believe that Cunliffe, while being perhaps better/glossier, his fatal flaw is that he does not have the confidence of many of his peers. A party divided can never be successful. Shearer, I believe, will unite the party, Cunliffe, I fear will do the opposite. BE: Well, these are intelligent men and women. One would hope they would have the wit to get behind whomever is the most likely candidate to beat Key and win the next election, not to tear themselves apart with petty squabbling. I too started wavering after watching Q + A. Cunnliffe is sharper, no doubt about that, but is that always good. And what about Michelle Boag on The Panel saying Shearer would be a threat to Key, and others have said it. Do you think they are trying to get us to support him because they know he would not be the better choice? BE: Curiously enough, the thought occurred to me that Michelle might be playing a very clever game, endorsing Shearer. She wouldn't, would she? Would she? "And when you're making that choice you might like to consider this fact: above almost everything else, Kiwis like leaders who project strength. Kirk, Muldoon, Clark are prime examples. None of them was particularly 'nice'. Rowling, Lange and Goff were 'nice'. QED." Now Brian, are you suggesting Key projects strength? The general public opinion seems to be that Key is 'nice' 'friendly' 'smiley' and that its only his political enemies that refer to him as the