A Little Goes A Long Way

Written By: - Date published: 2:22 pm, October 5th, 2014 - 241 comments
Categories: labour - Tags: ,

andrew littleNow that the final votes are in Andrew Little has been confirmed as a list MP. He has now said that he is considering his options around running for leader.

He would be a great choice. He’s left, he’s already identified some of the reasons for Labour’s disconnect with the voters, and he’s prepared to make the big calls. For example; no CGT, no rise in the super age.

As the former head of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, Little has shown he can connect with working people. He knows their issues and he knows the solutions. He is a proven leader and has a history of working with different factions to bring unity. During his time as EPMU National Secretary, he convinced the staunchly independent Miners’ union to join his organisation. The benefit of that amalgamation was quickly shown in the cruellest of circumstances; the greater resources of the EPMU made sure the voices of the 29 workers killed by corporate greed in the Pike River disaster echoed through the public enquiry. The miners put their trust in Little and they were not let down.

It’s fair to say that he’s only a list MP. Or that he’s only just starting his second term. But Andrew has the skills and abilities to rise above the carping. He has a sharp mind, terrific debating ability and goes into the leadership campaign free of sectarian baggage. And according to his facebook page he likes The Clash, the Smiths and Woody Guthrie. There’s three great reasons to vote for him right there!

The NZ Labour Party is hurting. We need to find a way to cut through and reconnect with the Kiwis who rejected us at the ballot box. More importantly, we need to give those who didn’t vote a compelling reason to take five minutes on a Saturday morning three years from now to change our country’s direction.

In the ballot, Little will get some support from the membership. Maybe not as much as Cunliffe, but likely more than Robertson. He will get the tick from the affiliates. And, in caucus, he will get the votes of those not closely aligned with the other candidates. And possibly the ABCers if they tactically vote to keep DC out.

If he runs, I believe he will win. A fresh start, a fresh face. A Little may go a long way.

 

Te Reo Putake

(Disclaimer: I’ve known Andrew for ten years. I’ve worked with him on occasions and on the other side of the table from him on other occasions.)

241 comments on “A Little Goes A Long Way”

  1. lprent 1

    😈

    For those interested this would have been called “A panegyric for Andrew Little”, but TRP provided his own title.

    I added the Webb caricature of Andrew Little

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1

      Didascaliae are a compilation of production notices for several stage works of ancient Rome.
      The Standards Didascaliae, that was the phrase I was looking for !

    • Big red fire truck 1.2

      Whale Oil thinks otherwise: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/10/really-labours-next-prime-minister/#more-157814

      Is this an issue, he losing New Plymouth badly, worse the second time? I am sorry for sounding disloyal but the elephant in the room has to ask! If he got Nashy as his deputy, he could teach him how to win~!

      • Ron 1.2.1

        The chances of Nash ever winning Leadership must be just about zero unless you were suggesting he join National or Conservative party.
        While Little may well be a lifesaver for Labour I would still prefer Twyford but for some reason he has not so far given an indication that he would enter contest.

  2. weka 2

    “He’s left”

    Any chance you could be a bit more specific?

    What’s his position on welfare?

    What will he do about the left/right divide within caucus?

    Is he in favour of increasing membership power within the party?

    • blue leopard 2.1

      @ Weka,

      Having watched parliament channel, I have learned a lot about left-wing principles through Little’s speeches. So much so, that I was a tad surprised that all the panelists on Q&A , including Michelle Boag, were being so positive about him.

      Being rather cynical about any support shown toward left-wing members by a righty, I hope someone who knows more will respond to your question because I thought there must be some [awful] reason why Boag was being so supportive!

      • Chooky 2.1.1

        +100…the Boagey’s kiss of death

      • Cancerman 2.1.2

        Because even though he is Left he is competent and wouldn’t embarrass the country like Cunliffe would if he was Prime Minister. With some of the stories around the traps of Cunliffe you wonder if he is Aspergers. Supposedly very smart but socially retarded.

        • Saarbo 2.1.2.1

          “stories around the traps”…

          No one in parliament has had to face so many lies and rumours about himself, and as was revealed in some tweets last week…all fuelled by “jealousy’. If you have any facts then bring them up, otherwise stfu.

          • Rodel 2.1.2.1.1

            yeah What a fool comment from Cm. Hey, look at me. I’ve learnt a big new word…Asp…….something.Not even Trollitics 101.

