Oh, really?

The Labour Party Head Office is spinning like a top. Tim Barnett and Moira Coatsworth are trying their damnedest to hose down any mention that Helen Clark may have had something to do with David Shearer's shock resignation two weeks ago; the Herald reports:

Rumours are circulating again about the role Helen Clark had in moves to roll David Shearer as Labour's leader just before he resigned to pre-empt a motion of no confidence.
Helen Clark was in New Zealand the week before Mr Shearer resigned on August 22 and there was speculation she had discussed the need to change the leader with some MPs during that visit.
Yesterday it was also revealed party president Moira Coatsworth and general secretary Tim Barnett had travelled to Waihi to meet her at her father's house in the week before Mr Shearer stepped down.
Mr Barnett, who was a Labour MP when Helen Clark was PM, confirmed the trip but said it was usual to meet when she was in town.
"It would be a regular thing to do. She asked for an update on what was happening in the party. Nothing more than that."
Asked if they discussed Mr Shearer, he said it was "incidental to everything else really".
"She just wanted to get an update on what was going on ... ."
He said he had not known there were moves afoot to unseat Mr Shearer.

Helen Clark does get to vote on the leadership but has not publicly endorsed any of the three contestants, although David Cunliffe has said he was optimistic he had her vote.

Despite the assurances (read: "spin") from Mr Barnett and Ms Coatsworth, we have no doubt at all that Helen Clark was in some way involved. For a start, it totally contradicts a story in the Herald which we blogged about the day after Mr Shearer's resignation. Here's what the Herald said:

Ms Street would not comment yesterday, but it is understood she decided to front the motion because of growing concerns among MPs over Mr Shearer's inability to fire as leader and his poor poll ratings.
A source said there had been discussions for months, but nobody was willing to force the issue until Ms Street stepped up.
One Labour source also said former Prime Minister Helen Clark had been "active" on the issue while in New Zealand over the past fortnight, speaking to some MPs about it.
It is not known if Mr Shearer knew the no-confidence motion was coming, although some MPs close to him had heard rumours of it.

The Labour Party hierarchy is clearly embarrassed at this revelation, and is trying to pretend that it never happened. Interestingly, we have also received e-mails from sources within the Labour Party, and let's just say that the version of events that has been supplied to us is not that of Tim Barnett and Moira Coatsworth.

Labour is trying to make an art form of re-writing history. Just as the asset sales of the Rogernomics era never really happened, and just as Labour claims that Bill English inherited a healthy economy when in fact Treasury was forecasting a Decade of Deficits, Labour is now asking us to believe the unbelievable. 

But the only way that we would give the statement "Helen wasn't involved" would be if appeared on a Tui billboard.

Tweet of the Day - 3 September 2013

Someone in Labour has been whispering in RadioLive political editor Jessica Williams' ear; check this out:

But wait, as they say in the infomercials; there's more. We even get the numbers:

There's a real irony in this. Barry Soper noted after Saturday's meeting in Levin:

The audience who'll all get a vote for the leadership were urged not to spill the beans to the media but the couple who couldn't contain themselves ended up cancelling each other out. One said he was never going to vote for a gay leader, his ballot would be for Cunliffe the other said he'd come to cast his for Cunliffe, but having heard Robertson he was now firmly in his corner. 

However much the party tries to shut the rank and file up, the Labour caucus continues to leak like a sieve. Anyone who believes that the leadership election is going to produce a united Labour caucus has, as John Key told David Shearer in THAT secret meeting about the GCSB Bill, rocks in their head.

Emmerson on Shearer

We spotted this wonderful Rod Emmerson cartoon whilst reading the Herald on our flight yesterday:

David Shearer may well, like Martin Luther King have had "a dream" when he took over the leadership of a dysfunctional Labour caucus. But little did he know that it would quickly become a recurring nightmare.

Nice show of support Labour; not

3News political reporter Tova O'Brien has dropped a bit of a bombshell on the David Shearer dead fish story; check this out:

If David Shearer didn't jump he was probably going to be rolled – that much, we already know.

But now it's emerged that it wasn't just a small faction inside the Labour Party that wanted him gone – it was his entire caucus.

In fact, every single one of them knew Mr Shearer was going to present two dead fish in Parliament last week, and no one stopped him.

An 11-day road show begins this weekend, with all three contenders for the leadership fronting up to the party membership to say why they should be leader.

So who's it going to be? 

 

So what we now know is that every member of Labour's caucus knew that the fish stunt was coming, but not a single one had enough integrity to suggest to David Shearer that it was a bad idea. That is a real indictment on Labour's dysfunctional caucus, especially those on the front bench; Grant Robertson, David Parker, Jacinda Ardern, Clayton Cosgrove, Shane Jones and others. They should hang their heads in shame.

We wonder if this revelation will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for Mr Shearer, and leads to his resignation as MP for Mt Albert. He must be totally crestfallen that not a single MP in his caucus, even the deputy leader who according to Matt McCarten was totally loyal and didn't undermine him, did not support him last Tuesday. They let him go and make a fool of himself in the House, and when they laughed, they weren't laughing with him; they were laughing AT David Shearer.

