We need to talk about inequality as it’s something we can choose to manage

Martin Robinson (5 January) mischievously tries to link the salaries of All Blacks to the debate about the social consequences of increasing inequality.

He claims redistributing AB’s salaries to all other NZ rugby players would ruin the team – sure it could, but no mainstream commentator is suggesting that, nor are they suggesting a purely equal society, which is the ‘strawman’ Robinson is arguing against.

Since the 1980’s income inequality in NZ has risen to amongst the highest of developed countries.

We need to talk about the negative effects of this on social cohesion, highlighted by Garth George (29 December), such as increasing rates of imprisonment, mental illness, drug abuse, and teenage births, and what we are willing to do to maintain a healthy society.

Countries can organise themselves to manage income disparities. The ratio of CEO to blue-collar worker income is 11:1 in Japan compared to 480:1 in the USA, both are wealthy but are at opposite ends of the social cohesion scale.

If we don’t manage inequality, many of us may need, like Robinson’s brother, to live in gated communities as social ills sky rocket. Is this the type of country we want our grand-children to grow up in?

I’m about a third of the way through it. I’m also reading Infidel the autobiography of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and planning on getting stuck into Island by Aldous Huxley and Portfolios of the Poor (which examines how the poorest people in parts of South Africa, Bangladesh and India draw on extensive small-scale financial instruments to manage their finances, it’s essentially a book about the possibilities of microfinance) by Daryl Collins et al.

Oh how I love three-week holidays in the Coromandel with nothing much to do but sleep, fish, swim, walk, drink and read.

Drew Western, a professor of psychology and psychiatry, argues, amongst other things, that Republicans have an easily told story, a set of clear values that define them, and that they do not shy away from more divisive arguments. He says the latter allows them to show strength and display the courage of their convictions.

Democrats, he argues, more often wish not to offend and have thus avoided engaging in some of the more divisive and emotional arguments (such as on abortion and gun control, despite a majority of the population aligning more with their views than with Republicans). He also says Democrats have failed to create themselves easily told stories about what defines them and their values. I imagine that later in the book he goes on to try to rectify this. (Note: he excludes the ‘great communicator’ President Clinton, who he thinks fully understood the nature of the political brain, from his critique of US Democrats.)

The central thesis is that Republicans and their consultants understand that elections are won because of people’s emotional responses to parties, candidates and their stories, rather than the issues they campaign on. He says issues should be quite some way down the priority list in terms of campaign strategy. He goes to some length to try and prove his points using clinical examples. Reading this stuff raises two main points for me:

1) It would be easy for left-wing strategists to over-react to Western’s lessons, to have an “ahuh!” moment and throw out years of sensible politics and adopt some really stupid touchy feely crap, perhaps centered around social media and twenty something’s feelings and thus be reduced to blubbering idiots.

2) The Labour Party in 2011 campaigned pretty well, it tried the values stuff and it didn’t shy from traditionally sticky debates (retirement age and CGT). But, it campaigned heavily on issues, on policies. Many of its policies were 2-1 more popular than National’s. Polls showed people prefered a CGT as a means of debt reduction to asset sales by 2-1. Had you polled, you would have probably found 2-1 in support of introducing a top income tax rate on people earning over $120,000.

I feel like Labour had its policies fairly down pat. But on election day, those Kiwis that did vote voted for National by almost 2 votes to 1, compared to Labour. National didn’t need policies to win the election. It won for a range of reasons such as voters’ emotional responses to Key’s perceived strength as a Prime Minister compared to Goff, their emotional response to the government’s handling of a series of severe crises and to a successful Rugby World Cup, and more (such as the desire for Kiwi’s to give people a go – we tend to reelect governments at least once). 

Importantly, also,  National won because tens of thousands of Labour votes didn’t turn out to vote. Labour were not quite credible as an alternative government, their leadership represented the past rather than the future. Voters obviously weren’t given sufficient emotional motivation to vote for them. (Point is - obvious to me atleast - that they didn’t “not turn out” because of Labour’s policies, it was something higher level than that).

