Good riddance to David Shearer

David Shearer has quit as labour leader. Good riddance. He was never up to the job, and even the timing of his resignation - right when Labour should be milking public outrage over the spy bill and Meridian float - once again proves it. Still, it could have been worse: he could have quit last week, right before the GCSB bill debate, instead.

Now Shearer can go on to be the decent, hardworking backbencher and possible Foreign Affairs Minister he's actually qualified to be. Meanwhile, Labour will get to have a sort-of leadership election, in which the votes of its 34 caucus members will count for as much as its whole wider membership. That's the sort of electoral system they have in Tonga, and it is neither fair nor democratic.

Real leaders don't beg

So, after the insanity of Tuesday nights media-created "coup", David Shearer is now reduced to begging the media for a fair go.

Yes, he's got a point: certain journalists seem to have an obsession with coupmongering with Labour, to the extent of leaping on the most insane rumours and leaving the basic journalism behind. But at the same time, real leaders don't beg - at least, not if they want to be elected. Again, I'm reminded of Machiavelli's words on weakness:

It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate ["weak" - I/S], mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock

This is just the latest in a long list of ways Shearer has made himself contemptible. Refusing to take a firm stand on asset sales. Or homophobia. Or racism (in fact, about the only thing Shearer will take a firm stance against is women). He won't promise to repeal John Key's spy bill, or even his corrupt Skycity pokie deal. And the result is that he looks weak and untrustworthy, while alienating even his own supporters.

Like his mentor Phil Goff (who shoulder-tapped him for the job), David Shearer has no virtù. And the quicker Labour is rid of him, the better.

Good news on the spy bill

Labour and NZ First hardening their stance against John Key's spy bill:

While Prime Minister John Key is still scrambling to get enough support to pass his GCSB spy bill by one vote, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said his concerns about the bill had widened beyond the four he specified in his first reading.

And Labour leader David Shearer scoffed at Mr Key's offer to review the new law in 18 months and provide for a mandatory review every five years after that.

[...]

At the first reading, Mr Peters suggested he could support the bill if his concerns were addressed.

But yesterday he said having sat through part of the committee hearings on the bill last week, those concerns had broadened to include at least the issue of metadata.

The latter in particular is very good news - it means that Winston actually paid attention to submitters and their concerns about privacy. Submitting actually made a difference!

And meanwhile, Peter Dunne isn't exactly keen either. So as it stands, this bill will fail unless it is given major amendments.

My outer cynic says one of these politicians - most likely Shearer - will inevitably betray us, and sell out our privacy for an image of "responsibility" and a pat on the head from John Key. But there is a tiny glimmer of hope there that they'll actually stand up for something and refuse to turn us into a totalitarian surveillance state. I guess we'll find out at the end of the month.

Labour fails women

In a typical display of their usual chickenshittedness, Labour has dumped its proposal to allow all-women shortlists:

Labour has dropped its controversial plan to hold some women-only selections after its leader David Shearer asked for it to be withdrawn.

Mr Shearer said the NZ Council had agreed to withdraw the proposal, dubbed the 'man ban', which would have allowed some electorates to block men from seeking selection as a candidate.

However, he said the party still hoped to move toward ensuring at least 45 per cent of its caucus was female after 2014, and 50 per cent after 2017.

So apparently they remain committed to equal representation, just not to any specific measures for achieving it. Which is pretty much the same position as the National Party.

Meanwhile, its a bad day for Labour's internal democracy when proposals from the members get squashed arbitrarily by the leader. It smacks of dictatorship. And if there's a way for members to revive the proposal on the conference floor, I urge them to do it, simply to ensure that it is the membership, rather than Shearer, which decides this.

The other alternative, of course, is Exit. And if Labour won't stand up on gender equality, voters who feel strongly about it will simply transfer their support to the party which does: the Greens.

David Shearer's "mistake"

Oh dear. It seems Labour Leader David Shearer has fucked up big time. Here's the news from Patrick Gower:

David Shearer has corrected MPs Register of Pecuniary Interests after not disclosing United Nations bank account. Says it was mistake.

A "mistake"? Looking at the Standing Orders, bank accounts only need to be declared if they contain more than $50,000. Obviously, that's the sort of trifling sum people forget about all the time. Its a mistake anyone could have made...