Politics is a lonely business at times. David Shearer must be feeling especially lonely at the moment. We would not blame him at all if he told Labour where to stick Mt Albert, and took his leave from the plotters, time-servers and self-serving unionists that fill Labour's benches. The warlords of Somalia would be a doddle by comparison. 

 

Labour needs more than a new leader. The parliamentary wing of the party needs to take a long, hard look at itself.

Best you read this Matt...

We blogged on Sunday about Matt McCarten's misguided, naive attempt to paint Grant Robertson as some sort of saint who had pledged undying loyalty to his leader. Here's what McCarten said:

Robertson has been a loyal deputy and has done nothing to undermine Shearer. That has earned him points. Cunliffe has the opposite reputation, not just with Shearer but with Phil Goff when he was leader.

So how does Matt McCarten reconcile that statement with this one, that appeared on Stuff late yesterday? Check this out;  (the emphasis is ours):

Labour MP Maryan Street said she hadn't decided whether she would attend any of the hustings meetings outside her home town Nelson, but if she did she would use her taxpayer-funded flights. 
MPs were able to use the entitlement for such purposes, Street said.
She confirmed, meanwhile, that former leader David Shearer would have been toppled if he had not stood aside last week.She would have moved a motion of no confidence in him and had the numbers against him. 
"I didn't force David Shearer's hand; I was ready to move a motion of no confidence had he not responded the way he did after seeking caucus advice.
''I think its fair to say he had lost the confidence of most of the caucus but we all love him."
Street appears to have been the numbers woman for Robertson - she confirmed today that she was backing his leadership bid. 

Loyal deputies doing nothing to undermine their bosses don't generally have someone running the numbers to see when the right time is to plunge the knife in, or move the motion of no confidence. That Maryan Street has been Robertson's numbers woman is neither surprising nor a particularly good reflection on the Labour deputy leader.

We reckon that Grant Robertson and a small coterie of MP's have white-anted David Shearer at every turn. Matt McCarten's show of support for the Labour leadership aspirant is admirable, but hopelessly misguided in our ever-humble opinion. 

Perhaps McCarten has been providing strategic advice to the ABC group.

 

Our busiest ever week

We installed Sitemeter as a hit counter on Keeping Stock about four months after we started blogging. Each week, Sitemeter sends us a report of blog activity for the week from Tuesday to Monday. Quite why the week is configured that way is beyond us, but over a period of time, it all equals out.

And when we receive that report tomorrow, it's going to show a record number; check this out:

The numbers are small compared to the likes of Kiwiblog and Whaleoil, but as  "hobby bloggers", we're pretty happy to have hit 10,000 page-views in a week for the first time ever. And our average figure for unique visitors for a week has never before passed 900 per day. So we are treading new ground.

The reasons for the explosion in numbers this week and likely highest ever monthly figures are pretty obvious. There was David Shearer's fishy stunt and the admission of a secret meeting with John Key last Tuesday, Mr Shearer's resignation on Thursday, and the dreadful Kim Dotcom tweet yesterday. 

Each of those events produced a spike in traffic, but the cumulative effect of them all taking place within a seven-day period has had a very positive spin-off for visitor numbers. We are expecting that this month will trump our previous busiest month ever, which was November 2011: the lead-up to the 2011 General Election and reflecting on the result.

And we are well on the way to welcoming our millionth visitor. With an increase in blog traffic in recent months, we are likely to hit that milestone this side of Christmas.

As we've said in the past, we blog because we enjoy blogging. When it becomes an chore, and when the enjoyment factor ceases will be the time when we step away. For now however, we ARE enjoying blogging, and the numbers suggest that there are a few people out there who enjoy what we do.That makes it all worthwhile.

"They face a Herculian task"

Andrea Vance, front and centre of a story or two in recent months has written David Shearer's epitaph. And she leaves no doubt as to the difficulty of the job ahead for whoever emerges from last week's carnage; Vance opines:

Well, that's that. So long and thanks for all the fish, David.
Not since National leader Don Brash walked the plank in 2005 has there ever been such defining imagery of a political leader's demise. David Shearer punctuated the end of his 20-month leadership poignantly with two sweating, flaccid snapper.
Tuesday's Question Time - in which he was completely owned by a triumphant John Key -  was the last gasp in a Labour experiment that went horribly wrong.
In many ways, Shearer and Brash shared a common downward trajectory. There was an initial wave of optimism centred around the anti-politician. But it soon gave way to shambling television appearances, a lack of PR nous, poor judgement and memory lapses.
Neither left office of their own volition. Brash was driven out by The Hollow Men book, Shearer by a restless caucus.
What followed was John Key - National's Antaeus, thus far invincible and undefeated in the political arena.
Whoever, the next Labour leader is, they face a Herculean task. 

We concur with Ms Vance. And we concur with her reasoning too; that it's going to be less about those opposite in the House than those behind and to the side of the new leader; read on:

Even buoyed with the direction and fresh vision of a new leader, it will be a long hard slog to get the party and caucus soothed, unified and campaign-ready.
And if they do get there in the next year, they will have to match  - and better - the remarkable energy shown by Key in election campaigns.
There is no stand-out contender that could win an election tomorrow. The best Labour can hope for is a capable leader-deputy combination.
Should David Cunliffe win, he will have to unpick the nasty in-house PR campaign that has lead much of the country to believe he is a villainous pariah. 

