John Armstrong: Leadership election rules full of pitfalls

Labour party leadership candidates David Cunliffe, Shane Jones, and Grant Robertson. Photo / APN

To point out the potential pitfalls in Labour's new method of changing and choosing its leader was to incur the usual wrath from the usual quarters on the left of the party when the system was tested for the first time last year.

To express reservations about it was to be labelled antiquated and anti-democratic and deliberately raining on Labour's parade.

And what a happy parade it was as David Cunliffe, Shane Jones and Grant Robertson pitched their respective cases to large and appreciative audiences of party members up and down the country as being the right choice to succeed the hapless David Shearer.

The three-way contest was all harmony, sweetness and light, marred only slightly by something of a bidding war when it came to the candidates indicating their policy priorities for inclusion in the party's election manifesto.

Above all, it was difficult to mount a case against a more democratic system for electing the party leader - one which gave the party's membership a 40 per cent say in the choice, trade union affiliates a 20 per cent say and the party's MPs, who had previously enjoyed a monopoly in choosing the leader, a 40 per cent say. There was a good reason why choosing the leader had been the sole prerogative of the parliamentary wing, however.

A party's MPs work the closest of anyone with the leader. He or she must have their respect and confidence. If that is not the case, things rapidly turn to custard - as evidenced by this week's bout of post-election infighting within the caucus.

Labour's new rules - which were introduced after acrimonious debate on the party's constitution at the annual conference two years ago - resulted in Cunliffe becoming leader even though the majority of MPs did not vote for him because essentially they detested him.

What went largely unremarked on was that the new rules potentially make it much harder to get rid of a leader, especially if that leader is intent on staying - as has seemed the case with Cunliffe.

MPs can trigger a party-wide vote only if more than half of them sign a letter to the party president seeking one. Unless rank-and-file members and union affiliates take the same view as the caucus, the existing leader may well survive if he or she opts to stay and fight.

Things are further complicated by a requirement in the rules that the current leader must be re-endorsed by a motion put to the caucus within the three months following an election.

If the motion fails to get the backing of 60 per cent of the caucus plus one MP, then a party-wide leadership vote is triggered. This provision is designed to give the caucus some room for manoeuvre, while also constraining its power.

This week's events have shown the provision to be more of nuisance value than anything.

Some will argue - with some validity - that there should be barriers in place to stop the parliamentary wing frustrating the will of the wider party. What is the point, after all, of making things more democratic if the party has to conform with the wishes of the caucus?

In Cunliffe's case, however, he grabbed the prospect of a party-wide vote as a lifeline to save his leadership. He is likely to be talked out of persisting with that plan.

That leaves a question: what other unintended consequences lie in wait from these rules to trip Labour up at some future point down the track.

What I said

"Imagine what would happen if Cunliffe becomes leader and that leadership turns into a disaster, but Cunliffe refuses to go and there has to be a caucus motion to force an election ... in Cunliffe's case, the party might revolt against the caucus and reinstall him as leader to the caucus' horror. Unlikely, but not impossible."

- Political correspondent John Armstrong, Weekend Herald, August 31, 2013