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.

Emmerson on Labour Fashion Week

Regular readers will know that we are fans of Rod Emmerson's cartoons in the NZ Herald. And as we have noted before, he has a great ability to segue together two entirely unrelated but topical issues.

He's done just that this morning:

Whether or not the Shane Jones g-string is taking things a little beyond the bounds of good taste is in the eye of the beholder. We do presume however that Rod Emmerson drew this 'toon BEFORE Shane Jones made his unfortunate comments in Hamilton last night about John Key's nether regions, bungy cords and dead cat bounces. If that is the case, his foresight is as brilliant as his cartoons!

Whichever, we have no desire to watch Shane Jones model his undergarments (or any garments at all for that matter) at Fashion Week!

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 - 4 September 2013

Green MP Kevin Hague (one of the few Green MP's we have much time for) asks this question via Twitter:

It is, of course, not the first time that Clayton Cosgrove has been guilty of a tasteless, bordering-on-homophobic comment in the House; Stuff reported in 2011:

Labour's Trevor Mallard says he shouldn't have called Attorney-General Chris Finlayson "Tinkerbell'' but denies there is problem with homophobia in the party.
ACT's Wellington central candidate Stephen Whittington yesterday accused openly gay Labour MPs Grant Robertson and Charles Chauvel of covering up prejudice among their caucus.
Hutt South MP Mr Mallard likened Mr Finlayson to the Peter Pan fairy during a parliamentary debate in October 2009. Waimakariri MP Clayton Cosgrove twice called Mr Finlayson Tinkerbell in the House in July 2009.
Mr Mallard said last night: ``I certainly don't think I'm homophobic. It's a comment that was probably unfortunate and if I'd thought carefully I wouldn't have made it.'' 

As a gay man, Kevin Hague will have a better idea of what constitutes homophobia than we do. We know that Mr Cosgrove won't be voting for David Cunliffe next week, so we guess that his vote will be going to Shane Jones, rather than to Grant Robertson. In fact we wonder if Mr Robertson would even accept Cosgrove's vote.

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.

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.

We can't help but wonder...

So; if either David Cunliffe or Grant Robertson wins the Labour Party leadership, tax rates are going up, and the "living wage" will be implemented; whether businesses can afford to pay it, or not.

And we note that there will be a significant increase in the threshold at which point the top PAYE rate kicks in; David Cunliffe suggests that it will be what it was previously under Labour; around $150,000 per annum.

Leaving aside the fact though that when Labour was kicked out of office in 2008, the top rate of PAYE kicked in for income over $60,000 per annum, the rather arbitrary number of $150,000 has got us wondering.

And what we can't help but wonder is this; is the fact that the top tax rate will apply to income in excess of what a backbench MP earns merely a coincidence, or is it a very careful case of colleague-interest from the Labour Party leadership aspirant?

Why Labor is losing; and what it means for the NZLP.

We were out and about yesterday, after our business meetings ended.We even met a Liberal Party candidate for one of the local electorates doing some good, old-fashioned street corner campaigning; good luck Kevin!

But we haven't seen hide nor hair of anyone from the Labor Party; they seem to be keeping a low profile. And this opinion-piece from Paul Strangio in the Sydney Morning Herald may help to explain why:

In the near half-century since the dawn of the ''modern'' epoch of Australian politics - a milestone conventionally associated with Gough Whitlam's ascension to the Labor leadership in the late 1960s - Australia has witnessed five changes of federal government (1972, 1975, 1983, 1996 and 2007).
Two of those transitions involved the ALP losing office: Whitlam was defeated in 1975 and Paul Keating's government was beaten in 1996. When compared with those occasions, a notable difference about the mood in 2013 is the seeming lack of passion among Labor partisans as they contemplate the likely demise of the Rudd government.
Labor has traditionally been the party capable of stirring followers to emotional pitch, and those passions have commonly been intense when the ALP is bracing itself against defeat. It has been a catalyst for party faithful to metaphorically mount the barricades.