We really do wonder about the ability of either Grant Robertson or David Cunliffe to unite the bitterly divided Labour Party. With each having been less than loyal to David Shearer over a period of time, what has gone around is likely to come around, and it's going to be fun.

As Andrea Vance notes, the new Labour leader will "face a Herculean task"; and that's just with the Labour Party!

Where has Matt McCarten been hiding?

Matt McCarten's weekly Herald advertisement for left-wing causes is devoted to Labour's leadership battle. Feel free to go and have a read; it's normal McCarten fare.

But you have to wonder where McCarten has been hiding when he writes something like this (the emphasis is ours):

Common sense suggests neither contender will have a deputy running mate.
Robertson has been a loyal deputy and has done nothing to undermine Shearer. That has earned him points. Cunliffe has the opposite reputation, not just with Shearer but with Phil Goff when he was leader.

Sorry Matt, but that cannot go unchallenged. Grant Robertson has undermined David Shearer from the day that Mr Shearer misguidedly appointed him as his deputy leader. Robertson stacked the leader's office with his people. Robertson has stood idly by while Shearer made gaffe after gaffe after gaffe.

And where was the "loyal deputy" at 1.30pm on Thursday when David Shearer fronted the media to announce his resignation? If Grant Robertson had truly been a "loyal deputy", he would have been standing at Shearer's shoulder. Whether his absence from the media conference was his own decision or because David Shearer made a belated defiant stand and told him to stay away is irrelevant; it was a lasting indictment on Mr Robertson.

David Shearer broke the golden rule by appointing a deputy leader who had ambitions for the top job. He should have looked at successful Prime Ministers past such as Jim Bolger, Helen Clark and even John Key who had as their deputies Don McKinnon, Michael Cullen and Bill English; solid, experienced and dependable politicians, without any future ambition to lead.

Matt McCarten used to be a shrewd political operative. That he is reduced to trying to talk up Grant Robertson in this manner suggests that he has passed his use-by date. Then again, perhaps the Mana Party doesn't want David Cunliffe leading Labour.

A voice of sanity on the GCSB Bill

The Listener tends to lean to the left of matters political. That makes its editorial on the GCSB Bill passed this week even more worthy of comment; check this out:

The Government was right to ignore the more hysterical opposition to its new spying legislation, but it may yet pay a price for the pace at which the bill was passed through the House.
There are times when a patiently plodding belts-and-braces approach is the best one in politics, and never more so than when a law concerns the rights of a private citizen against the mighty institution that is the state.
The problem for the Government was that the Kim Dotcom fiasco eliminated any potential for plodding. If Dotcom was nastily surprised by the raid on his rented mansion, so too were security agencies and the Government itself when it transpired that the law under which the raid took place was ambiguous.
The Government insists it has done no more than correct irregularities in the existing legislation, passed in 2003 under a Labour-led government to govern the GCSB, which at all times believed it was acting legally, as did the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and successive Prime Ministers, including Helen Clark. However, the fact that the Government was only able to pass the tidy-up with a two-vote majority in Parliament shows it did not make that case convincingly to Opposition parties relishing a rare opportunity to pressure Key.
There is no doubt the Government mishandled the debate. It may have misread the campaign of activism against the bill as being a continuation of general anti-National activism, rather than a groundswell of concern from New Zealanders. If so, it underestimated community concerns in an era when, after the recent revelations by Edward Snowden, individual privacy has never felt more vulnerable. It underestimated, too, the inherent mistrust the community has in government agencies, and therefore the public’s willingness to believe that their rights were probably being eroded.

We're not so sure that the Government mishandled the debate itself, although John Key could have articulated the Government's position earlier than the now-infamous Campbell Live interview of 10 days ago. It did however allow opponents to dictate the agenda. However amongst that opposition was a copious quantity of fearmongering and misinformation; of that there is little doubt.

The Listener editorial then turns to the GCSB Bill itself:

In fact, the measures in the new GCSB legislation are not as sweeping as critics allege. Although the new law does clarify the GCSB’s powers to spy on New Zealand individuals and organisations, there are substantially more robust checks and balances to prevent abuse or overuse. The provisions make the process for the GCSB to get a warrant more rigorous than those established under Labour, not less.
Primarily, the GCSB has three functions. One is protecting government organisations and others from cyber-attack. This is a growing threat, and a growing vulnerability. We are told that already this year, the number of incidents logged with the National Cyber Security Centre is more than for all of last year. Second, the GCSB collects foreign intelligence – the traditional spying role. Third is the GCSB’s role in assisting other state agencies when they need the specialist skills of the GCSB.
Although the old legislation said the GCSB could assist other agencies, exactly who or how many were not specified. The new legislation makes it clear the GCSB may assist only the SIS, Police and Defence Force, and only in circumstances where those agencies themselves have already obtained a warrant for surveillance. In its own right the GCSB cannot access private communications or obtain metadata – information generated as people used phones, computers and the like – without first obtaining warrants.
The public is mature enough to understand that the nature of spy agencies’ work means it is mostly conducted covertly in the shadows. But that makes it even more important that there are adequate checks and balances.
Although the gravity of the threats we face mean new powers may well be necessary weapons in the battles against terrorism, child pornography, people smuggling and economic sabotage, New Zealanders are entitled to the reassurance that there will never be political or other opportunistic abuse of the powers and information obtained under them.
The new Act allows for a review of the intelligence agencies in 2015, and every five to seven years thereafter. It also provides for open hearings for the financial reviews of the intelligence agencies. All this gives some public reassurance. But John Key’s complaint that opponents have so muddied the waters that the law has been widely misunderstood can also be seen as an admission that the Government has failed in its duty to instill public confidence. Key belatedly acknowledged that misinformation and conspiracy “alarmed and agitated” some citizens. That he regrets, and indeed he should. In a free and open democracy we all have the right to be confident that someone is watching the watchers.

