New Labour leader David Cunliffe’s election reveals the true nature of a divided Labour party. In his contest with Grant Robertson and Shane Jones he garnered 51.5% of the vote, but the real figure that needs to be noted is 32% - which was the support he received from caucus. Any other business where the boss is backed by less than a third of his charges would be considered a divided mess. There’s no doubt that David Shearer had to go. He didn’t sit well with voters but his position was less indicative of the man than of the party. Much like Australia, the Labour party in New Zealand has been somewhat chaotic, with this Cunliffe success as much, if not more a case of the law of averages as the right man for the job. It is unlikely that it will pay much more than momentary dividends in the polls with voters knowing a tough economic climate calls for safe hands, rather than idealistic intellectuals who care more about pressing an ideological agenda than getting down to business.
The irony of Cunliffe’s election should not be overlooked. Labour sought someone who could battle John Key and drive home its point that the Prime Minister is a rich businessman who is out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. Yet the man Labour chose is a Harvard educated, Herne Bay resident (where house prices average $2million). Not only that, but his career includes a post at Boston Consulting Group - a multinational management consultant with clients like IBM and Google, as the precursor to his involvement in New Zealand politics. Which begs the question whether he is just as out of touch with the ‘ordinary’ kiwi as John Key apparently is.
So if Cunliffe is basically John Key dressed in red, then surely his policies provide something different? He, of course, will drive New Zealand in a new direction away from current circumstances where, as he puts it, “average New Zealanders are missing out”. With a man of his political experience, one need go no further than his own history to show his commitment to liberal agendas right? Well, according to a 2008 profile on Cunliffe in the Listener he was dubbed the first health minister to favour a private insurance policy, which at best, is neoliberal and at worst is quite conservative. One must wonder then how the ‘average New Zealander’ would react to that revelation.
Now that Cunliffe is the voting public’s alternative prime minister, questions will be asked about just how much of a difference he will make. Economically, much depends on who his friends are come election time. A Labour-Greens-Maori-Mana coalition would likely drag economic policy over to the left, ushering in an economically liberal government led by a Prime Minister whose background suggests he may be anything but. There we have contradiction number three.
A further contradiction a ‘change’ in government would usher in revolves around that very word and New Zealand’s foreign policy. As a small nation New Zealand’s capacity to influence foreign policy is limited by forces of geopolitics and global economics far beyond its control. Whilst, history shows foreign policy alters very little whether we’re blue or red - so Cunliffe can’t ride the change bus on foreign policy. He just doesn’t have the power to, and saying otherwise is being very economical with the truth. That leaves ‘change’ as a further victim to the great contradiction that this new leadership brings.
Whether he is judged on economic policy, work experience or a push for change, David Cunliffe will struggle to free his Labour of being a walking contradiction. The question is whether he can come up with something in the next six months that proves a change to Labour is a good alternative or indeed an alternative at all.
Author is an International Studies scholar at the University of Otago.