Did we really need a panel to tell us what went wrong for Labour in the election? Further, do we really need a panel that is putting that report out in three parts? And does the fact the Labour Party feels they need a report tell you really all you need to know about their ability to self-assess and see the flaming obvious and therefore that itself is a report on the state of the party.

Part one has come to the conclusion that the leader was an issue and that the slogan was a problem. The leader being an issue really is an issue because the issue was that David Cunliffe wasn’t supported by the caucus - Cunliffe won with support from the party base. But as was pointed out long and loud by many, you can’t have a leader if the people you work with day in day out don’t want you.

For all the goodness of the democratic process, it was never the party members or union members who have to battle a popular government, formulate policy, tramp the hustings or deal with the heat of the performance in the house. Having a leader without that caucus support was going to come back in some way, shape or form to bite them.

What’s the point of commissioning this report after you’ve voted a new leader in? What if the report came back with something that the new leader didn’t like or didn’t agree with or (indeed as is the case) the new leader has the same problem as the old leader. Remember Andrew Little didn’t win the caucus support. He got massive union support but lost in caucus badly to Grant Robertson. So on the very first point the panel makes as to why Labour lost the election, they’ve gone and repeated it.

So what do they do? Do they take the report seriously and Little quits? Or do they do what they’re going to do and ignore the report? That leads to the question - why have a report?

The second problem was the slogan – “Vote positive”. Personally I don’t think slogans make a jot of difference. They’re all as pointless as each other. “A better way”, “a brighter tomorrow”, “keeping them honest”. I can’t for the life of me believe that any of them genuinely swing a vote.

What’s so abhorrent about “vote positive” and where they did get into trouble was they didn’t follow their own advice. While telling us to “vote positive” they spent the better part of the campaign moaning. It was incongruous.

Here’s your reality, and I could have saved the party a fortune in fees and time. They were up against a good government and a great economy with a bad leader and a lot of ‘I told you’ so policies no one was buying.

The answer? Wait until the world is sick of Key and National and the economy has gone off the boil, find a Lange-like figure, stop telling people they’re wrong and you’re right, and you’ll be amazed by the results.