This is not democracy; this borders on autocracy. Only the names of the powerbrokers change. When the leaders of the two largest parties in the country have to go cap in hand to the joker in the pack in order to govern, something is very amiss with the system. This might not be the case if the joker in the pack were motivated by altruism on behalf of the citizenry. But that really is stretching credibility.

It’s fun though. No denying Winston really is a hoot. So that’s all right then. Isn’t it?

So I was surprised by his column this morning which is an unqualified assault on Jacinda Ardern’s announcement that she will not release Labour’s tax policy until after the 2017 election.

This morning’s column headline left little doubt of what was to come:

“HOW JACINDA’S CUNNING PLAN FELL APART”

And the subhead removed any doubt of what was to come:

“‘Let’s not do that’ becomes Labour’s motto as tax nips the party’s ankles.”

Armstrong begins:

“Like the sands through the hourglass – it has taken just four short weeks for Jacinda Ardern’s ‘campaign of our lives’ to become more akin to The Days of our Lives.

“Labour’s Wonder Woman has found herself cast in a long running soap opera – but not as a super hero.”

Read it here:

 http://nzh.tw/11922858

Well, in short, I think Armstrong is absolutely right. Given the relevance of taxation policy, directly or indirectly, to the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, it is simply outrageous to say, “Not telling! Not even a hint! You’ll just have to trust us till after the election. Long after!”

Well of course you could read their current policy. And that would be fine if the Leader of the Opposition could guarantee that it won’t change between now and the 2020 election. But she can’t/won’t do that either.

So here’s what this boils down to.

Jacinda wants you to make her Prime Minister of New Zealand this year. I’m assuming that she has some opinion in her head of our current tax system, whether it benefits or disadvantages most New Zealanders. For the answer to that question she refers us to Labour’s current tax policy which she says will not change without a mandate from New Zealanders at the next election in 2020. She’s saying, ‘Give me almost three years in office as Prime Minister before I even disclose my ideal tax regime. In the meantime here’s a taste.

Seems to me that’s a helluva lot to ask.

I was standing in for Kim Hill on National Radio. On that morning’s guest list was the Leader of the Opposition Helen Clark. Her ‘preferred prime minister’ ratings at the time were dire. Towards the end of the interview I said to her, “You don’t look very happy.”

Not long afterwards I had a call from Helen’s office asking if I could come over for a chat. The possibility of Callingham & Edwards giving Helen some media advice was discussed. To my eternal shame my reply was that I was unsure whether she ‘could be fixed’.

Who won? Well, I’d give it to Ardern. But not by much. And not really because her arguments were more telling or she scored more points. Sporting analogies aren’t really my thing. I’m my own sports free zone. But for once I can’t find anything more apt to say than that, throughout the debate, Jacinda played the ball and not the man. And more than that, she was generous to her opponent. She gave him his due. SHE GAVE HIM HIS DUE! Wow! That’s not just new, that’s revolutionary. And inspiring. And probably unanswerable. Bring on the next debate!

The new Leader of the Opposition has undertaken to be ‘relentlessly positive’ between now and the Election in September.

If her appearance on yesterday’s ‘Q & A’ with Deputy Leader Kelvin Davis is anything to go by, his role is to be ‘relentlessly negative’.

‘Relentless’ is generally a negative term: ‘relentless rain, relentless suffering’ etc. One would not commonly refer to ‘relentless good weather’ or ‘relentless happiness’. The same is true of ‘relentlessly positive’. It sounds incongruous, fake.

To illustrate her relentless positivity, Jacinda Ardern smiled relentlessly during her interview with Jessica Mutch on yesterday’s Q &A. That seemed incongruous too, with ‘fake’ not far behind.

Between now and September Jacinda will be relentlessly feted by her adoring supporters. It will be tempting for her to hear little else. I would counsel against that. That dry, laconic, southern man currently running the show comes pretty close to the Kiwi version of the ideal joker. He wouldn’t have looked out of place in the front passenger seat with Barry Crump.

Cheers.

It’s been interesting, if not exactly cheering, to note that, within hours of her winning the job of leading the Labour Party, the possibility that Jacinda Ardern might conceive a child while in office has been advanced as an impediment to her ability to be an effective Prime Minister.

Precisely the opposite argument was advanced by the Right about Helen Clark when she entered Parliament and as she rose to prominence as a potential party leader. Her choice not to have children was not only held against her but interpreted and expressed in the most cruel fashion as evidence that she was an unnatural woman and, in all probability, a lesbian.

One might have thought that Helen’s subsequent career might have put paid to this level of chauvinistic prejudice but it seems not. As the French have it: Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. The more things change the more they remain the same.

You can’t win, baby!

OK, eventually you have to put your money where your mouth is. So who, of the four declared contestants – Nanaia Mahuta, Grant Robertson, Andrew Little and David Parker –  should, in my opinion, win the Labour leadership contest? And let’s be clear: the only criterion for the job is that that person should have at least a snowball’s chance of beating John Key in 2017.

