Claire Trevett: Labour's leadership contest is not about taking turns

Is David Parker leadership material or will he be a victim of his own success as deputy to rival David Cunliffe? Photo / Janna Dixon

So Labour has its leadership barbershop quartet, and although each member is singing to the same audience they are at a very different pitch.

David Parker's entry yesterday put him onstage alongside David Cunliffe, Grant Robertson and Andrew Little.

Both Labourites and their rivals were quick to point out that despite all that angst over the man ban and quotas of women, they were all middle-aged white men.

And should David Shearer also enter, that will make five.

And they were all promising to bring unity and change.

All four have made their opening pitches.

Cunliffe promised the world before he disappeared off the radar to tend to his ill mother. Andrew Little has said policies such as a capital gains tax and lifting the retirement age had to be reviewed - and went even further yesterday, taking aim in particular at the retirement age policy as worker-unfriendly.

Those were all Parker's policies. So Parker's bid was at first seen as a mother bear leaping in to save her cubs. But then he surprised all by coming to the same conclusion - that the tax policies had scared voters away and had to be reviewed.

Robertson began with the exact same pitch he used last time, banging on about new generations and unity. Ironically, he has since shamelessly nicked Shane Jones' old pitch, clearly hoping to resonate with Jones' infamous "smoko room" workers.

Robertson can't quite pull off Jones' working man lingo but he has started talking about the virtues of Jones' crusade against supermarkets and the cost of power.

Parker's entry is worse news for Grant Robertson than either Andrew Little or David Cunliffe. The Parker and Robertson camps in caucus are almost identical.

There is now frantic lobbying for the second preference votes.

If the caucus vote fractures between the four it will dilute the power of its 40 per cent cent bloc and effectively leave the decision in the hands of the members and union vote.

Parker's problem is he may well be a victim of his own success as deputy to rival David Cunliffe.

The trouble with being too good at that job is it tends to typecast you. Just ask Bill English.

The immediate response from some within Labour was that Parker was good "deputy material". That's a polite way of saying they are not considered leadership material. Good deputies are the type of people willing to do a lot of the grunt work without getting much of the credit.

However, it's unfair to suggest that's all he is. His speech at the party's conference last year galvanised the audience and earned him more than one genuine standing ovation.

One good speech does not a leader make. But it showed there was more to Parker than people had thought. And the public are a contrary mob.

Labour had an often inarticulate leader in David Shearer and a strong orator in David Cunliffe. And the public trusted in what the inarticulate one was saying more than the orator.

Parker's motivation is clear. He swallowed his ego and pulled out of the contest in 2011. That left him with unanswered questions and so he has now understandably given in to that ego.

As one MP said: "This is not about turns. You've got to be hungry for it."

Popcorn anyone?