Labour becalmed and dismasted

The entrails tell us that the numbers were done, and enough to make a change, but the pressure has, we are told, subsided. It has not gone away. It may resurface at any time.

The metaphor of a dismasted and becalmed vessel fills my imagination. Even before the Hughes issue, Labour was making little headway, even though topical issues were markedly sympathetic to Labour's positioning. Why is complex, and has a lot to do with the memory of the last years of Labour in government, the impact of Mr Key, and the inexplicable failure of Labour to sustain an integrated, high-profile alternative to National. Others will say its about the failure of a particular brand of Social Democracy. No doubt many will think me harsh, and I have no desire to be gratuitously critical, yet I am not alone in my puzzlement by this invisibility. The Hughes issue has now becalmed Labour. Listening to Ms King talk about getting back to the real issues on Morning Report produced a grim sense of doing what has to be done - wearily trying to get the vessel moving again, whistling for the calm to be broken.

The vessel is also dismasted. Mr Goff is, as everyone agrees, a decent, extraordinarily hard-working, intelligent person. He would be a far better Prime Minister than Mr Key. But the Hughes issue has, I think, cut the last halyards, and the mast has drooped finally. Mr Goff was always linked to the Right of the party, and memories of the 1980s are still alive. He would have overcome this baggage easily if he had made strong headway as leader, but that hasn't been the case. It's not wholly his fault. National have maintained a grip on the polls despite multiple failings and problems. His team has not scrubbed up as positively as they might. But, at root, Mr Goff's Labour Party languishes as a source of ideas and inspiration, and as a rallying point for the opposition to encroaching neo-liberalism. It has the appearance of going through the motions, as if this election is already deemed lost, and the Party is waiting for the change of leadership and thinking that follows an unsuccessful election. And that is what fuels the irreversible questioning of Mr Goff - the likelihood of losing this election, and the need for a new leadership and new, bold policies.

We will turn out round the election in our masses to leaflet and to badger. We will continue to press upwards for dynamism and some boldness in policy development (and publicity). We will bake the scones and have the kitchen meetings. We will do so because it is our party too, ands we ought to win. The onus is on our parliamentary caucus to provide us with that national leadership that we deserve.

MPs are not going to say this publicly. They cannot go into an election having announced an openness to losing. But they watch the polls and the leadership's performance, and the impact of events such as Mr Hughes has impelled, and ponder and consider and chat informally.