        • Granted 2.1.2.2

          Interesting….He strikes me as a capable leader for Labour yet I am not convinced at the PM level….

          Time will tell…or maybe not

      • lurgee 2.1.3

        I thought there must be some [awful] reason why Boag was being so supportive!

        Maybe she’s doing it deliberately to turn leftists against candidates the right fears?

      • Tracey 2.1.4

        boag would be excited cos she knows the right are excited by their file of anti union, commie smears

    • Murray Olsen 2.2

      What’s his position on The Nissan Way, negotiated between the Engineers’ Union and Nissan, with union officials basically selling a worsening of work conditions to their members? I believe Peter Denny was very enthusiastic.

      What is his position on unions collaborating with employers to get rid of militants and even providing a blacklist, as the Engineers’ Union was doing in Auckland in the 1980s?

      • Te Reo Putake 2.2.1

        Murray, I imagine his position on both issues is that as he wasn’t around at the time it’s nothing to do with him. However, as EPMU Nat Sec in more recent times, he certainly did set a higher standard. For example, he pushed for the Kingsgate accord which ended the pointless cannibalisation of union members via membership raids and demarcation disputes.

        I think it could be accurately said of him that he both modernised the EPMU and took it to the left. Certainly, under his watch, the EPMU were far more militant. To give an example of a dispute you’re familiar with, the Progressive supermarket blue in 2006 was fought side by side to the end by the EPMU and the NDU. The old Engineers Union attitude would probably have been to stab the NDU in the back and cut a weak deal once the pressure came on. And then raid the NDU’s membership with employer support.

        Nah, his cap’s cut from a different cloth altogether.

        • Tiger Mountain 2.2.1.1

          The Voice is probably right regarding Andrew Little. NWay was important in its time and place and there is residual support for what the “gingerbeers” did at Nissan amongst old EPMU folks with institutional memory–“Us against the maddies”–just as other unionists still see it as the ultimate sell out to enable “company unions”.

          Nissan Way turned out to be what its most trenchant critics such as me predicted–a micro economic labour control/union busting system. The then Engineers Union were part of the introduction in an underhand way but would soon have been discarded if the ongoing battles with Nissan in the United States are anything to go on.

          When the import substitution regime was removed by Rogernomics and following National govt the car industry was a goner notwithstanding teamworking etc. Fisher and Paykell buggered off to Thailand and Mexico too after instituting a virtually uncontested version of Nissan Way.

          In todays dependent contracting, agency, internship and precarious work environment such devices are barely necessary.

          • Te Reo Putake 2.2.1.1.1

            Your last point is right on the money, TM. No need to co-opt the union if the workforce is atomised, under the thumb and scared about where the next pay cheque is coming from. I would hope Little would be keen to start challenging the neo-liberal consensus in practical ways, starting with strengthening collective bargaining. From there, we might be able to rekindle the flame of working class solidarity. And from there, we might be able to rebuild our society around need not greed.

  3. TheContrarian 3

    Little was on Q+A this morning – I thought he spoke very well and could well make a good run for it.

  4. blue leopard 4

    On a light note, the Labour leadership issue is increasingly reminding me of this book:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_My_Mother%3F

    I hope that it sorts out as well as it did in the book!

  5. Tamati 5

    Good to see him looking to axe the CGT and retirement age. Labour needs to categorically rule those out in a first term, then use to public service to set out a comprehensive CGT policy and take it to the 2020 election.

    • Hanswurst 5.1

      No. Labour should not drop CGT, unless it comes up with something else that would be at least as effective in tempering the attractiveness of property speculation in the medium-to long term. It’s good policy and it took a long time to get it even as far into the main-stream as it is with Labour now (Jim Anderton had been talking about it for years). If Labour resiles from it now, it will be explnentially harder to bring it back at a later date. Voters, now relatively used to the idea of “vote left, get a CGT”, will not see it as a huge stumbling block – and I’m not really convinced that they did at the 2014 election either. If the left bloc can promote itself successfully to the electorate as a unit, it will not be CGT that costs them the government benches.

      • lurgee 5.1.1

        More people support a capital gains tax than oppose it.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11282563

        The policy is not the problem.

        • Tamati 5.1.1.1

          Polls like this oversimplify voter decisions and behavior. People are more likely to get out vote against at tax, than be motivated to vote for one. i.e. Those opposed to the CGT may swing their vote, those who support it will probably vote on other issues.