This is a sensible and politically dispassionate analysis of the legislation, and the motivation behind its passage through the House. To us, the clincher came when Helen Clark spoke out on the 2003 legislation, believing that every warrant she signed was lawful. If such a consummate politician as Miss Clark was undone by ambiguity in a law which she herself had passed through the House, then there was a problem that needed fixing.

Of course subsequent events in Wellington have usurped any political advantage that Labour and the Greens gained from the GCSB debate. Labour is in internal turmoil, with the lack of loyalty shown by senior MP's towards David Shearer now a matter of public record. And amidst Labour's woes, the voice of the Greens has been silenced. That will continue should David Cunliffe emerge as the new Labour leader.

We commend The Listener's editorial staff for an excellent, balanced editorial.

It's a resignation David, but not as we know it...

Not a lot of words of introduction required; just watch and enjoy:

Absolutely brilliant!

The Dave 'n' Julia Caption Contest

As we've said before, some photographs just cry out for a Caption Contest; and this is one of those:

You know the rules; keep 'em short, humourous and pithy, and don't get unnecessarily personal. Beyond that, you're limited only by your own imagination.

We'll get things started:

Well Julia; now I know what it's like to be Rudded. But it's been a Helen of an experience...

Another Labo(u)r leader in strife

David Shearer has gone the same way as Australian Labor Party leader Julia Gillard; knifed in the back from within their own caucus.

Kevin Rudd got something of a dead-cat bounce in the polls after he broke his promise not to challenge Ms Gillard. But Rudd's honeymoon is over, as people begin to remember just what he was like the first time he was Prime Minister.

And in fact it's so bad that Kevin Rudd may not even hold his own seat in Queensland; theguardian.com reports:

Kevin Rudd is trailing Liberal rival Bill Glasson in his apparently safe Brisbane seat of Griffith, in alarming news for Labor from the latest Guardian Lonergan poll.
Glasson, who is running an intensive local grassroots campaign, leads Rudd on a two-party preferred basis by 52% to 48%. The poll's margin of error is 4%, but its findings raise the possibility that without a big effort on his home turf, Rudd could become the third prime minister in Australian history to lose his seat, behind John Howard in 2007 and Stanley Bruce in 1929.
It raises a dilemma for Labor strategists who need to salvage Labor's national campaign but also give Rudd time to campaign in his seat. Rudd was criticised for pulling out of a local candidates' debate in Brisbane on Thursday night because he was campaigning interstate.
"This shows Mr Rudd needs to be very conscious of what is happening in his own electorate. He needs to focus on the battle as well as the war," Lonergan research managing director Chris Lonergan said.
The poll of 958 Griffith voters, taken on Wednesday night as Rudd and Coalition leader Tony Abbott debated at the Broncos leagues club in Brisbane, found Rudd had 38% of the primary vote, down from the 44% he achieved in 2010, with Glasson on 47%. The Greens candidate was on 11%.

Losing his Griffith seat would be a mortal blow for Kevin Rudd and Labor, but it might also be just what the ALP needs; to be rid of Rudd for good.

And stories like this won't do Rudd's chances any good at all; news.com.au reports:

A MAKE-up artist who says she smoothed the complexions of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott ahead of last night's people's forum has hinted that the Prime Minister was rude to her.
Lily Fontana, a Brisbane make up artist, took to Facebook after her encounter with the leaders, praising Mr Abbott but saying one of the men had treated her terribly.

Here's the Facebook post in question:

It's not the first time that Mr Rudd has behaved obnoxiously; check out the video at the foot of the news.com.au story, but not at work! But he also gave Tony Abbott the chance to make a memorable comment (the emphasis is ours):

 

Mr Abbott said he did not witness Mr Rudd's interaction with Ms Fontana because she applied his make up "in one room and I imagine the Prime Minister was looked after in another room."
"As for other conversations or lack of conversations (she had), I'll just leave that to Mr Rudd."
Mr Abbott has agreed to another people's forum with Mr Rudd, who he described today as misleading and a liar.
When asked about his outburst last night about whether Mr Rudd would "ever shut up", Mr Abbott said his opponent was "all talk and no action".
"One contest that I can never win against Mr Rudd is a talkathon," Mr Abbott said.
"I'm not against talk - my problem with Mr Rudd is he's all talk and no action and when he does take action it's invariably action that damages people."

