is it?

Three bald men fighting over possession of a comb; if ever there was a metaphor to describe the Three Amigos' quest for the leadership of the Labour Party, that is it.

Well said Paul Little.