Tricky issues facing Cunliffe

Can Labour’s contentious leader hold on long enough for a second run at the top job in 2017?

The outcome of this year’s election is far from a foregone conclusion. However, with the economy finally shifting into gear, the prospects of a third term for Prime Minister John Key are probably better than ever. If that occurs, what will become of Labour leader David Cunliffe?

Labour has been impatient with its leaders since being booted from office in 2008. Phil Goff stood down just three days after voters gave his party 27.48 per cent of the vote in the last general election. His successor, David Shearer, did not even get the chance to contest an election. His colleagues peremptorily dumped him last year.

This has long been a trait of the National Party, which for so long in our history was the natural party of government. That does not mean it’s a prudent development, of course, and I am not convinced that either leader should have been dropped. It is true that neither made significant headway against John Key’s government. But not all successful prime ministers win their first bid for office from the opposition benches. For example, Mr Goff’s effort in 2011 may have been less than inspiring. However, it was not much worse than what Helen Clark achieved in 1996 ( 28.19 per cent). Moreover, her opponent in that election was Jim Bolger – who, in spite of what other talents he might have had, did not have Mr Key’s easy likeability and strong emotional intelligence.

Other Labour opposition leaders who became prime ministers after losing general elections are Norman Kirk and Walter Nash. Mike Moore also led a Labour opposition through two general elections in 1990 and 1993, though he was never ‘‘ elected’’ as prime minister.

So why is Labour now so ruthless? It may be because Mr Key’s detractors have never reconciled themselves to their minority status within the wider community. Perhaps this is because Mr Key’s working background is so alien to that of the union organisers, teachers, university lecturers and public sector employees who form the backbone of the modern Labour Party.

Whatever the reason, this inclination has helped Labour to underestimate Mr Key from the day he came to national prominence and created unrealistic expectations about the abilities of its leader to dispatch him.

That being said, and assuming National does win the election, it will be a tall order for it to repeat the trick in 2017. For one thing, it is hard for any politician to resist the hubris that repeated re- election tempts. Sir Robert Muldoon, Margaret Thatcher, John Howard, Tony Blair and Miss Clark couldn’t. As the ancient Greeks knew, hubris is almost always followed by nemesis – the divine retribution suffered by all whose success brings delusions of invincibility.

More importantly, though, National would by then have been Mr Cunliffe will have a real fight on his hands to keep his job if he can’t win the election in his first attempt.

All political prognostications are fraught with peril. However, you can usually get a good read on things by watching the actions of those with the most to gain or lose from a given contingency. None of Mr Cunliffe’s major caucus critics have signalled an intention to retire – even those who were heavily demoted like Trevor Mallard.

This can be interpreted in a number of ways. It could simply reflect that lifelong MPs do not always gain the marketable skills required to find adequately renumerated employment in the real economy. However, it could also be an indication that Mr Cunliffe’s enemies do not expect his reign to be long- lived.

The fact Mr Cunliffe was unable to suppress some of his other antagonists ( like Rimutaka MP Chris Hipkins) also suggests ‘‘ Gotterdammerung’’ – the end of days – may await Team Cunliffe should it fail to deliver quick results. Only time will tell. However, one thing you can be certain about is that instability within Labour would be National’s best hope – and perhaps the only hope – for re- election beyond 2014.