Editorial: Labour leader needs balance

Labour Party leadership contenders, from left, Grant Robertson, Nanaia Mahuta, Andrew Little and David Parker. Photo / Mark Mitchell

It's not overly surprising there is a lot of interest in the Labour Party leadership race.

Sure, the party only received a quarter of the vote, not much more than half the National Party vote, and an informal online poll asking "Who should be Labour leader?" shows 56 per cent voting for "Don't know/don't care". But still, in a political climate still coming down from Dirty Politics and the General Election there seems to be more interest in the battle to be David Cunliffe's successor than you might expect.

At least seven names have been bandied about as contenders since September 20 - including Davids Cunliffe and Shearer.

But by the deadline for nominees only four remained - Andrew Little, Nanaia Mahuta, David Parker and Grant Robertson.

Various branches and affiliates of the Labour Party - unions, caucus and members - now vote for their preferred candidate and the new leader will be announced on November 18.

For Labour supporters, surely that day can't come quickly enough.

How long has the party appeared beset by internal division and infighting? How long is it since it looked like a political party that has its act together?

There have been several theories about why Labour performed so poorly at the election, and we're hearing many of those as its leadership contenders put forward their cases in an increasingly public process.

If Labour wants to be successful in 2017, it needs to start here.

A leader needs to be elected who will not only go the distance, but will rally Labour's factions for the greater good.

Each candidate brings his or her own positives - Robertson's include the fact he put his hand up early - but making the right choice for Labour's future will, for many of those voting, mean balancing personal political ideals against what will work best in 2017 and beyond.