OK, I'll can the sarcasm now. Shearer clearly knows the rules around bank accounts, because he already declares one (a term deposit with Westpac). So he can't claim ignorance as a defence. If he deliberately tried to deceive the New Zealand public about his assets, then he's morally unfit to be leader of the Labour Party, or an MP for that matter. But even if we accept his excuse, and ascribe it to sheer forgetfulness (something which I think the New Zealand public would find extremely difficult to believe), then he's too incompetent for the job.

Meanwhile, its worth pointing out: knowingly making a false return is Contempt of Parliament, and the argument that this was not knowing requires superhuman credulity. Will Parliament hold its own to account? Or will they once again collude in their cozy conspiracy of silence around these matters?

David Shearer: Spineless chickenshit

Yesterday Winston Peters flung down the gauntlet on asset sales, declaring that NZ First would buy back stolen assets at no more than cost - and borrow if necessary to do it. Labour leader David Shearer's response? He "won't rule it out but we won't rule it in either". I'd ask him to tell us what he really thinks, but its clear that he doesn't really think anything. He's just a spineless chickenshit, saying nothing for fear of offending anyone.

This isn't good leadership, and it isn't good politics either. Back in the sixteenth century, Machiavelli noted that

A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that is to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral... Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbour you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate.

Machiavelli was talking about wars between semi-feudal states, but his reasoning boils down to "nobody likes a fence-sitter". And that applies equally to democratic politics too. By offering nothing to either supporters or opponents of asset sales, Shearer (and Labour) earns the contempt of both and the support of neither.

Shearer: Room for bigots in Labour

Pete George has the transcript of an interview with David Shearer on bFM:

Zac: Is there room for MPs with homophobic views in the Labour Party?

Shearer: Oh look yes, absolutely, there are some, when I say homophobic I don’t think we’ve got any homophobes there, but, there are some people who don’t agree with, ah, um, unsection (?) marriage, you mean you know, a marriage between two, two people of the same sex, um, that’s ah, that’s not ah a a majority but um look you know at the same time as we, you know we’ve been at the forefront of these things, we’ve also had people who didn’t agree with it, there’s plenty of room for them as well.

(Emphasis added)

FFS. Given a clear opportunity to talk about Labour's opposition to bigotry and its pretty good record on the issue, Shearer flubs it and instead hangs out a big "bigots welcome" sign. heckuva job you're doing there David. No wonder Charles Chauvel abandoned your sinking ship.

A party which calls itself "progressive" should not have space for bigots, any more than it should have space for sexists and racists. End of fucking story.

As useless as a proverbial useless thing II

Today NZ First MP Richard Prosser made some stupid and grossly offensive comments. Naturally, the Parliamentary press gallery have been asking other politicians about them - including David Shearer. So, did Shearer take the opportunity to make a public stand against racism and define himself as a decent person (and leader) by saying that if Prosser was in Labour he would stand him down? Of course not:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser's comments were "offensive and completely inappropriate" but wouldn't say if he would stand him down.

Like I said, have no convictions, make no commitments. Completely and utterly useless.

Unsurprising

So, both John Key and David Shearer support a four-year parliamentary term. Colour me unsurprised. Just as turkeys will always support delaying christmas, politicians will always support extra job security for themselves - even (OK, especially) if it comes at the price of less accountability to the people who elect them.

Oddly, though, neither Key nor Shearer really makes an argument in support of that longer term, sticking to general comments like "it makes more sense" and calling three years too short. Again, that's hardly surprising. Because when you unpack it, the "argument" for a four-year term basically boils down to the proposition that elected representatives would make better decisions if they didn't have to worry about what voters want. Which is a deeply undemocratic idea, and one which raises all sorts of questions about who these politicians think they are making decisions for (hint: if they're worried about what voters will think, its not us).

Fortunately, s268 of the Electoral Act limits their ability to change this without our consent. While it does allow changes to the length of the term with only a 75% supermajority, constitutional propriety will require a referendum. And if 1967 and 1990 are anything to go by, they will lose that by a wide margin. The question is whether they'll get the message this time...