1975, of course, had its own exceptional circumstances, with Labor partisans animated by a potent mixture of rage at Whitlam's dismissal by governor-general Sir John Kerr, and adoration of their cruelly felled prime minister. Whitlam's rallies during the campaign were even more charged and messianic than the exultant ''It's Time'' campaign meetings of 1972. Such was the fervency of the Labor crowds that the Whitlam entourage was seduced into believing that the party might defy expectations and prevail at the ballot box.
Passions were more subdued in 1996. Labor had expended much of its emotional energy three years earlier rallying behind Keating as he fended off the challenge of John Hewson and his fundamentalist free-market manifesto, ''Fightback''. There was little hope of another salvation in 1996 and the dominant mood among Labor followers was one of sombre foreboding that matched the demeanour of the elegiac Keating. Yet the ''true believers'' still drew inspiration from Keating's ''big picture'' and felt sick at heart that the public was poised to spurn his vision in favour of the provincialism of John Howard's promise of a ''comfortable and relaxed'' Australia.
By contrast, in 2013 Labor faithful appear devoid of emotion - dare I suggest there is even a smidge of indifference about what is coming. Yes, there is apprehension at the spectre of a Tony Abbott-led Coalition government and spasms of anger at the anti-Labor assault of the News Ltd press, but the fate of the Rudd government is failing to generate much anguish.
Why the dearth of passion? Part of the answer is that the leadership civil war of the past three years has left the ALP emotionally wrung out. I suspect some Labor loyalists remain numb at the pitiless internal destabilisation and ultimate cutting down of Australia's first female prime minister, Julia Gillard.
Furthermore, as the campaign has progressed, it has become evident that by not daring to speak Gillard's name, Labor's re-election pitch has been left with a significant hole. Notwithstanding the flaws of her incumbency, Gillard established a reform record that felt like it was worth fighting for - most notably, the disability insurance scheme and education funding reform. Yet, intent on erasing Gillard's prime ministership from public consciousness, Rudd has appeared reluctant to fully own those measures for Labor. In turn, the campaign has spotlighted how comparatively thin and uninspiring are his reform credentials.

We are relatively recent converts to the niceties of Australian Federal politics. It's only really been since the John Howard years that we have taken more than a passing interest.

But the machinations within the ALP since 2007 have been fascinating to watch, and even moreso at the moment because they are mirrored in the bitterly divided New Zealand Labour Party. 

Labor and Kevin Rudd are headed for a crushing defeat next Saturday if the pundits here and the bookies are to be believed. You can still get a bet on the Coalition; at $1.02 back for your dollar. Labour is paying $11 to be reelected.

Surely, this is going to lead to wholesale change at the top of the ALP. But the question we have is this; what is needed for there to be wholesale change at the top of the New Zealand Labour Party? Will any of Messrs Cunliffe, Robertson or Jones be the catalyst for significant change, or will it just be more of the same?

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.

Tweet(s) of the Day - 28 August 2013

Paddy Gower reports on a difficult day for the Three Amigos, the candidates for the Labour Party leadership. The tweets should be read from bottom to top, for the correct chronological order:

So here's the basic chronology of events. Instead of being in Parliament this afternoon, the Three Amigos waived the chance to ask questions of Ministers, and decided (singularly or individually) to go to a union protest in Auckland; at the taxpayer's expense, of course.

However the EPMU thwarted that plan, and told the Three Amigos to go whistle. The Three Amigos became two, when Shane Jones broke ranks, and went to the union meeting anyway. Waitakere Man will be delighted with the defiance showed by Matua Shane.

In the meantime, David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson are left with egg on their respective faces. They have squandered a chance to score a hit on the PM, and they have been turned away by Labour's largest affiliated trade union.

Oh dear; how sad; never mind.

Is Shane Jones Labour's saviour?

One commodity that Shane Jones has never lacked is faith in his own ability. But now he sees himself as the Labour Party's last chance of salvation; the Northland Age reports:

Awanui's Labour list MP Shane Jones sees David Cunliffe as the front runner for the Labour Party leadership following David Shearer's resignation, but if the party wanted to win the next election, he said yesterday, he was the only chance it had.
"We need someone who can resonate with New Zealanders, and I'm the only one who can do that," he said.

And let's just say that the "lightbulb moment" when the self-annointing came upon Mr Jones was "interesting"; read on:

Mr Jones said he had come to his decision to seek the job on Friday, while he was mowing his lawns. Touted by commentators from the outset as a potential candidate, albeit a long shot, he said he had no doubt that, unlike is opponents, he could attract blue-collar workers back to the Labour fold and take on "the $50 million gorilla," Prime Minister John Key.
His style of "smoko room" politics and debating ability were the best way to beat National and get working-class voters to turn to Labour, which he said had lost its relevance.
His skill as an orator, his Maori heritage and his common touch are also regarded by his supporters as strengths that would serve him well in the election process, and as party leader.

Mr Jones acknowledged that one or two missteps in the past could reduce his chances, but he had done his penance and had a clear conscience.
"I'm not running to be the Pope. I'm running to be the leader of the Labour Party," he said, adding that he had years of experience of debating on marae and in politics, and had no fears about facing Mr Key in Parliament and election debates.