Issues didn’t dominate the 2011 campaign. Policy barely rated a mention when push came to shove. The lesson Labour should take from this is that David Shearer will be PM in 2014 if he can articulate in simple terms why Labour shares New Zealanders values and beliefs, why David Shearer is a strong leader – and better than Key or whoever National puts up – that Shearer is a good husband, neighbour and man, and that National isn’t actually the party of the Kiwi every-man, but that Labour is.

Poverty eradication, especially during times of limited economic growth, is – surely – most effectively addressed through redistributing existing wealth.

National’s answer to poverty is to remove welfare. There are very few jobs for people on welfare to take these days, so removing welfare is highly unlikely to remove people from poverty, it is, rather, likely to do the exact opposite.

Make the poor poorer, which will have them turn to crime. So not brill’ for the rest of us either.

This whole debate boils down to whether we, as New Zealanders, actually have “enough” already. Enough money, enough time, enough stuff. I’d suggest that on the material side of the argument we do, overall.

I’d guess that with the second lowest taxes (after Mexico) in the OECD and very few other redistributive measures (such as wealth taxes like those on inheritance, land or capital gains) we probably just aren’t sharing it very effectively.

As a nation with enough stuff, we actually choose poverty don’t we? In fact, we have chosen it.

By wanting and accepting lower taxes and cuts in government programs and welfare.

We know there is enough food in the world to feed everyone – we just don’t use it effectively, that’s almost conventional wisdom these days.

It’s the same with poverty, we’ve got enough money in this particular country, it’s just not very fairly distributed – and it’s getting worse.

We don’t have to live this way, but pretending it’s not in our power to solve it is ridiculous.

Birds were chirping, puppies – that didn’t appear to have homes – hovered nearby with their tails only half wagging between their legs in a completely rational display of happiness and fear (ex-pats tend to pat dogs, locals not so much).

A family of mongooses ran across the street in front of us.

My girlfriend is not particularly interesting in NZ politics – she’s seemingly got bigger fish to fry.

As I tend to do from time to time, I tried to keep her abreast of developments at home.

“So, don’t ‘spose you’ve heard that David Shearer is the new Labour Party leader?”

She walked on quietly as if I hadn’t spoken.

“Honey, did you hear me?”

“Oh, yes, I was thinking of something else,” she replied absently.

“No, you weren’t listening.”

“I was f**king listing, actually.”

I flinch briefly.

“Right, good, OK. So?”

“I think it’s good.”

“Why’s that?”

“The other guy,” she says, “he’s all experienced and stuff right, that’s what you were saying the other night, I was half listening.”

“Yeh, that’s David Cunliffe,” I respond. “He wasn’t selected. I kind of backed him from the beginning but both candidates had their risks and their advantages. I wasn’t really fussed to be fair.”

Her: “Well, the thing is, I don’t actually know anything about this David Cunliffe.”

…”Other than, maybe, that he’s like a politician, or whatever.”

…”But David Shearer, I actually know something about him that I like. Wasn’t he some big UN guy in Africa or something?”

“That’s right,” I confirm. “Think he headed up UN humanitarian response in Iraq and Jerusalem, and he worked with Save the Children too, in Somalia.”

“Yeh, he’s had an interesting career, got out there in the world and done important stuff, and I, without following politics, actually remember that already. I think that matters,” she says.

Me: “I’d say you’re probably right.”

Her: “He’s just totally new, he’s not really the politician type, and that’s what Labour needs, I reckon, especially to beat John Key.”

]]> http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/sometimes-you-just-need-to-ask-your-girlfriend/feed/ 2 Jake http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/shearer-and-robertson-a-breath-of-fresh-air/ http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/shearer-and-robertson-a-breath-of-fresh-air/#comments Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:49:35 +0000 Jake Quinn http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/?p=2733 ]]> David Shearer and Grant Robertson are Labour’s new leadership team. Neither man was an MP, let alone a Minister, in the previous Labour government, led by Helen Clark.

