More balderdash on the Labour Leadership

Just as my planned post comparing Shearer/Milliband to Clem Attlee prior to the triumph of 1945 was disrupted by Shearer's decision to fall upon his sword, I fully anticipate that Cunliffe will announce he is running within seconds of this post hitting the internet. 

There's going to be a leadership contest (for those who have been hiding understones for the last couple of days).  David "Shoulda been me" Cunliffe versus Grant "I'm Not David Cunliffe" Roberstson seem to be the popular picks - though I suspect things may still turn out differently, as they contemplate precisely what being leader of the Labour Party right now means.  Neither has declared they are running, at this time.  Both are consulting friends and family, or whatever it is politicians say when they are desperately doing the numbers to see if they can win.

If it is Cunliffe versus Robertson, it has to be Cunliffe. If it is Cunliffe versus anyone in caucus, it pretty much has to be Cunliffe – though I thought that was the case 20 months ago … The question is, will Cunliffe go for it?

Is his (oft commented on) high self opinion so high he thinks he can take on Key?
If he does become leader, I suspect there will be an immediate surge in Labour support – but mostly at the expense of the Greens, and perhaps NZ First. So Labour will be happy, but the 2014 result will still be a coin toss, for now.

But it isn't as simple as that.  Cunliffe has to decide to run first, before he gets to be leader.  If he does, he would probably win.  You’d have to be stupid to take Robertson over Cunliffe.

But I’m still not sure he’ll go for it this time.  In spite of his undoubted desire to be leader, he may decide to hold back.  After all, he's been waiting a long time, and probably anticipated waiting longer before Shearer's sudden demise.

He may weigh up the likelihood of winning against the likelihood of losing and being out of a job in 2014.  Unfortunately, his prime motivation will be the betterment of David Cunliffe.  I don't think he wants to be remembered as the guy who lead the party to defeat in 2014, which will still be a distinct possibility for all the superhuman qualities some seem to attribute to him.

With this in mind, he might decide he'd rather play the assassin's role after the (very possible) defeat in 2014.  So Cunliffe may nurse his ambitions and elect to sit it out - perhaps showing his loyalty and support by signing up as deputy - with a canny eye on 2014.

The same applies to Roberston.  Both have time on their side, both are ambitious and neither would desire to be a pathetic footnote in Labour history.  So we may - just possibly - have a situation where the two main contenders for the job are not contending, leaving it open to either Andrew Little or a stop gap candidate like Annette King - someone who will at least stop the defeat of 2014 turning into a rout. 

Then, once the small business of who runs the country between 2014 and 2017 is dealt with, the important matter of who gets to shout at John Key for three years can be attended to.

The other reason Cunliffe might sit this one out (other than cynical self interest) is because he is too resented for his role – or perceived role – in all the undermining and plotting against Shearer. He might feel a period of loyalty, blasting national from a glamorous front bench position, might serve his interests better. Because it is always going to be about his interests, not the parties.

There will be some interesting meetings going on between bland little men in grey suits.  Those meetings will determine who is going to be the leader of the Labour Party, because they will be where it is decided who will be encouraged to step forward, and who will be quietly told not to make themselves difficult.  I suspect that these grey little men will mention to Cunliffe that not being difficult now might result in a swift return to the front bench, and perhaps even a hint of support if there should happen to be a vacancy after 2014.

NB – Whatever happens, I also anticipate Roy Morgan releasing some essentially random set of figures, calling it a poll and placing some frivolous interpretation on it, which will likely be contradicted by their next poll.

Labour Leadership, Yet Again

Ho, hum.  I was contemplating a longish piece - a sort of essay - on the leadership travails of Ed Milliband and David Shearer.  My starting point was likely to be the experiences of Clem Attlee, who was so scorned by his own party that he faced (and ignored) continual demands to quit for someone more acute, more charismatic, more dynamic, more leftwing, more anything.

Attlee, of course, went on to win a massive majority immediately after the end of World War 2, and instituted a programme of reforms that haven't been matched by any British prime minister since; and is now regarded as the perhaps the best PM of the century, almost certainly the best of the post war bunch.

But I didn't quite get around to it and just as well, as David Shearer decided to quit, without checking with me if that would be okay.

So, with the phoney war over, what now for Labour?

Obviously the three most mooted names are Cunliffe, Robertson and Little.  Romantics nervously suggest Jacinda Ardern.  I think none of the above are likely, for the simple reason they are career politicians with time (but not much else) on their side.

