Mr Shearer had entered Parliament just over two years before, following a by-election to replace the retiring Ms Clark in Mt Albert. He came from a stellar 20-year career leading humanitarian activities for the United Nations in world troublespots, including North Africa and the Middle East. His backers said he had the X-factor to challenge National's seemingly untouchable leader John Key.
It was never made clear what this miraculous X-factor was.
I quipped at the time that seeking a saviour from the East was highly topical, it being the eve of Christmas, but was it the right way to select someone to lead Labour back into office?
It proved not. Whatever his talents, they didn't include any magical abilities to lure voters back to the Labour fold. Now, little more than a year out from the next general election, the Pundit blog's poll of polls as of August 5 has Labour on 31.7 per cent, nearly 16 per cent behind National. Party optimists argue that that's an improvement on the awful 27 per cent of Labour's 2011 general election party vote, but Mr Shearer was not fooled. Years of experience in the world's troublespots had taught him when to get out, and so he did.
With a general election looming, Labour is now in catch-up mode to bed in a new leader. Once again, it's a contest between "job ready" Mr Cunliffe, first elected to Parliament in 1999, and with senior ministerial experience, and another "trainee", this time Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson, elected to Parliament in 2008 or just a few months before Mr Shearer. Also in the race is Shane Jones, who has already admitted he's a back-of-the-field wild card.
Obviously, Mr Robertson is a political high-flyer, selected, despite being another newbie, by his colleagues as Mr Shearer's deputy. But does Labour have the time before the poll to introduce the rest of New Zealand to a leader largely unknown outside the Wellington beltway.
Despite Mr Cunliffe's past "crimes" of "arrogance" and not suffering fools gladly - he says his time in the wilderness has transmogrified him into a more humble being - he is an instantly identifiable character on the political stage. He has a respected ministerial record and needs no introductions. For Labour, I would have thought that is vital. It doesn't have time to waste blooding in another new face.
Five years into the Key Government, Labour continues to find it difficult to take advantage of the natural dissatisfaction an incumbent government attracts. Labour couldn't even reap the benefits of the widespread protests against the GCSB Act. Green co-leader Russel Norman became the media opposition spokesman, as though by default.
Of course Labour needs more than a change of political leadership to reverse its fortunes. It also needs a campaign plan that both emphasises the need for party supporters not to split their vote and targets the 800,000 or so registered voters who in 2011 did not even vote.
In 2011, Labour ran a one-tick campaign, emphasising electorate candidates at the expense of the leader - then Phil Goff - and party. The other major parties all promoted their leader - and their party brand. The outcome was inevitable. Labour's share of the party vote, which decides the proportion of seats in Parliament, dropped to 27 per cent, although Labour's candidates collected 35 per cent of the candidate vote. In other words, nearly a quarter of those voting for a Labour candidate cancelled out their vote by giving their party vote to the Greens or New Zealand First or whoever.
The first step in reversing this drift away from the party brand is to select a leader who voters instantly link with the brand. Of the two front-runners, there's one obvious choice.
