Tracy Watkins writes about the Labour leadership and the lack of inclination to change this close to the election, before commenting on the possible candidates:
Mr Goff has three potential rivals – finance spokesman David Cunliffe, frontbench MP David Parker and list MP Shane Jones, whose star was rising until a furore erupted over using his ministerial credit card to pay to watch porn.
I’m starting to see Cunliffe as a potential leader. He’s brilliant and odd, but something – either media training or the ageing process – has merged these two traits and now he comes across as ‘a character’. Characters are electable. David Parker is more of a dark-horse. But I’d argue that leaders are people who show leadership, and Parker and Cunliffe’s refusal to take over the party during this time of difficulty is a black mark against them as future contenders.
And Shane Jones . . . I’m still baffled by this. The porn incident aside, what qualities has Jones ever displayed that qualify him as a potential leader? If Phil Goff has trouble inspiring Labour’s core voters and maintaining discipline in caucus, how is everyone going to feel about a Labour leader who’s more right-wing than the majority of National MPs?
I can’t see Parker being a future PM. He reminds me of Bill Rowling, a nice guy but nice guys seldom win in politics.
Comment by Ross — August 23, 2011 @ 8:02 am
Mr Cunliffe: when he looks at the balance in his life, I’m not sure that he wants the job sufficiently;
Mr Parker: respected, a better debater that most realise, quicker than very many, more than just a technocratic policy wonk, and capable of holding the ring
Mr Jones: in Muriwhenua, or in Tai Tokerau, or in the fishing sector, pople would wonder why anyone would question his leadership skills. His public “blemish” aside, his biggest drawback is that he’s the most confident of his own skills. But he is very quick indeed, but, as noted, well to the Right.
Whis is why I see Parker as the best bet at the moment.
Comment by Robert Winter — August 23, 2011 @ 8:38 am
Parker appears capable of opening his mouth without turning it into a shoe tree. Seems like leadership material to me.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 23, 2011 @ 8:40 am
Cunliffe as leader and Ahern as deputy.
You heard it here first.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 23, 2011 @ 8:41 am
But I’d argue that leaders are people who show leadership
For this kind of analytic prowess, you deserve a Stuff column!
Comment by bradluen — August 23, 2011 @ 8:58 am
Now would be the time to appoint Mr Cunliffe leader of the Labour party. He’s more likely to have electoral success if the electorate don’t get a chance to get a good look at him before voting. He’s widely regarded, in the public service for instance, as being too personally arrogant to able to lead a party to an election win.
Whaleoil refers to him as “Silent T”. Crudity aside, you can see where the nickname comes from.
Comment by annie — August 23, 2011 @ 9:34 am
If Phil Goff is Bill English, Labour needs a Don Brash. No wonder no-one is stepping up to fill the role.
Comment by gazzaj — August 23, 2011 @ 9:35 am
Whaleoil refers to him as “Silent T”. Crudity aside, you can see where the nickname comes from.
Yes, from a dole bludger.
Comment by Dizzy — August 23, 2011 @ 9:38 am
Once upon a time seizing the leadership a month or so out from an election and substantially narrowing the gap would be seen a stepping stone to later success. But politicians of all stripes, especially party leaders, now regard leading a party into a losing election as the end of their career. Clearly none of Labour’s potential next leaders are ready for retirement.
I’m picking none of these three will be winning Labour party leaders in three years time. If the party can find a leader, he or she will come from left field.
Comment by billbennettnz — August 23, 2011 @ 9:46 am
But politicians of all stripes, especially party leaders, now regard leading a party into a losing election as the end of their career.
Why?
Moore loses ’93 and goes on to hold one of the most powerful jobs in the world as head of the WTO.
Clark lost in ’96 (ok, you could call it a draw) and went on to be one of NZ’s most successful PM’s.
Shipley loses ’99, and I think if she’s honest is probably happier, and definitely wealthier, in the private sector.
English lost in ’02, badly, and yet still sits at the big kids table today.
Brash nearly wins in ’05, and in a not-that-different alternative-reality would be PM now, having strolled to power in 2008.
I think what you really mean is:
Of the current crop of possible Labour leaders, none see a future for themselves outside of their cushy leather chairs in the debating chamber.
Comment by Phil — August 23, 2011 @ 10:16 am
Jones is an odd one – he’s clearly super smart but whenever he speaks, his patter seems to come over as both pre-prepared and smug.
It’s like he pratices all his lines for the next day the night before.