With just two weeks until Australia goes to the polls, the tide is going out on Kevin Rudd and Labor. In two weeks time we'll know how badly the tide has gone out.

 

 

 

We can't help but wonder...

Early in July, Cameron Slater broke the story of Labour's Man-Ban. On this occasion, the NZ Herald was sufficiently gracious to give him credit for a significant political scoop; check this out:

The Labour Party is set to introduce a new rule under which electorates will be able to prevent men from seeking selection as a candidate by restricting it to women only.
A copy of the draft rules were leaked to blogger Whaleoil and include a provision: "An LEC [Labour Electorate Committee] may request that NZ Council determine that only women may nominate for the position of Labour candidate for their electorate."
Labour's secretary Tim Barnett confirmed the rule change was included in the changes the NZ Council hoped to get approved at the party's annual conference in November. The proposal was from a working party set up after last year's conference, at which the party had set a target of 50 per cent female representation.

Labour copped an absolute shellacking in the media, on social media and in the blogosphere, and rightly so. And because it took David Shearer five days before he flip-flopped and declared the Man-Ban to be off the agenda, the party was damaged in the polls. It is ultimately poor poll ratings that has cost David Shearer his job.

Someone else will be the Labour Party leader come the party's annual conference in November. So we can't help but wonder; given the roles of Maryan Street and Ruth Dyson in harnessing caucus discontent with Mr Shearer, might the Man-Ban be back on the agenda now?

Whatever would Waitakere Man make of that? We guess now that all those who stick their hands up for Mr Shearer's job are going to face significant scrutiny on issues such as the Man-Ban

The strange case of the missing deputy

Four Labour MP's accompanied David Shearer to the media conference where he announced his resignation yesterday. From left to right they are Kris Faafoi, Chris Hipkins, Shane Jones and Annette King.

Grant Robertson was a noticeable absentee. We commented on that yesterday, but we have pondered it since, and the more we ponder, the worse it looks.

You see, we reckon that leadership teams are just that; teams. The leader and the deputy leader should stick together through thick and thin, and even in the worst case scenario such as yesterday, the deputy leader should be there to show his support for his boss.

And our ponderings got even deeper when we read this in the Herald:

A group of Labour MPs were planning a motion of no confidence against party leader David Shearer at the caucus meeting on Tuesday - a step pre-empted by his resignation from the leadership yesterday.
Mr Shearer said he was stepping down because he had not achieved the desired results.
After taking "soundings" from some of his colleagues, he believed he had lost the confidence of many Labour MPs, and it was time for a change before next year's election.
He said there was no challenge against him.
But the Herald has learned MP Maryan Street was preparing a motion of no confidence in Mr Shearer for Tuesday's meeting.
Plans were also being made to send a delegation to him before that to ask him to stand down rather than force the confidence vote.
The MPs involved were certain the motion would have succeeded if it had been required.
Ms Street would not comment yesterday, but it is understood she decided to front the motion because of growing concerns among MPs over Mr Shearer's inability to fire as leader and his poor poll ratings.
A source said there had been discussions for months, but nobody was willing to force the issue until Ms Street stepped up.
One Labour source also said former Prime Minister Helen Clark had been "active" on the issue while in New Zealand over the past fortnight, speaking to some MPs about it.
It is not known if Mr Shearer knew the no-confidence motion was coming, although some MPs close to him had heard rumours of it.

Grant Robertson worked extensively for Helen Clark prior to becoming an MP in 2008. He was such a member of Clark's inner circle that he has often been referred to as H3; just lower in the oecking order than Miss Clark's fearsome Chief of Staff Heather Simpson (H2).

So we reckon that explains Mr Robertson's absence yesterday; he has been donkey-deep in the undermining of David Shearer, and has been flagrantly disloyal to his gaffer. Either he chose to stay away, in a final, public show of disloyalty, or David Shearer told him to sling his hook. If it is the latter, our respect for Mr Shearer has just gone up a notch.

So we reckon that Grant Robertson should follow Mr Shearer's lead and put his own job on the line; after all he can't be both leader and deputy leader. And we doubt that David Cunliffe would have him as his deputy; not after the way that Mr Robertson has behaved towards the man who began yesterday as Leader of the Opposition and ended it with the weight of the world off his shoulders.

What role has Helen Clark played in this?

Guess who was speaking in Nelson last night; Stuff reports:

Did Helen Clark know David Shearer was about to walk?
Last night the former prime minister seemed to take a swipe at Shearer as she recalled her own tough baptism in the 1990s and listed the qualities she thought a successful leader needed.
She didn't directly discuss Shearer's plight during an interview with the Nelson Mail, but her comments could be read as implicit criticism of his performance.
Clark, who was in Nelson to deliver last night's 70th Cawthron lecture, said: "I went through unhappy times. I remember Easter of the first year I was leader of the Opposition. The political editor of TVNZ went on the screen and said I wouldn't last the year. I eventually hit 2 per cent and the Labour Party polling went as low as 14 per cent. It's hard-hat time when this happens."
She said to survive that, "I had to have nerves of steel and believe that I was the right person for the job, and have a strategy to build back from there".
Self-belief and attractive, clear policy positions consistent with the party's position were required.
"It's hard work - very hard work. It's always the case that you can't work harder - you have to work smarter."
Clark also said it was a pity that the relationship between the Government and Labour had broken down over the GCSB bill, because in the past the major parties had been able to work together on the security services.
She had been both GCSB and SIS minister, and had also sat alongside then prime minister, National's Jenny Shipley, when the SIS legislation was reviewed.
"A lot of the things that I suggested got picked up. Traditionally there has been a lot of co-operation between the Government and the main opposition - but it requires both to walk some steps."
She said from her experience as a minister she could say "without equivocation" that the people in both agencies were very loyal and professional public servants.
"Secondly, we need them, because the world is not an innocent and happy place."
Third, when it was decided that the law needed to be changed, "I think things always go better if there's an ability to have an open dialogue across the parties". 

We've heard a few interesting stories this afternoon. One of those is that serious change is afoot at the Labour Party HQ, Fraser House in Wellington. We've had it suggested to us that the jobs of Labour Party president Moira Coatsworth and general secretary Tim Barnett are on the line, and that Labour has been told that wholesale change is required.

Now whether Helen Clark has had anything at all to do with all this is at this point just speculation. But it is well known that she was not happy with the adversarial stance that Labour took over the rewrite of her GCSB legislation. That is borne out in the comments above.

Helen Clark may no longer be active in the Labour Party. But given that the party is stacked with people who she personally promoted, it would be naive to suggest that she no longer has any influence. 

We don't like Helen Clark's politics, but she is a formidable politician. It would not surprise us one iota if Miss Clark's cellphone had been working overtime over the last few days.

Photos of the Day - 22 August 2013

Student newspaper Salient offers this pictorial vista of the David Shearer situation:

Someone at Salient has some biblical knowledge as well, because this was posted on Twitter with the caption: Shearer steps down - "the one who betrays me is here at the table with me"

Mr Shearer's snapper stunt on Tuesday does indeed seem to have precipitated his Last Supper. But who wielded the knife?

And there's another Photo of the Day that can't be ignored; remember this one, from last year's Labour Party conference?

 

Breaking news; David Shearer resigns

UPDATE: David Shearer has just announced his resignation as leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition. 

He does not believe that he is the right person to lead the party to the next election, and has offered his successor his full support. The NZLP will now formally begin the process of electing a new leader under the party's revised rules, which were changed at the last Labour Party conference.

Neither Mr Shearer nor Labour's senior whip Chris Hipkins would answer questions from the media. No-one will say whether Mr Shearer fell on his sword, or was pushed.

We have however just heard on 3News that Phil Goff and Shane Jones were seen earlier today leaving Mr Shearer's office, with Goff patting Jones on the back. It would seem that our Whodunnit? rating for Mr Jones of 8.5/10, the highest score we awarded may have been right on the money.

And can you spot a noticeable absentee while David Shearer was announcing his resignation this afternoon?

Where was Grant Robertson? Surely, you'd expect the deputy leader to be there to support the outgoing leader at a time like this. Has Mr Robertson's campaign for the leadership begun already?

Meanwhile, here's the Herald's take on it:

David Shearer will stand down as Labour leader, saying he no longer believed he had the full confidence of his caucus.
He said Labour had not had the lift in the polls needed under his leadership and his soundings of caucus had indicated he should step aside to allow a fresh start.
"My sense is I no longer have the full confidence of many of my caucus colleagues,"
Mr Shearer called the press conference at short notice this afternoon following a Labour caucus meeting this morning.
Mr Shearer told the press conference it was better he step down so there could be a "clean change to a new leader who can take Labour through to victory in 2014''.
He said he looked forward to continuing as a member of the Labour Party and as the MP for Mt Albert.
"Whoever becomes the new leader can rely on my full support,'' he said.
There was no explanation at Mr Shearer's hastily called press conference about why he stood down and no word on who may take over.

And Stuff reports thus:

Labour leader David Shearer has stepped aside, saying he didn't think he had support of his full caucus.
Shearer said his resignation would be effective once a new leader was elected.
Whip Chris Hipkins said a replacement would be decided in three to four weeks. He said he had informed the party president Moira Coatsworth and secretary Tim Barnett this morning.
Heading into the House with list MP Jacinda Ardern, Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson said he was the acting leader but he could not say who was acting deputy.
Shearer's seat was empty when the House sat at 2pm.
Asked about the Government's programme for next week, Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee joked there was plenty to keep Labour occupied next week - and in coming weeks.
Shearer told reporters it had been a privilege to lead the party for the past 20 months.
''But we do need to do more. So the time has come for me to hand over to a new leader who can take Labour through to 2014."

*************************

Stand by for a major political announcement at 1.30pm. David Shearer is holding a media conference after an urgent, hastily-convened Labour caucus meeting, and is expected to announce that he will stand down as Labour Party leader.

And Duncan Garner didn't break this story!