This leadership team sends a very strong message to New Zealanders that Labour can deliver something new and fresh. The pairing provide an incredible narrative that no media strategy or finely crafted speech or photo-op could ever deliver. It’s a strong break from the past. And that message is priceless.

This is the ticket (despite it not actually having been run as a ticket) that the majority of the media and blogosphere wanted, and Labour should be rewarded for that with positive coverage and extensive profile pieces. Shearer’s, in particular, will inspire Kiwis as they read their papers on holiday this summer.

It’s an exciting time to be a Labour supporter. It’s an incredible rise to the top for David Shearer. Labour opted to match John Key with their home-grown version.

Shearer’s paring with Robertson, as I outlined below, means the new man in charge has the caucus wise-council as his right (or in this case left) hand man.

Good luck to them.

Edward’s endorsement is important, he is immensely connected to the Labour Party machine and he and Judy Callingham are the main source of external media training for Labour MPs, having been the main media trainers for Helen Clark and (in his later moments as Labour leader, I think) Phil Goff.

One thing that David Shearer needs, even he would admit, is media training. I cannot imagine he will now be seeking those services from Brian Edwards Media. Accordingly, Edwards’ endorsement isn’t given lightly; there could be financial costs to his public statements.

For a time Grant was known as “H3” after Helen and Heather. That is, as the most senior advisor in the Prime Minister’s Office, after Helen’s redoubtable Chief of Staff Heather Simpson, Grant was as (or more) influential as many Ministers around the Cabinet table.

Grant is not green, in terms of experience. On the contrary – I’d describe him as a sort of moral leader within the caucus; meaning new ideas are canvassed with him to get a read, in terms of how something might play out politically. Robertson is Labour’s Joyce. Given Grant’s obvious political skills and his position as caucus ‘wise council’ I’d go as far as describing him as an ideal deputy leader. So obviously, his endorsement is crucial. But did he have to give it before the public debates were over?

In my previous post I’ve ‘on balance’ put myself in camp Cunliffe. I’ve done this not out of any loyalty to anyone in particular, I simply thought to myself: What would I do if I had a vote? Who is most likely to be strong enough to weather the next three years? Who will rebuild and rebrand the party most effectively? Who has the x-factor required to get people off the couch and out to vote? So, in short, who would I put my money behind to actually win against Key in 2014?

I concluded the safest bet was probably good ol’ Cunners, due to his clear advantage in experience and stage presence terms. I’m not fussed who’s most popular in caucus, I’m only concerned with which dog has the strongest bite.

As I’ve articulated below, Shearer has some fine qualities as a politician – I’ve just not been exposed to enough evidence yet to suggest he’d be the better PM than DC. That said, I am a fan of Grant’s judgement so I hope he’s used it here in the interests of a Labour victory in 2014, as opposed to self-preservation. Naturally, being Deputy PM would be pretty cool, so picking the winner at this stage wouldn’t be foolish.

I suppose in the perfect world Robertson wouldn’t have jumped on a ticket, he would have just sat back and let the membership and potential membership absorb the fortnight of debates and newspaper articles and express their views to their local Labour MPs. The MPs would have got together, taken heed of these views, and made the crucial decision. Then they would have done the same for the deputy post.

That way the Labour party would end up with the best leader and the best deputy. But that’s not really how it works, is it. And in any case, Cunliffe picked a deputy from the get go, so I suppose Shearer’s entitled to one too.

I actually think David Cunliffe ‘should’ (yes, those are inverted commas) be the next leader of the Labour Party. By that I mean he’s the most experienced and probably more skilled (in the practical, political sense) to be a leader of a political party in this country. He’s bloody clever, a Fulbright scholar at Harvard, has real private sector experience, is a fantastic facilitator and has impressive people skills (he remembers names and details in a scary way). For what it’s worth (to me not a great deal) he goes to church on Sundays (Key doesn’t).