He doesn’t seem to have anything spontaneous or human about his demeanour.
Exteremely capable technocrat, yes.
Leader, no.
Comment by Gregor W — August 23, 2011 @ 10:16 am
you can see where the nickname comes from.
Yes, from a dole bludger.
I thought it came from Shane Jones…
Comment by Graeme Edgeler — August 23, 2011 @ 10:48 am
I don’t blame any aspirate for not challenging Goff when the Party is locked in to at least three main policies that are stinkers..
A CGT that no one wants to field questions on when they all get kicked to an “expert group” thats away in the future.
A GST removal on fresh fruit and veges that gives $1 per week to the poor and $4 to the rich
A $5000 tax exemption to all that has to be paid with more borrowing
If you change leaders you have to allow him some room to bring in his own policies.. not repeat the clunkers.
JC
Comment by JC — August 23, 2011 @ 12:02 pm
“Whaleoil refers to him as “Silent T”. Crudity aside, you can see where the nickname comes from.”
The nickname was bestowed by one of his colleagues and as Jones is the smartest and wittiest in the caucus room it was probably him
Comment by Tinakori — August 23, 2011 @ 12:03 pm
Andrew Little? Anyone?
Comment by Hugh — August 23, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
People I know how know Shane Jones found / find him to be a clear thinker, effective and he generally shows good judgement in political and policy matters. He obviously thought what he did in his hotel room was private. He won’t make that mistake again.
Comment by Steve (@nza1) — August 23, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
@sanc, “Ahern as deputy” – god you are deluded.
Comment by abel the amish — August 23, 2011 @ 6:21 pm
good judgement in political and policy matters
Sucking up to Tamaki and his Blackshirts does not qualify as such in my book. That was public.
Comment by Rhinocrates — August 23, 2011 @ 6:26 pm
Cunliffe, does anybody actually like him? I know it is not class rep that the public will be voting for. But not being hated seems to be a fairly big consideration.
Parker is blah with a toxic private life.
Jones is a lazy wanker.*
And his behaviour in business, in the North and as a double dipper will cause a feeding frenzy so big that the Benson Pope year will seem like a parking ticket in comparison.
* Not trying to pun you to death. He just is. Name one thing of note (positive) he has done since freefalling into the parliamentary trough?
So in conclusion, I vote for Jones.
Comment by Barnsley Bill — August 23, 2011 @ 8:37 pm
17.@sanc, “Ahern as deputy” – god you are deluded.
Comment by abel the amish
We all mean “Ardern”, right?
Jacinda is no Helen Clark, but she’s more articulate and intelligent than most of her caucus colleagues, comes across well in live interviews, and doesn’t go ‘feral’ at the merest hint of alternative ideology. Hell, she even gives Danyl a woody, so I’m not really seeing a downside.
Comment by Phil — August 23, 2011 @ 9:56 pm
Cunliffe, Parker and Jones are most certainly leadership material. But my guess is they’re holding fire so that Goff can tank 2011 and hence absorb all the negative political fallout. They’re most certainly all the better off for it.
Comment by DeepRed — August 23, 2011 @ 10:00 pm
@ phil
“Cunliffe as leader and Ahern as deputy.
You heard it here first.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 23, 2011 @ 8:41 am”
Comment by abel the amish — August 23, 2011 @ 10:32 pm
More ridiculous speculation. For a man who claims that the media and this blog aren’t frequently engaged in idle chatter about fictional ructions in Labour, “political journalists” and yourself certainly engage in a lot.
No wonder Curran is upset. I would be, if almost every mention of Labour was this kind of tripe. Foodbanks are bare, NZ is spewing out carbon and methane, we’re loading up on debt, and the economy is going backwards.
Comment by George D — August 23, 2011 @ 10:50 pm
Shane Jones. Do what National did to Labour a few years back: get a relatively fresh face to pose as leader of the party, and watch how fast their popularity rises.
People liked Key because he was fresh and new, exciting. The only reason why he will probably win again this year is because Labour have been so reluctant to change their leader.
It doesn’t matter when, it barely matters who, just get a nice fresh face in with the gift of the gab and some unique ideas of his own. Shane Jones seems to fit this description to a tee.
Then there’s the matter of the Deputy. David Cunliffe perhaps. No-one likes Annette King, I mean come on, she’s the type of lady who looks like she has friends such as Camilla Parker Bowles. Perhaps they can form a singing and acting duo, The Wolf Sisters.
Comment by gryte — August 24, 2011 @ 1:17 pm