Watkins on Shearer

Tracy Watkins reflects on the potential implications of yesterday's Fairfax-Ipsos poll for David Shearer. Under the headline Shearer can't get any political traction Watkins opines:

The only relief for Labour leader David Shearer in today's Fairfax Media-Ipsos poll is that things haven't got worse. But that is small solace when the terrible 20s are just a couple of percentage points around the corner.
It is not entirely fair to assess the results solely on Labour's performance, of course.
As has so often happened over the last five years, the polling period was dominated by crisis headlines - this time over the Fonterra milk contamination scare. That meant two things: Opposition parties were starved of oxygen, and voters were probably more focused on the Government's performance during the crisis.
But even soMr Shearer has fired some big policy shots to grab attention, including a blatantly populist pitch to first-home buyers with a plan to ban foreign speculators from the housing market, and build tens of thousands of cheap new homes.
He has moved to arrest the inertia in his back office by bringing back former chief press secretary, Fran Mold, and installing her as his chief of staff.
And he has been quick to latch on to the right side of issues like the row over snapper bag limits.
But his leadership still seems to be at half throttle. 

Mr Shearer's leadership may indeed have been at "half throttle" until Question Time on Tuesday. During Q3, he went to full throttle, and later when he did the dead fish stunt he was in overdrive. The only trouble is that he was in reverse gear!

And Ms Watkins notes that any gains he has made this year have evapourated; read on:

Even voters who flirted briefly with him at the start of the year have either switched off, or been turned off, by hapless episodes like the man ban, or the debacle yesterday over his request for a not-so-secret meeting with Prime Minister John Key to find a way through the impasse over legislation extending the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau.
The intention behind him seeking the meeting was good - the execution was not. And it was just another reminder to Labour that their leader will have to think a lot faster on his feet on the campaign trail if he wants to get one up on Mr Key. 

David Shearer's performance on Tuesday was cringeworthy. He was absent for Question Time yesterday, only returning to the House in time to lead Labour's opposition to the GCSB Bill, but even then his speech was laboured (pardon the political pun) and lacking the kind of authority one would expect from a leader.

Can Mr Shearer improve his communication enough to go head-to-head with John Key in an election debate? Or will Labour even take that risk? Spring is just a matter of days away. 


UPDATE:  Just us we posted this, we saw this tweet:

Has spring sprung?

Quote of the Day - 22 August 2013

Parliament's weekly General Debate on a Wednesday afternoon is fertile ground for a quote or two. But we can't recall any occasion where we have considered an entire speech worthy of a Quote of the Day. We've published a video or two, but not a transcript (that we can recall).

But yesterday National's Rodney MP Mark Mitchell closed the debate. And given that his speech immediately preceded that Third Reading debate on the GCSB Bill and its related legislation, it was especially signifcant.

This Sunday Star-Times profile of Mitchell from 2011 gives you an idea about why the MP is qualified to make the comments he made in his speech yesterday. And here, via Hansard, is the draft transcript of the speech:

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I would like to talk about something that has been in our media a lot over the last few months, and that is our national security. 

In 2006 in Nasiriyah, Iraq, a supply convoy carrying food for coalition troops was attacked by al-Qaeda. During the attack, al-Qaeda operatives took a satellite phone from a dead driver. Before the account was cancelled, there were over 200 calls made. The calls were spread around countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UK, some European countries, the United States, and 14 calls were made to New Zealand. 

Why were terrorists who were attacking and killing our allies in Iraq making calls to New Zealand? That is why we have agencies like the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)—so they can find out who and why, and so they can protect us. 

Mr Shearer said yesterday that when he was the victim of a terrorist attack, he witnessed the death, the human suffering, and the carnage that that brings. I am sure he has played over in his mind many times how that attack may have been prevented or stopped. The quickest way to invite a terrorist attack is to become complacent and to say that it cannot happen to me. Why would anyone attack us? 

Is that what happened to Mr Shearer? Was he a victim of “It can’t happen to me.”? Had complacency crept in? Mr Shearer indicated yesterday that he had to witness death and suffering before he became serious about security. 

Well, our Prime Minister has shown that he cannot and will not wait for people to die before he becomes serious about our security. He takes our security seriously right now. We are incredibly lucky in New Zealand that we have the most transparent and open political system in the world, which allows us to debate and challenge ideas and legislation. 

The GCSB legislation has been a classic example of this. The legislation has had the full blast of sunlight on it for all to see. It has been debated until the cows come home. It is good legislation that has created certainty and clarity where there was none. It provides rigorous checks and balances and multiple hoops to jump though before any information is able to be obtained by the agencies tasked with protecting us. 

Finally, I would like to share some of my own observations. I do not want to be an alarmist but, on the other hand, I do not want a malaise to become part of our psyche and that tells us that somehow we have become immunised against the threats that the global community faces. We have not. 

For a decade I witnessed the pain, suffering, and fear that come with terrorism. I was forced to deal directly with groups like al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and the Lord’s Resistance Army. Sometimes they are brutal and unsophisticated in the way they operate. At other times they have the use of the best and the most sophisticated technology available. 

Sometimes terror attacks are planned sitting on a dirt floor in a shanty town in Mogadishu. At other times they are planned in a penthouse in a European city. But one thing they have in common is a desire to defeat security measures that Governments put in place to protect their people. They can sniff out weakness and complacency at a thousand miles. 