Hell, even National Party types in my extended family are his close friends. Cunliffe is genuinely a really nice guy. He would be a really good Prime Minister.

David Cunliffe’s rise to the almost-top has been solid if not predictable. He’s always been the guy most likely to succeed Goff. My mother strongly holds the view that he should have been made leader a year ago. He’s a little bit like Kevin Rudd I suppose (smartest guy in the room), but the people who work for him actually like him.

However, I don’t think the Labour caucus will select him, at least not without massive public support for that to happen, which it probably won’t. When numbers first appeared care of Phil Quin’s blog (no relation) David Parker was supposedly out in front. When Shearer arrived he made a big splash and was the early public favourite, leading polls on Stuff, Close-up etc by 2-1 versus his opponents. With Parker departing and endorsing Shearer, it’s obvious that much of his support will head that direction.

David Shearer has an incredible and inspiring story. From top jobs in the UN (and not pushing paper) to almost-leader of the NZ Labour Party – he’s like Helen Clark in reverse. Shearer is, as they say, and as they also say about his eventual competition, John Key, an anti-politician. David Shearer is Labour’s answer to John Key. If only he’d arrived a few years earlier the last election might not have been a foregone conclusion.

But just because he is Labour’s version of National’s prize fighter doesn’t mean he should be the next leader of the Labour Party. The public like him because he’s not really Labour in their eyes – at least he’s not the labour they’ve come to know and not really like. When they see Shearer the public don’t see Goff, Mallard, King, Clark, etc, they see a warmer, brighter, friendlier future. Great… Sounds like a recipe for success in modern politics doesn’t it?

Shearer is the higher risk candidate, because he’s relatively untested. Cunliffe is the lower risk option – you know he will perform. He may not capture the imagination of the nation in the way that Shearer seems to be doing right this minute but he can be relied upon. Cunliffe holds his own in debates and in Parliament. He can seriously charm a crowd and work a room. He can reach across the political divide and win National party supporters back to Labour, hell he has dinner with them, stands on the sports field with his kids with them (he goes to church with them). Shearer might be able to do these things too, but we don’t know that yet.

Shearer could definitely pull in some serious voters, don’t get me wrong. His back story is worth an immediate 5-10 point bounce. But will he deliver over the next 3 years? If he’s picked I hope he can. I want him to, and it’s possible he could, but with Cunliffe you’d spend less time wondering. Either way, as a Labour voter I’m happy to see two impressive candidates vying for the top job and at the end of the day I don’t mind which of them wins, I just hope the right one wins. For the sake of the Party.

Oh and how about Shane Jones as Deputy for either candidate, that’d put the cat amongst the pigeons.

]]> http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/cunliffe-v-shearer/feed/ 2 Jake 4915703490_9ace6959a5 http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/a-series-of-observations/ http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/a-series-of-observations/#comments Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:28:56 +0000 Jake Quinn http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/?p=2704 ]]> 1) #teapottapes, some commentators would have it, is an elaborate scam by the National Party campaign manager and evil-genius Steven Joyce to distract media attention from policy issues and from the Labour Party in the penultimate week of an election campaign. This is paranoid delusion (although a reasonable one I suppose, given the National Party’s gross over reaction to the entire episode). In any case, the National Party are not that clever, plus, John Key looks like a fool because of it and it’s getting worse for him by the day/minute.

2) Russel Norman has fired his EA. This is a sensible move. He looks astute. One cannot believe for a moment that the EA did not know what was going on. The EA was wise to keep it from Russel. Politicians needs to be able to legitimately claim ignorance, so I suppose it’s helpful when their aides play their part by keeping them in the dark. Those crucial soft National voters, of which there are many and who will potentially contribute to a record Greens vote this year (see below post), will appreciate Russel’s no-nonsense handling of this.