Shearer on Waitangi Day

Another year, another Waitangi Day, and another call from Labour leader David Shearer for the day to be about "celebration" rather than reflection. As I noted when he did this last year, this is basically a call for us to deny our history, to forget the wrongs that were (and still are being) done. Its a demand that Maori shut the fuck up and stop ruining "our" (meaning "not their") day, a dogwhistle to rednecks and lazy Pakeha who just don't want to think about where "their" wealth came from.

I thought that David Shearer was a better man than that. Sadly, it seems I was mistaken.

(As for his idea of Waitangi Day honours, that's actually a good one. It would be an important step in repatriating the honours system and stripping it of its feudal roots. And it is far more appropriate that we honour people on our national day, rather than the nominal birthday of a foreign monarch).

An act of self-mutilation

So, the Labour Party caucus has met. As predicted, they have endorsed David Shearer's leadership unanimously - an act which hardly strengthens it given that there will be a revote in February. And as expected, they have banished David Cunliffe to the backbenches.

Well, that'll teach those Labour MPs to be competent and inspiring then. Clearly, that is something which is just incompatible with Labour values. In the modern Labour Party, everyone must be as incompetant and uninspiring as the leadership, for fear of showing them up.

To echo Talleyrand, this is worse than a crime, it is a mistake. Its an extraordinary act of self-mutilation, which shows exactly where Shearer's priorities lie. And its not with having the strongest Parliamentary team to stick it to National. And that's the difference between strong and weak leadership. Helen Clark co-opted her potential rivals. Shearer is so weak he cannot risk being compared to them, so he must destroy them.

That Labour meeting thing

So, apparently the Labour Party had a bit of a meeting over the weekend, during which the membership passed some rules changes imposing greater democratic control over the caucus, and especially over the leadership. But even this weak democracy - seriously people, other parties elect their leaders every year - was too much for Labour's talentless and past-it Old Guard, and they've now gone feral and are attempting to drive out one of the party's few talented and popular frontbenchers.

Way to go guys. Great own goal there. This is why I don't give a shit about the Labour Party: because its collection of time-servers and over-ambitious incompetents will turn any success into failure. Such a dysfunctional party is not worth anyone's time or emotional investment.

Meanwhile, while the media was focusing on the leadership issue, the party also asserted greater democratic control over policy. There will be a new policy platform, set by the annual conferance and binding on caucus. And there were a host of remits, supporting the renationalisation of stolen assets, a lower voting age, and support for marriage equality, which will presumably make their way into it.

And then there was David Shearer's speech, in which he introduced a new (actually very old) policy to build 100,000 affordable homes over ten years to solve the housing crisis, boost employment and skills, and kickstart the economy in one go. Its an obvious policy, apparently self-funding, and one which people have been calling for for a long time. I expect it will be popular, an example of what government can do to help. And the mere fact that it has been advocated by Labour, one of the two main parties, will have shifted the boundaries of public debate and will hopefully make the government have to justify its "do nothing" position.

This is what oppositions should do: advocating alternative policies which challenge the government. And it would be nice if Labour focused a bit more on it.

"Assurances"

So. Shane Jones has assured David Shearer that he did not behave corruptly in granting Bill Liu citizenship against official advice. And Shearer has accepted those assurances. Which means that if any evidence emerges that Jones has been less than honest, he should be finished (at least if Shearer has any spine).

Unfortunately, Shearer isn't exactly looking hard to make sure that evidence doesn't exist:

Although he did not have access to departmental records, he had looked at the information Mr Jones provided him from the time and "it appears that the process through which Yong Ming Yan was granted citizenship was considered and proper."

Of course, those departmental records are subject to the Official Information Act. Will Shearer's office OIA them? Because other people certainly will be...

Shearer rises to the challenge

Obama's declaration of support for same-sex marriage made it inevitable that people would start asking the same question of our local progressive politicians. And unlike his predecessor, David Shearer has risen to the challenge:

I fully support marriage equality in principle but would like to see the detail of any legislation before giving formal support.

Which is good, but as pointed out by Craig Ranapia, Labour could "see the detail" by writing the bill themselves. Alternatively, here's one I prepared earlier...

Shearer on inequality and the living wage

David Shearer gave a speech in Nelson today, in which he took aim at what should be the big theme of his leadership: inequality. He highlighted the fact that we have become a more unequal society, and that kiwis have not been rewarded for our increased economic productivity (instead, that money has been stolen by employers and exported by foreign corporations). And he suggested a solution: a living wage:

One emerging idea I’m interested in is the Living Wage.

