Labour review needed to ask one question
It didn't.
Labour's review of its election 2014 performance needed to ask one question: Did the introduction of a primary system to select its leader help or hurt the party?
That question was not confronted as the report stuck to bland generalities.
The answer is, yes, it did stuff Labour's chances.
A party is never going to win if MPs are not behind its leader.
Labour's primary system, under which affiliated unions' and party members' votes collectively outnumber the percentage allocated to caucus, threw up just such a state of affairs as David Cunliffe became leader, despite being disliked by a majority of his own MPs.
Andrew Little won't drive any change; like Mr Cunliffe, he depended on affiliate votes.
Through a reasonably strong performance, Mr Little seems to have got most of his caucus onside.
But as long as the primary system remains, disunity threatens future leaders. The root cause of Labour's Election 2014 defeat remains.
The party should have got someone with experience at winning elections (e.g. Mike Williams) to head its review panel, not someone with a losing track record like Bryan Gould.
© All content copyright NBR. Do not reproduce in any form without permission, even if you have a paid subscription.
Related News
Related News
Labour review needed to ask one question
48317