Nanaia Mahuta has already conceded that she’s unlikely to win the race and she is to be admired for her honesty.

Of the remaining three I’m going to discount Andrew Little first. I simply don’t believe that the country is ready for a grim-faced former union leader to be Prime Minister or to be this country’s envoy overseas.   

Much has been made of Grant Robertson’s sexuality as an impediment to his electoral chances. In a recent television vox pop an elderly man expressed horror less at the fact that Robertson was gay, but that he was “married to a man”. I found that interesting and it may in fact be the case that, if Robertson were single, there would be less objection to the idea of his becoming Prime Minister. There have been plenty of gay Cabinet Ministers on both sides of the house, but most, I’m reasonably certain, were unmarried or as good as. It’s as if it were OK to be a gay bachelor but not OK to be identified as a man married to – and sleeping with – another man. Sodomy is the elephant in the room in this matter

In a recent programme on Prime TV Bill Ralston and I were asked whether we thought Robertson’s sexuality would affect his chances of winning the Labour leadership and, if he did, his subsequent chances of leading Labour to victory in 2017. We both thought that it would. But my own view was that the effect would not be great. That is still my view and the effect may be lessened by his choice of Jacinda Ardern as a running-mate which is nothing less than a master-stroke.

My objection to Roberson has nothing to do with his sexuality. I simply don’t like the man I see on television – loud, overconfident, bullying, dismissive of other viewpoints. These are some of the qualities that have made him such an effective debater in Parliament, but I doubt they will serve him as well in broadcast election debates against Key.

David Parker is an entirely different cup of tea – boyish, quietly spoken, charming, erudite, a master in his field of economics, a brilliant dialectician and a man with his eyes firmly fixed on the glittering prize. He will take exception if you compare him to Harry Potter, but Potter is a modern folk hero and that can’t  be all bad. Most of all, Parker is likeable and likeability is a major plus in the era of presidential style elections and televised debates.

If he has a fault it is, as my mother would have put it, being backward in coming forward. If he is to win against Little and Robertson he cannot afford to be modest of self-effacing. He must learn to promote himself better.

And could he defeat John Key? In intellect and debating skill without a doubt; and match him at least in Key’s strongest suit – coming across as someone you’d be happy to have a beer with… or a cup of tea at least.

So my money’s on Parker. For one thing, I’m comfortable with the idea of him representing us on the world stage. Not so much his opponents. I’m not comfortable with that at all.

Following my earlier post, in which I argued that the ability to communicate effectively on television is a sine qua non for any politician hoping to occupy the highest office in the land, I thought it might be worthwhile to rate the current pretenders to the Labour leadership with particular –  but not exclusive –  reference to how they perform on the box. To assist in this exercise I’m using the Television Compatibility Matrix or TVCM (My own invention!) to place the prospective leaders on a scale of 1 to 10, one being ‘totally hopeless’ and ten being ‘makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur’. So here goes:

David Cunliffe – See previous post.

TVCM 6

David Parker – Current Labour Party Deputy Leader, Finance spokesman and shadow Attorney General. Deceptively ambitious, quietly spoken policy wonk, passingly reminiscent of MJ Savage. Hugely intelligent with boyish appeal concealing steely determination. Ran for the Party Leadership in 2011, but withdrew early in  the contest to be replaced by David Shearer. Comes across well on the box. Says he’s not standing for the Leadership, but just in case…

TVCM 6.5

Annette King – Hugely experienced MP and former Deputy Leader, Labour Minister of Health and Minister of Labour. Generally regarded as one of the nicest Members of Parliament. Comes across extremely well on the box. Unlikely to be Labour Party Leader, since she has never wanted and still does not want the job. A pity!

TVCM 7.5

Grant Robertson – Shadow Leader of the House holding several portfolios. He is perhaps Labour’s strongest debater in Parliament and possibly the only Labour MP with the capacity to best Key in that environment. Highly intelligent, he previously worked as a diplomat at the United Nations in New York. Quietly effective, if somewhat drab, low-key television performer.

TVCM 6.5

Jacinda Ardern – Widely touted as a potential Leader or Deputy Leader of the Party. Performed exceptionally well as Labour candidate for Auckland Central, coming close to ousting popular incumbent and National Party Minister, Nikki Kaye. Highly intelligent. Stylish and attractive. Perhaps too young for the Leadership but Deputy Leader a distinct possibility.

TVCM 7

Stuart Nash – Held the Labour, Revenue and Forestry portfolios under Phil Goff. Later David Shearer’s Chief of Staff. MP for Napier. Great-grandson of Walter Nash. Highly ambitious. Stylish and good looking, he is also one of the Party’s most articulate and effective speakers. All of this may well cause resentment among his fellow MPs. A possible contender for the Deputy Leader position.

TVCM 7.5

Chris Hipkins – MP for Rimutaka and Labour Party Chief Whip.  Former senior advisor to Helen Clark. Previously worked as a  training consultant in the oil and gas industry  and in the health sector in the UK. Forceful and sometimes acerbic personality, capable of being divisive. Highly intelligent and articulate. An excellent performer in television interviews.