They aren’t thinking about what is good for the Labour party, but for their own prospects. Cunliffe, Robertson, Little probably don’t relish the idea of taking on Key, even now. I think the ‘Big Beasts’ will be thinking about the 2014 leadership election, rather than the 2014 general election.

I think Annette King might emerge as a stop gap contender. 

King is familiar and have a bit of ‘elder statesperson’ gravitas. King / Cunliffe or King / Little might be viable tickets, with the deputy keeping a canny eye on his prospects for 2014.

So it would be very funny if King managed to scrape some sort of a victory in 2014, and so delayed the succession to 2016-7, by which time Jacinda might be a more realistic prospect.

Labour Leadership, Part 561

I give up. I thought the insanity that seems to have possessed the post-Clark Labour party would have run its course after 2011. But it seems some can not sate their need to schism and plot against their own party, rather than their opposition.

Does anyone really think installing David Cunliffe or Andrew Little is really going to give Labour a real boost in the polls? That suddenly this brain dead, factionalised caucus will suddenly unite and start pouring out brilliant ideas? That suddenly the New Zealand public will realise what it has always wanted to do was embark on a Long March to the left? Get real.

Swapping out Shearer for Cunliffe will simply mean the current coterie around Shearer will become the scheming plotters trying to undermine the leader. The (possibly terminal) decline will continue. The polls will stay miserable, with the occasional 35% rating being greeted rapturously, while National pooter along quite happily at 48%.

Do you really think there are Brilliant Ideas - better than KiwiBuild and the NZ Power - that some members of the caucus have just plain forgotten to mention but will rediscover with Shearer out of the top spot? It seems rather unlikely, to be generous.

There isn't much to be said for Shearer; there isn't much to be said for Cunliffe. If Shearer is rolled, the electorate will not rejoice and switch from National to Labour. They will look on the conspirators as the Roman plebs looked on Cassius and Brutus - only they won't need an Anthony to rouse them. They'll see it for what it is - the petty politicking of little men who were so interested in advancing themselves they betrayed the movement they claimed to be part of. The electorate will be more firmly pro-Key than ever, because the NZ Labour party will have succeeded in becoming toxic as well as useless.

Cunliffe - and anyone else - would be a fool to roll Shearer now. it won't fix anything - not one of the buffoons put forward as a possible new leader has the wit or charisma to fix the problems of the Labour party. They are the symptom, not the solution. They will look at how few of those who strike the fatal blow go on to wear the crown. Brash rolled English and lost. Gillard rolled Rudd and lost. Rudd rolled Gillard and will likely lose - and if he does win, based on his moves against refugees, it will be a Phyricc victory as who would want to win on a platform of xenophobia and fear?

Cunliffe and the other contenders - pygmies all, but the Labour party is a party where pygmies are well represented - would probably prefer to wait until after 2014. They are none of them so stupid as to think substituting Shearer for any one of them would make a sufficient difference. But they also know that by 2014 they will be as stale and unappealling as Phil Goff in 2011. So they will perhaps be compelled to act now - before whatever miniscule talent they possess is completely over-shadowed.

I suppose being leader for a year and a bit would be preferable to never being leader at all.

Shearer

The vexed issue of David Shearer's leadership is up for discussion again, because it seems some people are never satisfied. Even when 8% has been added to the Labour vote, solid policy is starting to be announced and a Labour-Green coalition is looking like a workable government, some can't help but believe the Sky Is Falling because Shearer's personal numbers are bad.

But I don't think it matters.

At the moment, for 90% of the population, David Shearer is a nonentity. They can’t think of much good about him so he he must, therefore, be doing a bad job. Truth is, they can’t think of much to say about him because there is very rarely ever anything to say about the Leader of the Opposition, unless it is negative. It’s like being Vice President in the US, which someone compared to having to drink a glass of vomit. By definition, you’re unimportant and dismissed, until a month or two before an election when the apathetic majority give themselves a shake and think, “Who the Hell are we going to get to run this place now?” Then, and only then, is it likely Shearer’s numbers will move.

Looking at Britain, Ed Milliband is in a similar to position to Shearer in terms of voters perception of him as a credible alternative PM. The British electorate don’t know much about him, and obscurity equates to uselessness as far as voters are concerned.

Milliband does enjoy the odd position of being the least disliked of the three main party leaders. But that's because of the specifics of the British situation; Milliband’s ratings are better than the coalition leaders because they are more hated than things that are hated. So comparisons between the two have to be made carefully. Milliband isn't made popular because his opponents are even more unpopular. He's ignored because he hasn't done anything much, and his opponents are loathed for what they have done.

