I'm Goff and she's off (the ghost of Palmer)

Back in March, Investigate magazine carried a front cover story about the likelihood of a leadership spill within Labour this year and concluded there would not be one.

The reasons are spelt out in this extract, which other commentators have now picked up on:

"Goff and Cullen, on the other hand, come from Labour’s conservative political right wing, as does Police Minister Annette King, Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove and Health Minister David Cunliffe. For the Right to rebuild Labour, this group needs the Left-wing to be routed at the next election. Nothing less than a National Party blitzkrieg will sweep clean Labour’s stacked party list MPs like Wall, trade unionist Darien Fenton, Maryan Street (both gay and a former unionist), Lesley Soper or Charles Chauvel.

"For this reason, it’s in Goff and Cullen’s interests to leave Clark in place as the increasingly damaged political leader representing the increasing damaged Labour left, because the bigger the fall, the bigger the clean-out.

"While Labour’s backbench may want Goff to take over, and may even deliver him the numbers to topple Clark, Goff is generally considered too smart to accept the poisoned chalice of leading an unpopular three-term government into defeat.

"There is little doubt that Goff could probably save a few MPs from losing their seats, but the risk to him under the current party list arrangement would be the continued predominance of Labour’s left, who would then bide their time and topple Goff in favour of a more “suitable” leader from within their own ranks.

"And Goff will be wary, too, of senators offering laurels ahead of the vote, given that Helen Clark pulled the same stunt on Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer in 1990. The details are in Brian Edward’s hagiography of Clark published seven years ago, where former press gallery journalist Dick Griffin remembers Clark coming to see him:

It will require a near miracle for Labour to win this year's election, and Labour doesn't believe in miracles. But the jockeying for position on the list this year will be a battle for the future direction of the Labour party over the next ten years.

Goff's public decision to throw his hat in the ring is a signal to his supporters that they need to commence battle now behind the scenes, as a change of leadership in the New Year without changes in the MP line-up will be meaningless.

One final thing. History has a funny way of repeating itself. In April 1989, Labour's deputy prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer also refused to rule out a leadership challenge, for the first time.

s o

Comments

[Danyl Mclauchlan]

Have you changed your diet recently Ian? Your analysis in this post seems suspiciously astute and sane.
Omega-3 supplements? Sunlight and exercise? Haldol? Is it haldol?

[peter]

Lots of conspiracy theory here but really I think we can leave it to the Labour Caucus including Helen Clark to determine when is the optimum time for a leadership change.

Helen Clark is a well-proven leader but Phil Goff would do very well too. Under either leader, I would expect to see good social policy.

I can't see a big right move for Labour. If this happened, they would be to the right of National!!

Either would be miles better than Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley. They are smart, experienced, collaborative yet assertive and well qualified to lead.

[KevOB]

I have never Goff scowl.
If He does roll the PM we will more pleasant looking posters.

[KevOB]

My computer doesn't do verbs well, so have one for free.

[george]

Frankly Scarlet, I don't really care what happens with that crew. They have banjaxed the economy and society in pursuit of a wooly minded dead end philosophy. They are an oppressive weight on NZ. Now they try and cling to power by every means including corruption.
Why am I not surprised when dog eats dog, rat eats rat? The party that will rage when they are tipped onto the street to earn a living somewhere else will take some beating.

[John Boy]

"...when they are tipped onto the street to earn a living somewhere else ..."

That's no worry. They keep telling us that they would command far more money in the private sector than as politicians. Don't forget the pension either - they won't need to work. Business as usual then?

[peter]

Kev OB

A pity the Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider looks and grooming when making appointments.

[KevOB]

Peter:
The Exclusive Brethren don't looks.

[Sus]

"I can't see a big right move for Labour. If this happened, they would be to the right of National!!"

On this point, Peter, I wholeheartedly agree!

National Socialist, anyone?