(As an aside, the fired EA will have potentially more than a dozen MPs to choose from looking for experienced staff to fill their office’s after the election, so I don’t think she has much to worry about)

3) Despite my cynicism towards the view that #teapottapes is an evil-genius Machiavellian stitch up, I agree with Farrar and others that Labour will not be the winner out of this fiasco. No one wins, really, apart from perhaps Rachel Smalley or the Herald on Sunday. Unless Key is proven to have said truly vile things he will be given the benefit of the doubt by a public who don’t seem to be in the mood to vote for the other lot. Well, perhaps no one wins isn’t fair. In NZ it’s always possible that when no one ones, Winston wins.

Most New Zealanders like MMP, they like that the grand old parties have someone keeping them in check. Many still remember the 1980’s, which saw governments of both flavour carry out platforms of economic and social reform that they did not campaign on, that they did not have real mandates for.

This election New Zealanders will in all likelihood elect a National government for a second term. The question is do they want that government to have unbridled power? And if not, which party in particular do they want to curb that power?

The Greens are currently benefiting from Labour’s lower than usual polling. As evidenced by the polls, left wing voters turned off by Goff’s Labour (perhaps 5% of Labour’s base), have switched their votes to the other mainstream left wing party.

But much more interesting are the soft yet strategic National voters. The types that abandoned Labour for National over the last two elections, who are thinking seriously about breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually voting Green this year.

Mr Key is a very popular Prime Minister. He is being damaged though, evidenced by his topping of recent polls of most likely to bend the truth. Aspects of Labour’s negative campaign against him, exploiting his now numerous ‘tranz rail eyes’ moments, are starting to filter through.

Soft National supporters, turned off by Labour but suspicious of National with a blank check, are looking at their options to ensure Mr Key is kept honest.

Act in its current form is simply unhinged. United Future has proven itself to be irrelevant and toothless. The Maori Party is fractured and compromised. The Mana Party is simply not an option for swinging or strategic centrist voters.

The previously popular centre option, New Zealand First, is increasingly irrelevant and may not get in. And in any case they’ve ruled out working with National, even in a confidence and supply arrangement.

The Greens however are on the up. National talks a big game on the environment. Voters will be thinking about what a National government forced to turn to the Greens on confidence and supply would look like, what it would mean for their country.

And they’re thinking about the previously unthinkable.

]]> http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/national-and-the-greens-2002-in-reverse/feed/ 1 Jake http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/from-oz-to-the-pacific/ http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/from-oz-to-the-pacific/#comments Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:43:24 +0000 Jake Quinn http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/?p=2681 ]]> It’s only fair to my tens of readers that I provide an update on my recent adventures. This blog, after all, claims to provide more than just occasional comment on politics and the media in New Zealand. (It struggles recently to do even that.)

Anyway, I’m not in NZ, I’m no longer in Kosovo, and I’ve recently departed Australia for the warmer climes of the South Pacific. Earlier this year my partner and I moved to Sydney cause she got a baller job there. I was happy enough with that move. Sydney’s OK; really nice food, but really busy trains (peak morning hour reminded me of Mumbai, seriously).

While living in Sydney I ended up doing some interesting work contracting as media officer for the state health department for six months. It was a pretty intense environment going through lots of change care of both a new government and director-general. It was one of the more exhausting jobs I’ve had, but the people I worked with were top class.

Fast forward to today and I’m living in the well-known pacific island country that plays host to the regional head offices of most international organisations and NGOs.

I’m here working with one of the United Nations regional offices for the Pacific. For what it’s worth, I wear bula shirts and sandals to work, and feel right at home doing so.

I’ve been keeping a keen eye on the NZ election in recent weeks, but to be quite honest it’s been nice being out of the country for it. It’s not the most enjoyable viewing for a centre-lefty, but I’ve been impressed with aspects of Labour’s campaign.

Some decent policies have been trotted out but one gets the feeling it’s one of those elections where you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I will try to blog deeper thoughts in the coming weeks, and definitely after the big day.