Shearer is in a less pleasant position - he's ignored because he's the leader of the opposition and Key is still quite liked by a lot of people. they can't do much about it now; but if they can’t boost their numbers when the election is imminent, then there is a problem. Pointing to Shearer's ratings and squeaking is a waste of energy.

Nick Clegg was in a similar position prior to the 2010 election – his approval and disapproval ratings were pretty much even until about a year out from the election, when he began to get positive coverage due to the Expenses Scandal and the Financial Crisis blah blah blah – then one went up, the other went down. He didn’t suddenly become competent, of course: people just started noticing him and thought, “That’s what we like in politicians: not Scottish and not a Tory.” After his performance in the leader’s debates, he became even more wildly popular, teenage girls were swooning and the matrons of Olde Englande were surreptitiously mailing him their underwear. Then he got into a coalition with the Tories, and now he’s hated again …

Milliband’s critics have generally complained about him being too leftwing for the British electorate. Witness the current fuss about the commitment to exceed Tory spending pledges to stimulate the economy. Or the description of him in the rightwing press as Red Ed, the puppet of the unions? As I said, George Galloway and his ilk might make noises off to the left (though Galloway is really a self promoting rabble rouser, more akin to Winston Peters) but they are an electoral irrelevance. So, as I said, it is silly to try to read anything into Shearer’s personal ratings at this point. Opposition leaders are almost always held in faint regard. After all, painting them as great often forces the electorate to confront the uncomfortable question of why the voted them out in the first place. My assessment is that Shearer may only start firing on all cylinders in the lead up to the election, it is based on his performance to date – generally erratic and stuttering until the moment of (often self caused) crisis.

I might be wrong, of course.

More musings on the left and such like

Over on The Standard, a poster called Karol has suggested that “Currently, to govern in NZ the Left requires a strong , democratic and solidly left wing Labour Party”.

I’m not sure I agree with this idea.

To govern, you need to win the left and the centre. For a ‘solidly leftwing Labour Party’ to do that would take a leader of uncommon talent and probably a special moment in history. With all due respect to Shearer and Cunliffe, neither of them is a leader of uncommon talent.

Under MMP, the extreme left is always going to be flaky – eternally squabbling about obscure points of doctrine, protesting about too much ground being given to the centre (and overlooking the fact that they have the ground to give in the first place). Look how many leftwing minor parties have come and gone already – the Alliance and the various parties that constituted it originally, the Progressives, Mana …

Now the Greens seem to be colonising that space, which is brave, or perhaps foolhardy. How long before the environmentalist core and the anarchist faction start to get uncomfortable with all this neo-statist policy?

If the Greens can keep their disparate elements happy, then there is no need for Labour to move left – they will only be taking votes off the Greens, while losing votes in the centre.

Look at the differences in the housing policy. They both want to build the same amount of houses, but the Greens want to do them as state houses and Labour wants to do them to sell. Both policies have something to recommend them, and both will deliver a massive economic boost and help get working class people working again. The Green policy appeals to me more because it delivers a socially just solution. The Labour policy appeals to middle class voters because it seems more fiscally responsible and it will relieve pressure (slightly) on house prices.

(Don’t dismiss or mock middle class concerns, by the way – they are legitimate and stem from real issues. If you want to win, you need to carry these people, not alienate them.)

What I imagine would happen if the Greens and Labour were negotiating their coalition housing policy is that they’d agree to build 300,000 houses, with a mix of social and private ownership – which also makes sense on street level, as a mixture of state and private housing makes for a healthier community.

So everyone wins, or loses just a little (which amounts to the same thing) – apart from National.

I dunno. Sometimes I wake up and I really want Labour to lurch to the far left and to Hell with the centre.

Most of the time, I imagine the view from that moral high ground would look remarkably similar to the view from the opposition benches.

The sky is falling!

So, over on The Standard, IrishBill is claiming, "a senior Labour MP (who will go unnamed) has been lobbying National Council to put rules in place for party members who participate in the blogosphere".

How typical of the dictatorial impulses of the Sheareresque apparatchiks!  If they can't be competent, they can at least gag criticism of the Dear Leader!  The wailing and gnashing of teeth was promptly  taken up by Tumeke and No Right Turn among others.

Only, consider the first words of IB's post (Which I cunningly excised, for effect): "Word is that a senior Labour MP (who will go unnamed) has been lobbying National Council to put rules in place for party members who participate in the blogosphere".

