John Armstrong: Mischief making weird way to show love of Labour

Labour Party leader Phil Goff. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Phil Goff says he is finished with Chris Carter. Chris Carter is clearly not finished with him.

How else to interpret yesterday's leaking to some media of Carter's written testimony at Monday night's meeting of Labour's ruling council at which he failed to prevent his expulsion from the party.

If it wasn't leaked by Carter, it must have been leaked by an ally.

It is hard to see how Goff stood to benefit, given it states Carter had discussions with 17 other Labour MPs, who, like him, expressed some dissatisfaction with Goff's leadership.

Goff has angrily dismissed the suggestion there is some gang of 17 malcontents. But with impoverished poll ratings, Labour MPs would not be human if they were not talking about the leadership among themselves.

Such talk, however, would occur only on the tacit understanding it remained strictly confidential between the participants.

Not so in Carter's case. His reason for including it in his testimony was to demonstrate he was not alone in the caucus in questioning Labour's chances in next year's election with Goff at the helm. Such assertions are political dynamite. Once included in his testimony to the council, it would be much more difficult to track down who leaked it.

What other interpretation can be given to Carter's behaviour than attempts at a coup? But the more he opens his mouth, the more damage he is causing not just to Goff, but to the Labour Party as a whole.

Carter certainly has a funny way of displaying loyalty to an institution he professes to love.

The timing is hardly propitious. Carter's expulsion has occurred in the week before Labour's annual conference. Labour's intention is to carve out a clear difference between itself and National. But the increasing bitterness of the leadership's dispute with Carter threatens to overshadow proceedings.

As the Goff camp had been bracing itself for more trouble once Carter was expelled, this conjunction of events suggests bad planning rather than bad luck.

More worrying perhaps is what Carter might say during next year's election campaign.

Regardless, Goff's strategy for dealing with Carter is simply to have no dealings - the hope is that by not responding, Carter will be deprived of the oxygen he needs to sustain that attack.