Hubbard on Labour

I don’t think Anthony Hubbard would object if I describe him as not a member of the VWRC. So his views can not be blamed on drinking too much wine with Matthew Hooton.

So with that context, read his article in the SST:

All choices are hard for Labour now. Another leader might not lose as badly as Goff, but the party would be stuck with him (nobody thinks the next leader will be a woman). And a choice made amid terror and despair is unlikely to be the best bet long-term. That means: stick with Goff until the election.

There is an alternative. Rather than make a choice “amid terror and despair” they could just stick the names of the entire caucus in a hat, and pull a name out, making that person leader. A random chance might actually do better.

The worst result for Labour and the left-of-centre bloc would be a narrow loss by National. A “losers’ coalition”, as Tim Groser calls it, is by no means impossible. …

But a win for a rag-tag coalition of the left and centre would be a disaster for Labour. Voters still have a strong feeling that the party with the largest share of the votes should lead the government.

What Hubbard calls the “worst result” is the hope and dreams of Labour. They desperately need Winston and Hone to make it.

And think what a losers’ coalition would look like. Labour would be somewhere in the 30s, the Greens might be on 10%. They would almost certainly need the support of another party. The most likely group in that case would be Winston Peters’. The coalition would look, in short, like a collection of retreads and has-beens with a Green heart. That isn’t a recipe for long-term government.

Even with Winston, they would need the support of probably both Mana and Maori. The only laws they could pass are those Labour, Greens, Winston, Hone and maybe the Maori Party agree on.

Above all, Labour can never claim to be a new party while it is led by Goff. Goff has many strengths. He has an excellent grasp of policy across the board, the result of many years in government and of his own high seriousness. He is a policy wonk, with a grasp of detail that Key could never match. He would make a splendidly competent cabinet minister.

I agree. Goff’s problem is that he simply isn’t new. He entered Parliament when Muldoon was Prime Minister. The only MP who entered Parliament earlier was Roger Douglas who came in during the Holyoake era.

Does it have a new leader in its ranks, ready to grab the new opportunities? Certainly it will have talent. Andrew Little, the former union leader, will be a genuinely new face, and nobody can blame him for past Labour errors. David Parker was a Cabinet minister under Clark but was hardly well-known. And he is the man most responsible for Labour’s new policies. Parker’s heart is on the left, although he has also been a successful businessman. He has cross-over appeal. Shane Jones appeals to Maori and Pakeha alike and has a bodgy charm, although Labour’s women might have trouble forgiving him for the blue movie thing.

Nobody knows whether any of these blokes could do it for Labour next term. But one thing is certain. All would be a better bet than Phil Goff.

I wouldn’t say all would be better than Goff. But they have have better potential. Goff’s major weakness is what he can’t change – having been around for too long. The contenders don’t have that problem, but they may end up more accident prone etc. Time will tell.