Bryce has been accused of being too tough on Labour and the Greens. I don’t tend to agree with these accusations. Bryce is an academic, he’s sceptical of all parties and politicians generally, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Perhaps, as a commentator of the ‘left’ he is expected by some to fight their corner, he does not, this is why I respect his views especially. Today however I did disagree with his take on Chris Trotter’s latest reiteration of his diatribe against Labour and Phil Goff.

Bryce described the piece as “very thoughtful and poignant”. I say this is not really the case. Trotter has been making this exact same set of arguments for many years (perhaps most eloquently articulated by his characterising Labour’s failure in 2008 and beyond as having abandoned “Waitakere man (and his wife)” – which was, I believe, one valid and useful take on Labour’s loosing of West Auckland – the outrageous fortune vote. However, when reading Trotter’s blog today I was not convinced by it, rather I felt it was tired and much of it false.

I know many people who work bloody hard for the Labour party, good people, whose overriding political motivation is, put simply, to advance equality in all its forms; economic, social, environmental. That is fundamentally what drives the younger crop of Labour party activists now rising through the ranks, they are not managers, they’re not ivory tower academics, yes they have university educations and no they are not generally meatworkers or shearers.

Chris’s problem is that he wants the Labour party to be something no modern Labour party is, anywhere in the Anglo-Saxon world. He is bitter and has been so for a very long time. Communism isn’t cool any more, it’s not going to become cool, so get over it. Look at how well the British Labour Party is doing in the face of a very similarly styled Tory government. Labour there is well ahead of Cameron’s lot.

Why? Because people there are rather more desperate and it’s plainer to see there that the Conservatives don’t have the answers. It may come to this in NZ, but it hasn’t arrived yet. We’ve basically not grown the economy for yonks, but fortunately NZ is such a resilient place, with so much non-financial wealth and social capital (think or the things you do in your spare time in NZ that don’t involve spending money) that we can get by for much longer, and stay content for longer, on much less.

Labour in NZ, and its leader, have their failings, there are many, and Chris Trotter’s point about the Caucus having not supported Goff sufficiently (without letting him, or pushing him, to step aside) could well be valid, I do not know. What I am sure of is that blaming Labour people for having abandoned the working and middle class, which Trotter does, is just false. They may have abandoned Labour, but Labour hasn’t abandoned them.

CGT is a common sense tax, it’s a fair tax, and it’s a rational tax. Not having one is stupid so I am pleased to hear the speculation, i.e. carefully leaked plans from Goff’s office, that Labour would introduce one if elected.

The presence of CGT levels the playing field between the productive sector (like the share market) and the unproductive sector (the housing market).  Not having a CGT essentially forces “rationally acting” investors to buy rental property, and to do little else.

Apart from some short-term economic activity (paying builders, plumbers, decorators and electricians, and pushing up the demand and hence price of building materials) a too hot housing market does very little for New Zealand’s long term economic sustainability.

A successfully built house does not innovate, does not create jobs beyond those required to build and maintain it, does not build the tax base, make profit from which taxes can be extracted and it does not encourage much (useful, taxable) foreign investment.

Furthermore, an over-heated property market pushes home ownership out of the hands of many middle and lower paid people. Home ownership is a good thing. It gives people a stake in their community and their future.

There are so many good reasons to have a CGT and few reasons not to. The biggest one has always been political. Popular wisdom, they will tell you, dictates that introducing a CGT is political suicide. This wisdom, which, oddly, just operates in New Zealand, has long been propagated by well heeled multiple property owning folk.

It’s “un kiwi” says federated farmers.  PM John Key, suddenly forgetting everything he learnt from a long and successful career in international finance, says it will destroy the economy in one fell swoop. OK John, tell that to… err, most modern democratic states that already have one.

And if you think it will do much to dampen property prices, just pop across the Tasman to my current home of Sydney where you’ll find that you can’t buy a 3 bedroom house for much less than a million bucks (PS, they have a CGT, stamp duty, and a myriad of other taxes not found on NZ shores).