One thing is for sure. Shane Jones is the only one of the three Labour leadership candidates to whom Chris Trotter's mythical Waitakere Man could relate. And he knows it:

He also believed that his ability to focus on basic issues that mattered to voters would attract support.
"The Labour brand is a proud and true brand. Unfortunately we have allowed that brand to become irrelevant in how a whole bunch of New Zealanders see their personal circumstances," he said.
"The 800,000 who didn't vote last time need to see Labour as relevant to what they need to help bring their kids up. It's simple stuff: jobs, income, security, sport, life."

It's hard not to accept the truth in Shane Jones' words about Labour Party voters having been alienated by Labour's social engineering/political correctness agenda in the Clark years and since. This is fertile ground for Matua Shane (as he calls himself on Twitter) to mine.

Of course it's unlikely that Shane Jones will win the Labour leadership. His candidacy however has exposed a real weakness in the campaigns of Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe who, despite their best intentions, do not speak the language of the type of person who used to vote Labour. Labour ought not ignore that fact.

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.

 

Bring it on!

David Shearer is gone, and will soon be forgotten, inasmuch as his time as the Labour Party leader goes. And his decisions are quickly being rolled back, including one rather contentious one; Stuff reports (with our emphasis added):

Labour's leadership contenders have begun shedding some light on the direction they would take the party and the country if successful at next year's election.
Grant Robertson has said he expects the three candidates will start rolling out individual policy preferences at the public meetings over the next two weeks.
In the meantime, they have largely adhered to the party line though they outlined some of their thoughts this morning.
Under David Cunliffe and Robertson, the "man-ban" – which would allow some electorates to have women-only candidates – could be back on the table if the party wants to revive the idea at the annual conference in November. 

Oh dear. It looks as though the Labour Party is going to have to man up, swallow deeply and elect Shane Jones as leader unless it is again to become the laughing stock.

Labour took an absolute shellacking over the proposed Man-Ban, and for good cause too. Not only is it sexist, but the policy is actually patronising and demeaning to women by implying that they need a quota system or some other such artificial means to get ahead.

The determination of two of the Labour Party leadership candidates to push through such a daft policy does not bode well for Labour's chances of convincing the electorate that it deserves another chance. If Labour MP's were hoping for less sideshows and more cut-through with Mr Shearer gone, they are going to have to get behind Mr Jones, and help him win the hearts and the minds of the party faithful.

And above all Waitakere Man, the mythical voter who Labour is trying to win back is going to be singularly unimpressed by what Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe are proposing. But who are we to try and stop them? 

"Bring it on!" we say!

A "touching" Caption Contest

We had visitors last night, so we didn't get to see the Native Affairs debate with the three confirmed candidates for the Labour Party leadership. It's online here however, and we'll watch it later in the day when we can make a dent in the pile of work on our desk.

But apparently there was one really touching moment, and the Native Affairs people kindly posted the moment via their Facebook page:

Now there's all sorts of imagery that this picture conjures up, and that means that it's a natural for a Caption Contest. So 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.

The floor is yours...

Tweet of the Day - 27 August 2013

Journalist Laura McQuillan has noticed a certain similarity between the social media announcements of the Labour leadership candidacies of Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe; check this out:

The similarity between to two announcements is striking. In fact it's more than striking; they are to all intents and purposes identical.

There are many possible explanations, but we reckon that this could be one of them; Francesca Mold did them as a job lot before exiting her job, hence the cut 'n' paste similarities. Can anyone think of a better explanation for this ineptitude?

Emmerson and the Three Amigos

Rod Emmerson is in fine form this morning, with his portayal of Labour's Three Amigos. 

Whether Messrs Cunliffe, Robertson and Jones will be as flattered with the attention from our favourite cartoonist is, of course, another matter altogether!

And speaking of Shane Jones' fantasies; what lay behind the repeated references to the "Labour Mothership" when he was on RadioLive with Willie and JT yesterday? That, then the David Cunliffe presser was all a bit surreal.

Jones shows his hand

Shane Jones has declared himself a contestant for Labour's leadership, and once again Duncan Garner has the scoop:

We don't regard Jones as a serious contender, and we reckon that his decision to stand is probably more a matter of post-contest positioning; perhaps a bid to be Labour's deputy leader.

But Jones has at least ensured that there will be a contest, and if David Cunliffe confirms his candidacy today as expected, a three-way contest.

What will count against Shane Jones is his inability to ever win an electorate seat. He failed in Northland against John Carter in 2008, and failed again in 2011 when he took on Pita Sharples in Tamaki Makarau. But he will certainly bring a different dynamic to the contest, and it is unlikely to be dull!


FOOTNOTE: It has been interesting to see the various apologies to Duncan Garner over the last few days. He was right; there was a letter circulating that night a few weeks ago; we have been told that personally by someone from deep within the Labour Party. It wasn't supposed to get out but it did, and the coup was aborted temporarily.

"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!