So, we have an unnamed source, 'quoted' in an unclear context, supposedly threatening unspecified consequences about something pretty vague to persons unknown.  Maybe IrishBill intercepted a document outlining the Labour Pary's plans - mere hours from complete implementation - to crush dissent and institute regular Two Minutes Hate aimed at David Cunliffe.  Or maybe Trevor Mallard was loudly holding forth in the Back bencher after too many beers and too few sandwiches and IrishBill overheard him.

Point is, without detail and specifics, the claims are worthless.  If this is as important as The Standard clearly thinks it is, hen they have to be specific.  After all, just a couple of weeks ago there was a plentiful wailing over there about how Cunliffe was done in by a Star Chamber, accused of unspecified crimes against the Shearer and exiled to the backbenches.  But here are the Standardistas doing the same thing - continuing their whispering campaign against Shearer, using rumour and innuendo rather than actually fronting up.

The sad thing is, they aren't even fighting for the 'soul of the Labour party' as they no doubt think they are.  They're vying for position among political jerk-offs on the internet, a group that makes up a barely measurable amount of Labour support. Without details, this will either fade away - a disaster if there is something in the claims - or drag on without ever actually reaching a crisis point - a sort of leftwing Kiwi equivalent of the American Birther loons; a group, I am sad to say, The Standard are resembling more and more each day.

Shearer's speech

Seemed like quite a good speech to me.

Obviously, it annoyed the Cunliffistas at The Standard; so it must have been a very good speech.

 

Of course, it won't make any difference, because 99% of opposition leader conference speeches make no difference.

No-one cares - other than the fanatics on either side of the tectonic Shearer / Cunliffe division. The factionalists don't get this. It doesn't matter that Shearer isn't making an impact just now. He can't. He's the opposition leader.

No-one cares.

No-one (other than the sort of people who post about oppsoition leader's speeches on blogs) would care if Cunliffe had won a year ago. The only impact opposition leaders can do under standard circumstances (i.e. against a government that hasn't made itself entirely hated) is negative.

And that is what Labour has accomplished, masterfully. It's managed to make itself hateful, nasty and amateurish, full of petulant self serving prima donnas squealing as their egos sustain bruises.

For what it is worth, I hoped Cunliffe would win a year ago; he didn't. Unlike the epigones now shrilling on his behalf, and the man himself, I accepted that result. If you don't get to be the captain of a football team, you don't start trying to win by subterfuge and spoiling your team's chances of success. Your team mates will shun you. Your supporters will hate you. That's what awaits Labour.

And Cunliffe's casting himself as a hairy Cassius means that he will probably be booted out of the shadow cabinet. He might be a arrogant, self serving git, but he's a talented arrogant, self serving git. 

The Labour Party needs him. Instead, he's incited the Labour Party to exile him to the back benches, in the hope that will shut him up and stop people fantasising about him being leader one day. Like that has ever worked ...

It's a pity, but I can see another thrashing being doled out in two years time. Not because Cunliffe or Shearer is leader. But because the other one refuses to accept the fact.

NZ Labour leadership blah blah blah

So there has been another round of speculation about David Shearer's leadership and whether the right man got the job and so on, so forth.

Does anyone actually think Labour would be polling any better under Cunliffe? That would only be the case if he – and his supporters – were massively underperforming at the moment, and had The Solution To All Labour’s Problems worked out, and were just keeping quiet about it for their own benefit.

Which would make them sum and unworthy of leading a Scout troop, far less the political arm of the labour movement. If they aren't willing to give their best , then to Hell with them. They can piss off and form a vanity party of their own.

I’m willing to bet all the money in the world that if Cunliffe had won the Labour leadership, the party would be in exactly the same position and – apart from swapping names around – the same squabbles and arguments, backbitings and underminings would be taking place here. And National would still be looking forwards to a third term as the left eviscerates itself.

With Cunliffe in charge, I suspect Labour would still be stuck around 30% and we’d be wondering why we didn’t go for the cheerfully bloke with the amazing back story. The problem is not the leader but the talent pool the leader is drawn from – selecting one facile right wing idiot over another is not going to lead to a resurgence of anything. And the talent pool is the result of Labour becoming completely disconnected from it’s support base – the long suffering left gets offered a choice between a bunch of near identical professional politicians mouthing vacuous shibboleths and scheming against each other instead of the plutocratic toerags of the right.

Wasn’t it just a couple of months back that an upwards blip in the Roy Morgan numbers sent The Standard into paroxysms of delight at the prospect of a Red-Green coalition? And already, the baked meats of Shearer’s political wedding banquet are to furnish forth his political funeral table! Frailty, thy name is something or other