Matt McCarten: A battle between popularity and experience

People seem to warm to David Shearer. Photo / NZ Herald

Today Auckland Labour Party members meet to hear from the two Davids vying for leadership of their party before their caucus decides on Tuesday.

I wasn't going to write about the contest again but I've had a lot of feedback from last week's column and it is, after all, the only game on the left this week.

Everyone agrees that both men are intelligent and capable. Many party insiders and pundits believe Shearer would be a better prime minister than Cunliffe and that he has a better chance of beating John Key in three years. But Cunliffe is hungry, and ready to hit the ground running, to take the fight to National now.

Cunliffe has a lot of enemies in his caucus. His self-confidence and ambition annoys some. Frankly, I would have thought his colleagues understood these attributes are needed in spades for any leader trying to win.

On the evidence of the television debates, there's no doubt Cunliffe is a masterful public performer and debater. He's charismatic, confident and on top of his game. Cunliffe won't forget policy details and budget figures, like the current leader did during the campaign.

Shearer needs a lot of work on both presentation and knowledge. But where he has it over Cunliffe is that people seem to warm to him in the same way New Zealanders warm to Key.

Both claim to be agents of change, whatever that means. In policy terms, they don't have any major differences, so it comes down to which man caucus members will accept graciously to lead them; and more importantly which can lead them to victory.

Where there is an obvious comparison between the two men is in leadership style. Shearer is self-effacing and was nominated for the top job without much, or any, lobbying or planning. Cunliffe has let it be known for years that he was a contender for the job as soon as it became available. There is some gossip that Cunliffe stitched up Nanaia Mahuta as his running mate even before Goff stepped down.

It's an open secret that Mahuta is a caucus lightweight ranked at a lowly number 19, even though she's been an MP for 15 years. Cunliffe's decision to tap her was clearly a manoeuvre to get the Maori and Pacific Island members to back him as a bloc. But by doing this he may well have turned off more MPs than he might gain.

Shearer on the other hand did not tap a deputy, astutely signalling that he believed it was the caucus' choice, not his. This does leave the possibility for Cunliffe to take the deputy's job, should Shearer win.

The other difference in their lobbying campaigns is that caucus members are claiming that Cunliffe is promising jobs, or at least asking his colleagues what roles they would like in his new line up. Shearer is making no promises. Maybe it's naive on Shearer's part; maybe it's a sign of confidence. But it is a refreshing change from the practice of vote-buying common in these contests.

Whoever wins, the other Clark-era senior ministers should gracefully vacate their front-bench seats.

The winning David, I hope, will want the other David alongside him, as well as David Parker. Whether Grant Robertson gets the deputy's nod or not, he should be there.

Shane Jones has spent enough time in purgatory so I expect there's a spot for him. If the new leader wants to show the future cabinet, Phil Twyford and Jacinda Ardern should be in the mix as well.

Labour has a real choice. Cunliffe is better qualified to lead now. Shearer is more popular. Public poll feedback is running two-to-one in Shearer's favour.

It took Helen Clark a decade as party leader before she become acceptable enough to be prime minister. Goff never had it, and his party had its worst defeat in our lifetime.

National won, not because of their policies, but because their leader is popular. Just saying.