I would like to acknowledge our Prime Minister, who is making sure that we are not an easy target and who is taking the steps necessary to ensure that someone like Mr Shearer does not become a victim again. Thank you.

This was an outstanding speech from Mark Mitchell, who like David Shearer has had direct experience with terrorism. And the points he made regarding the need for surveillance are very pertinent.

We do not live in a benign environment. The threat of terrorism is ever-present. New Zealand has already experienced an act of terrorism when French agents sunk the Rainbow Warrior back in the 80's. We're kidding ourselves if we believe that our distance from the rest of the world makes us immune from terrorism.

The sun is shining as we type this, so it obviously rose this morning. The GCSB Bill was passed by Parliament, and the world as we knew it has not ended. Nor will it, despite the best efforts of LabourGreen and its fellow travelers to scare the horses.

Mark Mitchell may have closed his speech and the weekly General Debate with the words "Thank you.", but we should be thanking HIM for reminding us just why the 2003 GCSB legislation needs to be strengthened.

Clifton on Shearer's gutting

Jane Clifton doesn't usually pull any punches. It is common knowledge that she has had relationships with MP's from both sides of the political divide, but that has never blunted her political objectivity.

And she's holding nothing back today either; under the headline Key guts Shearer, makes a meal of him she opines:

Ever since Don Brash, visiting a boatyard during an election campaign, was filmed "walking the plank", politicians have been extra careful about avoiding unfortunate symbolism.
Unaccountably, the Opposition leader's office forgot this wise precaution yesterday.
Either that, or no-one could manage to dissuade David Shearer, seeking to illustrate a point about snapper quota, from producing two of the fish in Parliament yesterday.
The Government did not know which piscine wisecrack to go with first. They were, of course, dead fish. Necessarily, they were fish out of water - though at the same time, they were as good for target practice as fish in a barrel. Depending on how long they had now been out of water, they could also end up as cat food.
Mr Shearer's senior benchmates reinforced this point by indicating playfully, but rather unhelpfully, that the fish were getting a bit whiffy.
Poignantly, though Mr Shearer's staff had failed to protect him from the inevitable fish-related farce, he had come equipped with a paper towel roll to wipe his hands - though journalists at a subsequent press conference reported he still smelt fishy. 

Fishy is as fishy does, we suppose. Whoever advised David Shearer to take two dead fish into Parliament's Debating Chamber needs their head read; it was the height of stupidity. It immediately opened Mr Shearer to a relentless mocking from both Government MP's, and even Green MP's Jan Logie and Holly Walker who joined in via social media. 

Ms Logie tweeted that "Politics inches closer to surrealism. What was he hoping to get out of that?", whilst Ms Walker who is of a younger generation to most of us said "An already weird #nzqt just entered the bizarro realm with David Shearer waving around actual dead fish to illustrate a question on snapper.".

What makes this even more incredible is that Mr Shearer had already had one slapping yesterday afternoon; Jane Clifton continues:

Prime Minister John Key sought leave for Mr Shearer to table the fish so he could get them cooked for his dinner. He had already made a meal of Mr Shearer. In an earlier own-goal, Mr Key had been gifted the opportunity to portray National-Labour discussions about a consensus on the new spying legislation as being akin to Monty Python's fish-slapping dance.
Mr Shearer had asked Mr Key to confirm whether he or his office had held any meetings with Labour in the run-up to the bill. "I can't believe he is asking that question," Mr Key boggled, indicating that he would answer it, but it would not be fun for Mr Shearer if he did.
Mr Shearer said to bring it on - so falling into another question time heffalump pit. For one thing, cross-party talks are supposed to be high-trust affairs, used sparingly and with the utmost discretion. For another, question time is the clumsiest of forums in which to break that trust.
Mr Shearer clearly had a version of events unflattering to the Government, which he wanted to get across - but all he was allowed to do was ask questions. Mr Key had an alternative version unflattering to Labour, and was able to give a full account.
Mr Key described a clandestine tryst, in which he and Mr Shearer took the back steps up to the prime minister's suite so as not to be observed. He said he had asked Mr Shearer, after a select committee hearing, if he wanted to come up to his office to discuss the legislation. "We actually waited for the other members, in particular Dr Norman, to leave so that he did not see the member coming up to my office." 
Mr Shearer protested that it had been his idea. Mr Key countered: "If the member really wants to get down and dirty, members of the Labour Party said they did not understand the law."
Mr Shearer said Mr Key had said he "didn't care" whether Labour came on board or not because he already had Peter Dunne's vote. Mr Key didn't quite deny this, but said Mr Shearer had "rocks in his head" to pass up the chance to put security law beyond the Greens' intransigence. 

Some people around the blogosphere today are wondering out loud whether David Shearer is in real life a National Party plant in the Labour Party. We don't buy that for a moment, but he is most certainly the gift that keeps on giving to John Key, whilst the Greens will now be viewing him with great suspicion.

Jane Clifton got it dead right; John Key gutted David Shearer yesterday in a political sense. Mr Key came out of Question Time smelling of roses, whilst Mr Shearer was left with that unpleasant fishy afterscent, and a potential coalition party that now thinks that the Labour leader stinks.