It’s the amount a person needs to earn to provide for themselves and a family.

It’s started to catch on London since 2004 when the London mayor set up a unit that works out the Living Wage level each year.

Over time, as finances allowed, Council gradually began to pay the Living Wage level.

Now some businesses that contract with the Council have agreed to pay it too, whether they hire direct employees, contractors, or temporary staff.

The results have been encouraging.

More than four out of five employers believe the Living Wage enhanced the quality of the work of their staff.

Absenteeism fell by a quarter.

Two-thirds of employers said recruitment and retention improved.

The attraction of the Living Wage is that it’s a voluntary pathway, not enforced by law, to incomes above just the minimum wage.

A lot of businesses have found it’s a good way to show they’re actually good employers.

Even some of the giant global banks in London are signing up - like HSBC and Goldman Sachs.

Accountancy firm KPMG said that after they adopted the living wage, staff turnover dropped dramatically.

The idea now has cross-party support in the UK.

(As an aside, can someone teach Shearer to use paragraphs like normal people?)

Currently they're merely "looking at it". But this should be a core part of Labour's platform. National's policy of screwing down wages has left ordinary kiwis in poverty, struggling to make ends meet. OTOH, the fact that its voluntary means that in our business environment, with a business leadership hostile to workers and interested primarily in preserving their own position, progress is going to be very slow. It could be sped up by making paying a living wage a requirement for all public sector organisations, and for all government contracts. But even then, we're looking at a slow process for ensuring basic living standards. Simply raising the minimum wage would be faster, and reinforces the principle that the minimum wage should be a living wage.

Shearer and "Gotcha" politics

Back in February, Labour leader David Shearer made a lot of noise about how he was going to be different and not engage in "gotcha" politics:

"I'm not the kind of leader who believes in rival tribes playing 'gotcha', where bickering and partisanship are prized. Of course that's what a lot of people look for. They want to score the game, give points for the best smart remark in Parliament. But that's not what most New Zealanders want," Mr Shearer told an Auckland Grey Power meeting yesterday.

So what was he doing in Question Time yesterday? Engaging in "gotcha" politics:

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements with regard to asset sales?

Its not the only incident. Every single question he has asked since the House resumed in February has asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by some statement or another - classic "gotcha" politics. In fact, he was doing this just three days after that interview was published. I guess he thought no-one would notice (or that the media, desperate for access, wouldn't call him on it).

But in addition to being a hypocrite, Shearer is also incompetent. Because yesterday, his efforts to trip the Prime Minister up over asset sales saw him comprehensively schooled about their use in his favourite country: Finland. Whoops.

Wouldn't it be nice if Labour had an honest and competent leader?

A tale of two speeches

David Shearer gave a big speech this morning, which supposed to set out his agenda as Labour leader. Sadly, it was the usual vague waffle - aspirational, positive, but completely empty of detail, designed to make the listener feel good but communicating nothing. Oh, there's some pointers - Shearer wants to "make that [100% Pure] branding a reality" and grow the economy by building a smarter New Zealand - but its all kittens and apple pie, and there are no specifics. Even his comment about keeping the capital gains tax is non-committal and caveated. Which I guess is what happens when you throw away all your policies after every election loss and start again with a blank sheet of paper.

What I want to know from politicians is what they plan to do in office. Shearer fails that test. Verdict: come back in a year or two, when you actually have something real to say.

Meanwhile, on the proverbial other side of town, John Key is telling us what he plans to do, announcing a reshuffling of public service deckchairs, and promising to add 2,500 more people to the dole queue. The former just seems to be an exercise in change for the sake of it, and its hard to see how glomming together such disparate ministries as Economic Development and Immigration is really going to help (and creates problems with the agenda of the absorbed ministries being driven by economic development - which isn't such a good idea, and why we separate things in the first place). The latter will mean a further erosion of public service capability, compensated by a rise in expensive consultants, and will contribute to the current austerity-induced recession. If this is the government's plan for the next three years, then I hope its over soon.