TVCM 7

David Shearer – MP for Mount Albert and Former Leader of the Labour Party. Currently Foreign Affairs spokesperson. Nearly 20 years working for the United Nations, managing the provision of aid to countries including Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq. Widely admired for his  previous work and as an honest broker. Undermined by his inability to speak fluently on television, though there have been recent signs of improvement.

TVCM 5.5

[Note: The Television Compatibility Matrix has no scientific validity whatsoever and should not be used as a voting guide.]

My good mate is right. It wasn’t very smart and you aren’t all numbskulls. But I was angry with you. Very angry.

I’m still angry with you because, though I’m not a member of the Labour Party, that’s where my political sympathies lie – left of left. Like you, I want Labour to win the next election. I want to see the back of a government that rewards the rich and powerful and punishes the poor and powerless. So I’m unlikely to have time or sympathy for anyone whose words or actions make that Labour win unlikely.  That is what you are doing by supporting either Grant Robertson’s or Shane Jones’ bid for the leadership. Robertson can’t win for Labour and Jones is a harmful distraction.  

I like Grant Robertson. He’s hugely intelligent, is a brilliant debater in the House, has a good sense of humour and seems to be a really nice bloke.

There are sadly several reasons to discount the ‘really nice bloke’ bit. The history of New Zealand politics for starters, a more or less even distribution of really nice losers and not-so-nice winners. Think Rowling, Goff, Shearer; think Kirk, Muldoon, Clark. Common factor in group two – ruthlessness. The pattern reflects our national psyche: given the choice, we’d rather have a bully than a wimp.

Still, it can’t hurt to be a brilliant debater in the House. No it can’t. But the mistake is in thinking that brilliance in the parliamentary debating chamber automatically translates into brilliance in the radio or television studio. It doesn’t. As Helen Clark’s media advisors, we were guilty of making that mistake before the first Leaders Debate in 2008. We’d written off Key as inconsequential, a lightweight in the House and no match for Helen in experience, intellect or mastery of the issues.

The Prime Minister lost that first debate and we had to regroup. Despite his inexperience and his mangling of the English language, Key connected with the radio and television audience, listening and watching at home in their ones and twos. Although they have a huge reach, television and radio are both intimate media. Parliament could not be more different. The debating techniques that are admired there – playing to the gallery, not listening to your opponent,  interrupting them, shouting them down, laughing at and abusing them  – are the precise opposite to what works on radio or television.

Even intelligence can be a two-edged sword, especially if it is seen as academic in nature, as ‘intellectualism – ‘Too smart for his own good!’ But then that may be more a problem for Cunliffe than Robertson.

But the real problems for Robertson lie in his inexperience, his lack of profile and that, as a television performer, he is no more than proficient. He’s solid, reliable, down to earth, articulate. But he lacks charisma. In the era of television politics, that is a fatal flaw.

Grant has been a Member of Parliament for only five years. He has never been in Government, let alone  been a Minister. This is in itself cause for concern. History shows that in politics shooting stars burn out quickly. There is no real substitute for experience. Longevity in office often reflects a lengthy apprenticeship in and out of office. Clark and Muldoon are two examples.

And Grant’s public profile is low. People don’t know who he is. The recent One News Colmar Brunton poll, which asked which of a list of Labour MPs would do the best job leading Labour into the election was evidence of that. Bad enough that among eligible voters Cunliffe was on 29% and Robertson on 10%. But, to add insult to injury, Robertson was behind both Jacinda Ardern and Shane Jones. Only Andrew Little fared worse. And the picture was little better among Labour Party supporters.

Small wonder that, as I write this, ipredict has Cunliffe at 78% and Robertson at 20% likelihood to become Labour’s next leader. Great odds for Cunliffe, terrible odds for Robertson.

The odds also reflect the view of a majority of editorial writers, columnists and bloggers that Cunliffe is the front-runner and the most likely Labour candidate to best Key in an election campaign.

What all of this does is create a sense of inevitability that Cunliffe will take Labour into the 2014 election. Like the polls themselves, these prophecies not merely reflect the current position, they tend to be self-fulfilling.

Those of you who support or intend to support Grant’s nomination for the leadership are swimming  against this stream. Your dislike of Cunliffe is stronger than your determination to win the election.

This seems to me to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. So I withdraw my ill-considered and abusive comments about you and invite you to take another look at what you are doing.

You are in a very powerful position. There is a degree of uncertainly as to where the party vote will go in a month’s time; there is an even greater degree of uncertainty as to where the union vote will go. Your vote can be crucial. In backing Robertson to keep Cunliffe out, you may well be keeping Labour out of government in 2014 as well.

That seems to me a grave responsibility, not least because Cunliffe ticks all the boxes as the candidate most likely to defeat John Key.

Have another think. Three more years in opposition doesn’t seem terribly attractive.