Someone leaked the Gould review to Patrick Gower. Could anything have been more safely predicted? Seriously, why keep these things under wraps? They invariably get out, and become far greater stories because the word "leaked" is attached.
The Gould Review was a carnival of navel gazing. A joke.
Media attention has focussed, predictably, on disunity blah blah. A complete sideshow. Cunliffe suffered no more caucus dissension than most other leaders in opposition, and significantly less than David Shearer who was shafted up hill and down dale. The bullshit about the Anyone But Cunliffe faction has never been properly refuted, ironically because its alleged members are too loyal to defend themselves. "Unity above all" is a catch-cry of the despotic. Anyway, I won't win that argument.
However, the leaked review contains a glistening turd, namely the proposed Vetting Committee for the Labour list. Here it is without embellishment:
This is an atrocious idea. Because of its first past the post voting rules, Labour's governing body is already a mono-factional behemouth incapable of promoting anyone but their own. Adding an additional committee made up of handpicked members, unelected and unaccountable to party members, to vet poential candidates is not only needlessly bureaucratic; it is flagrantly undemocratic.
Who would the NZ Council appoint to such a Vetting Committee other than people who agree with them? How does that solve anything? How does it not simply entrench the problem that the party elites are determined to shrink the talent pool to include only people they would be happy to invite around for dinner?
The solution to a lack of internal democracy is not to create an undemocratic entity that takes even more power away from party members.
In the pantheon of bad ideas, this one deserve high billing.