Good idea, poor execution

Over the weekend, Labour leader David Shearer released his new Member's Bill, aimed at restricting land sales to foreign buyers by requiring that it bring substantial benefits that otherwise would not occur. Its a good idea, which makes it clear that foreign investors must actually invest here, rather than simply engaging in parasitic rent-seeking. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Alex Tarrant on interest.co.nz, it is undermined by sloppy drafting. The problem? Replacing the existing section 17 of the Overseas Investment Act with a new one focused solely on jobs and exports. This necessarily eliminates other criteria we currently impose on foreign buyers of rural land, such as conservation, improved walking access, and public access to beaches. It also eliminates the power to set further criteria by regulation. While increased jobs and exports are a vital part of the equation when it comes to foreign investment, these other matters are important, and their presence in the Act has brought substantial recreational benefits to ordinary kiwis.

This isn't good enough, and it makes the opposition look incompetent. Its good that Labour are thinking about this issue, but I'd like them to make a decent job of it. As it stands, they just look half-arsed. And who wants to vote for a half-arse?

As for how to fix it, it's pretty simple: put those stronger jobs and export criteria in s17(2)(a), with the clarification that minor technology changes or export increases are not enough appended in a new subsection (3). Problem solved. The question is whether Labour will actually fix it, or whether they'll pig-headedly push on with a bill which is unfit for purpose, simply to avoid admitting they made a mistake.

Shearer gets off the fence

On Saturday, thousands of people turned out to show their support for striking Ports of Auckland workers, sending a powerful signal to both port management and the council. Among them was Labour leader David Shearer, who finally seems to have got off the fence and announced his backing for the union:

Labour leader David Shearer, joined by caucus members David Cunliffe, Andrew Little, Parekura Horomia, Charles Chauvel and Moana Mackey, marched as did Mana Party leader Hone Harawira and the Green Party's Denise Roche.

Shearer said it was still possible for the workers to find resolution with the port. He said the parties needed to resume mediation. Among the issues, he said the port needed to consider its drive for a 12 per cent return which would be "very difficult" to achieve simply by placing pressure on staff.

Not that this is getting him anywhere with the New Zealand Herald, who are having a field day over his past comment about "not taking sides". Which perfectly illustrates the problem with being a fence-sitter: even when you make your mind up over where you stand, you get no credit, and no-one appreciates it. Your enemies call you a hypocrite, your friends doubt your commitment, and both see you as weak and vacillating. Just like Phil Goff.

Meanwhile, while the local noise is useful in pressuring the Auckland Council to rescind its insane profit requirement and reign in its rogue management, the real battle is happening overseas. Also on Saturday, dockworkers in Sydeny refused to unload a ship loaded by scab labour at Auckland, and the US International Longshore and Warehouse Union have said they will do the same. The message is clear: dock in Auckland, and your ship will never be unloaded anywhere again. Which means ships will avoid Auckland, until the port company makes a decent settlement with the union. A sane port company would settle at this point (hell, they would have settled long ago; its not as if the union has been unreasonable here). A responsible council would insist on it to protect the value of their asset. The question now is whether the Auckland Council are going to let Tony Gibson's psychopathy utterly destroy the value of a public asset. And if he's intent on going down that path, they should take the appropriate measures to sack him and get someone more reasonable who will be a better trustee of the people's port.

Labour's "do nothing" leader

David Shearer responds to criticism that he has done nothing so far as Labour leader:

Labour leader David Shearer has attempted to counter criticism his leadership style has been too laid back, saying he doesn't believe in bickering and partisanship.

In a speech to Grey Power in Auckland this afternoon, Shearer said he was not the kind of leader who believed in ''rival tribes playing gotcha''.

''Of course that's what a lot of people look for. They want to score the game, give points for the best smart remark in Parliament. But that's not what most New Zealanders want.''

There was no excuse for not being constructive.

Sure, but he hasn't done an awful lot of that, either. Insofar as Labour has advocated policy over the last three months, it has been done by other MPs. As for the leader, he's been conspicuous by his absence. Which makes you wonder why he's got the job (and is getting the salary) at all.

A change in tone is one thing (possibly not the wisest course against this National government, but that's an argument for another day); abdication is another. But hey, if Shearer doesn't actually want to lead the left in NZ, there's another party eager to take his job. And if he keeps on staying silent, he'll have no-one to blame but himself.