[Frank]

I know a lot of people who are hoping that what is described in this analysis, is exactly what happens. They're people who are traditional Labour supporters who feel that the party has moved away from its history and values and who feel that with the current state of the party, it no longer represents them and they can't vote for it.

To those saying a shift right of Labour would put them right of National - not at all. When we talk of a shift right in the Labour party, it's probably more in social than economic policy. Economically I can't see it changing much, socially it could shift significantly if the conservatives wihtin the party took over.

[peter]

Frank

I am unconvinced by your claim about what "traditional Labour supporters" are saying. In what sense have they moved from their history and values - in the Roger Douglas era sure, but nowadays very much traditional Labour but in a modern era.

In the meantime, not enough pressure is being put on the National Party to show its hand. It seems people like Christian fundamentalists are facilitating a "sleep walk to victory" and quite unnecessarily so.

The NZ Herald has said as much:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10512442

Fundamentalists tried to con NZers into doing something VERY STUPID at the last election through their championing of the fragile DON BRASH! Don Brash had nothing to do with fundamentalism. John Key has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

I suppose we will get the govt we deserve. If we uncritically listen to people like Ian Wishart then what we deserve will not be much.

[Frank]

Since when did this conversation become about Christian fundamentalism.

Talking about using a soft target to discredit an opinion.

Have fundamentalists become the new bogey-man that gets the nation shaking in it's boots? Want to discredit a person or group? Want to give yourself reason to box someone and not take into account their complexities? Let's just call them a fundamentalist.

Blaming stuff on fundamentalists as if they are unthinking idiots is intellectual dishonesty Peter. Surely you're smarter than that.

[Frank]

Let me say for the record, that I disagree with Ian on lots of things and question why he writes some of the stuff he does, but to simply write him off as a fundamentalist and thinking that somehow allows one to box his thinking (and others who think the same) as narrow and poorly thought out is simply disrespectful at best and slanderous and defamatory at worst.

I will apply the blow torch of critical thinking both to a party that pushes through law in a democracy where clearly the majority of the country has been against some of those laws, and also to a veiled party that seems to be holding its cards very closely at the moment. Critical thinking needs to be applied in ALL situations and anyone who does not do so is open to allowing their imagination to be captured by some manipulative crony, no matter what side of the political spectrum that manipulation may come from.

Anyone who uncritically aligns themselves with any part of the political spectrum is open to being scammed.

[ropata]

Frank, great comments. the Labour Party has shifted a mile away from its blue-collar roots and taken up the pet causes of the educated urban metrosexuals. Labour has lost its mandate. The public of NZ has seen through their public Christian-bashing as cheap political tricks to vilify their opponents and shut down debate. But I doubt that Peter's extreme views would be welcome in *any* major political party.

[peter]

Head out of the sand guys PLEASE!

It is absolutely true that fundamentalist groupings such as the Exclusive Brethren and Ian/followers wanted Don Brash elected at the last election and they did a lot about it. Did you not read Investigate over the last few years? Did you not read the Hollow Men?

It is the fundamentalists that are always at the forefront of objections to gay rights, prostitution reform, feminism, etc.

And who was "Absolute Power" all about?

All I am saying is take a leaf out of the left wing's book. THEY criticise National for its policies (or lack thereof) and ALSO Labour for not doing enough for them.

Give John Key a blank cheque and he will take it I am sure. Fundamentalists and others of the right are in a strong position to get undertakings from Key so why do they not push? Where is the health policy for example? And is education nothing more useful than money for the rich private schools and national testing for everyone else?

Ha Ha Ha!!!

[peter]

Has everyone read this article?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10514611

Here is one of National's most respected MPs, of some seniority, seemingly swimming against the tide.

At this stage lots of reasons for eliminating the depositions hearings. Simon Power needs to come up with a good reason for taking the position he and National are taking.

Hints here that he will back down - I wonder?

Repeating the warning - take great care with National. If you want a change to National, demand some performance and coherent costed policy.