Labour's 'palace politics' is endangering their activist base, many of whom now have the ability to publicly express their frustrations. While the behind-the-scenes attacks on David Cunliffe have angered some, Shearer's latest speech and Su'a William Sio's public attack on Louisa Wall's marriage equality bill has led to questions about the Labour caucus' discipline and leadership. 'Where's the leadership?' asks one of a number of guest posts on The Standard, saying that Su'a William Sio's public outburst would never have happened under Helen Clark, and if it did he would have been 'clarifying' his comments by midday. See: Labour, WTF? - a collection of posts.
Scott Yorke senses 'a leadership void at the top' that can't control rogue MPs, and he questions why business groups and rural voters are being prioritised over the traditional urban Labour voters who didn't show up at the polls in 2008 and 2011. Yorke is voting with his feet (at least as an active member) - see: Why I'm Out. Greg Presland (Anything But Constructive), Robert Winter (Labour: stop the playground politics), and the other Standard blog posts all express frustration at the lack of MP discipline and the apparent political direction in which Shearer is headed.
Gordon Campbell links Shearer's latest speech with animosity towards Cunliffe: 'What are we meant to take from this? That the leader of the Labour Party will stand shoulder to shoulder with them pointing an accusatory finger at those slackers on sickness benefits? .... Perhaps this is why Labour hates David Cunliffe so much. Didn't he say earlier this year that one reason Labour why lost the last election was that on important issues, it sounded too much like the National Party?' - see: Labour's recent bout of mid-flight turbulence.
The end of mass-based political parties (Labour's membership has declined by a factor of ten in a generation) along with the trend towards presidential style, personality-based campaigns, has lessened the influence of party activists on their elected representatives. This has been compounded by the massive change in how parties are funded. Raffles and cake stalls can't compete with corporate donations. All donations are dwarfed, however, by the massive backdoor state funding through Parliament, firmly in the control of MPs. Palace politics has suited the media as well - focusing on a few individuals is cheaper and makes it easier to generate copy and pictures. For the spin doctors it makes it much easier to control the messages and images - politics is reduced to question time at 2pm, media statements, photo ops and long lunches with the press gallery. All very convenient and cosy for everyone.
There are a few flies in the ointment, however. Ideology and political principles are drained as the hired guns focus on the whims of a small group of swinging voters and the result is bland and, in the end, counter-productive. 'Labour-lite' and 'National-lite' are leveled as insults, but are not proof of a national consensus over policy.