Bloodletting seems assured within the Labour Party, following a rather extraordinary annual conference. The possibility of a leadership coup by David Cunliffe was obviously the big news of the conference - finally confirming what was only ever rumoured and discussed in the blogosphere. There should be no doubt now that things are going to get messier. In the short term Cunliffe and his supporters have the most to fear, going on Duncan Garner's analysis and sources - see Cunliffe backs off, demotion imminent. But in the longer-term the blood spilt could well be from 'Camp Shearer'.
Shearer is about to act against Cunliffe, and probably feels he has to if he is to have any chance of surviving after a conference that has been described by various political journalists as 'a catastrophe, 'a train wreck of a conference', and 'a disaster'. Letting this current standoff fester until February is not an option. Shearer's best chance of survival is to act quickly and strongly. He needs the equivalent of an internal Labour 'snap election', to be seen to put Cunliffe in his place and take away some of his power. The problem with punishing Cunliffe is that it will be seen by many members as punishing them, and as deeply unfair.
Despite Shearer's assertion that he will decide when his leadership gets put to the test, the reality is his options are limited. At the moment it appears that Cunliffe is tactically retreating - see James Henderson's post on The Standard - War and peace - which explains that the 'Mallard-led old guard' of the caucus 'thought they had found a procedural trick to embarrass Cunliffe' by bringing forward a leadership vote, but Cunliffe has simply sidestepped this by refusing 'to come out to be beaten up by them in a rigged game'. The latest on Cunliffe's stance can be seen in Kieran Campbell's Cunliffe backs Shearer as leadership crisis calms.
The best analysis, so far, is from Gordon Campbell who thinks the focus on the leadership struggle ignores more fundamental strategic issues for the party: 'It is all very well to talk about the need for unity, but a unity that merely wallpapers over the party's real divisions is simply a cosmetic job done for the benefit of the media, and it will not last. Either Labour has to choose to become a genuine party of the left again and contest the entire spectrum of centre left issues effectively with the Greens - or the party rank and file will need to fully and consciously embrace an MMP logic whereby a Shearer-led party positions itself deliberately in the fuzzy centre and willingly cedes the party's traditional ground to the Greens, with all of the patience and discipline that this will require. It can't do both things at once'. - see: On the Labour Party ructions.
It's also worth watching Patrick Gower's TV3 item about the conference and leadership issues - see: Shearer denies Labour leadership shakeup Shearer denies Labour leadership shakeup - 4-minute video. But does Gower go too far? Scott Yorke of Imperator Fish thinks so, and cleverly parodies him in A Day In The Life Of Patrick Gower. This raises the question of how well the media covered the conference, and Russell Brown covers this well in his post, Calling the race before it's over. And Martyn Bradbury also covered the conference wearing his 'media hat' and suggested some of the political journalists didn't really understand the party membership - see: Was Vernon Small at the same Labour Party Conference I was at?. Certainly the press gallery saw it as a disaster for both Labour and Shearer on Saturday - see Tracy Watkins' Angry vote damns Shearer and Vernon Small's Labour may have pushed Shearer off a cliff. John Armstrong says that the weekend's 'mayhem' showed an incredible divide and self-destructiveness within the party: 'Labour has not argued in such public fashion since the party's internal schism over Rogernomics in the late 1980s' - see: Labour has lessons for lemmings on self-destruction.