So bloody goood work Labour. For the first time this term you’ve captured the imagination of the media, the chattering classes and most importantly, the nation. Smells an awful lot like leadership, doesn’t it.

It needs to be done and it’s about time. It’s good for the economy.

The Key government has been increasingly uninspiring in the face of adversity, their response to the country’s economic stagnation the best example. They have tried a few things from the centre-right playbook, nothing really has worked. The task’s been made harder by the Christchurch Earthquakes, but National has missed opportunities. We deserve better, we need better. That’s why there’s been some angst from the “commentariate” about Labour’s list.

What should Labour’s list look like? Some have claimed it’s full of “gays and unionists”. The first part is completely untrue (if anything it’s representational of society *shock horror*), the second, if not a debatable point, is at least moot. To be fair, the party elects candidates who work hard to get there by first running in National party seats and in local body elections, getting involved in the party at their local and regional level and those who effectively build relationships within the organisation. Fair enough.

To a certain extent, the new entries to the list reflect a mixture of those who’ve both worked hard and who have some talent. Of the new crop, in winnable or near winnable positions, I see no one who is undeserving of a shot. The main point of the criticism, which is quite fair, relates to old hands not bowing out. This will happen because MPs are heavily involved in the ranking process and because they hold strong influence over other party members.

The party needs senior members who know the ropes, but there is a limit to that quality’s usefulness. Some of the people who should have opted out are good people, hard-working, and have strong friendships and loyalties. But for every MP from a bygone era who insists on staying on there is an opportunity cost; that is, the fresh blood that would otherwise replace them. That’s the crux of the problem.

Are Ruth Dyson, Darien Fenton, Parekura Horomia, Rajen Prasad, Rick Barker and even dear old Steve Chadwick and Annette King still more useful to a post 2011 Labour opposition or government than injecting a swath of new talent would be? With respect, I’d find that a hard proposition to argue.  Would the caucus be better served heading into the future with them or with Jordan Carter et al? You tell me.

Blame, if it must be dished out, needs to go not to the new names on the list but those who insisted on staying on it. There are literally dozens of talented next generation Labour hopefuls lining up for selection, but only the tiniest handful is afforded a show in. Though, for the reasons I’ve explained, I am not at all surprised by the phenomena, I cannot help but agree with criticisms of incumbency protection, as articulated by Bryce Edwards.

Regardless of all the media speculation it is unlikely that Labour will have a change of leadership before this year’s November election. Until recently Labour has managed to hold its 1/3^rd support in opinion polls, a solid position for any party undergoing a period of rebuilding following a decade in office.

The position in the polls will be interesting to watch in the coming months, as we will see how strong that 30+% Labour base really is – especially given that the wheels do seem to be coming off the Goff wagon, highlighted by the recent controversy over the Darren Hughes affair. That said, I don’t believe this will lead to leadership change pre-election. If someone had wanted to challenge Goff, they would have done it by now.

What we’ve seen in terms of rejuvenation has instead focused on the Leader’s office and the party Presidency. Moira Coatsworth, previous Labour Party Vice-President and long time Waikato Labour campaigner from the Coromandel, takes over from EPMU boss Andrew Little who will now focus on his election to Parliament through the New Plymouth seat.

Moira will, I imagine, be less outspoken in the roll than Little has been (more of a behind the scenes work-horse), nor will her tenure be marked by speculations about her ambitions, as Little’s on occasion was. Moira is widely liked and respected within the Labour Party and will no doubt focus most of her attention on fundraising, something that all opposition parties struggle with after a long term in office or when facing a strong government likely to be re-elected.

Moreover, the replacement of John Pagani in the Opposition Leader’s Office will be an opportunity to breathe some strategic fresh air into Goff’s speeches and public appearances.

So, while there will continue to be many musings in the blogosphere about leadership change and the media are working themselves into a lather about possible candidates for this, the bottom line is that it’s more than likely a lot wasted keystrokes and newspaper ink. That’s my feeling anyway, but time will tell.