          • Saarbo 5.1.1.1.1

            Re CGT, how people look at it in 2017 will depend what happens to the property market between now and 2017. If it continues to increase at the current rate then people will be much more accepting of it, however if we have a property crash, then…

            • Rob 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Yes , because CGT corrected other over heated property markets such as Sydney , yeah rite.

              CGT does not limit the inflation issues in housing that you are supposedly trying to solve. It does collect more tax, which is paid for by the owners who when owning rental property often pass it on to the renters.

              I think people need to grow up on the supposed benefits of this tax in regards to placing a hand brake on property values. It does not do that.

        • Hanswurst 5.1.1.2

          Yeah, I read that. I just think that the issues surrounding CGT specifically at this election may have been more complex than that. Firstly, there can always be vagaries like, “I personally support a CGT, but, being of the impression that the wider electorate doesn’t, I won’t vote for the Labour party”, or “In theory I like the idea, but John Key muttered some stuff last night about capital flight, so I’m uneasy about the real consequences”. Secondly, while CGT would appear to be seen favourably on its own, it fit neatly into John Key’s cheap and inaccurate “five new taxes” screeching.

          Basically, apolicy which is not a problem in itself can appear to become one if seen as the flagship policy of a party that is down in the polls, or if it is attacked by a prime minister whom the electorate is disposed towards trusting.

      • Tamati 5.1.2

        The issue is, not that a CGT is wrong, but their current policy is confusing and has too many grey areas left up to an “expert panel”. Far better would be to rule it out in a first term, then use the resources of the public service to formulate a policy and take it to the 2020 election. It’s far easier for a government to implement a new tax, especially once they’ve proven themselves capable of handling the economy. The GCT is a long term policy, so delaying by a year or two won’t make much difference.

        • Hanswurst 5.1.2.1

          The issue is, not that a CGT is wrong, but their current policy is confusing and has too many grey areas left up to an “expert panel”.

          No, that isn’t the issue. The passing of law generally involves readjustment of that kind in any case as it goes through parliament and select committee stages. National’s tax-cut announcement and housing policy had at least as many questions open (probably more), and yet they were not subjected to the same slaughter attempts in the media.

          Far better would be to rule it out in a first term, then use the resources of the public service to formulate a policy and take it to the 2020 election.

          Nice theory, but historically it hasn’t worked like that. Labour had a reputation as sound economic managers after the election in 2002, but the “fart tax” frenzy whipped up by Federated Farmers and the National Party put paid to its initial attempts to curb CO2 emissions in NZ.

          • Rodel 5.1.2.1.1

            The really sad thing about that is that they successfully branded it as ‘fart’ tax . Farting cows was a lie. Cows belching is the problem but kiwis got sucked in to believing the right wing lies yet again…sigh!

          • Scott1 5.1.2.1.2

            Maybe Labour was too detailed.

            ‘Yes we will put in a capital gains tax, no we won’t tell you the exact details because we don’t want you to rush out and form trusts designed to dodge he tax.’ (or something along those lines).

    • Tracey 5.2

      cgt wasnt as unpopular as the nats made out, in fact it polled pretty well.

  6. whateva next? 6

    Believing that stability I support Cunliffe, but unity is part of stability, and if Cunliffe simply does not have support within the party, we will continue to be divided and ruled.If Little can bring unity within and across the party, surely we have to look at the bigger picture, and stop this tribalism, that the right have successfully engineered, or amplified?

    • weka 6.1

      What happens if unity is not possible (no matter who is leader)?

      • whateva next? 6.1.1

        As a Labour supporter, this statement is just not part of my thinking!

        • weka 6.1.1.1

          If you can’t be honest about a serious problem it becomes next to impossible to change .

          • whateva next? 6.1.1.1.1

            Not supporting avoidance of a problem (far from it) , but believe that unity is essential and always possible, if Labour want to be in government.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1

              hmm, that’s faith based politics. It doesn’t matter what you or I believe if reality differs. It’s a possibility that unity isn’t possible within the current caucus. Why is that so hard to look at?

              • whateva next?

                I think that Little could actually unite caucus, and stop tribalism that ……etc

                • weka

                  I don’t (I think that until Labour makes a decision about whether it is a left wing party or a neoliberal one, there will never be unity). But that’s by the by. What you or I believe is irrelevant in the face of what is real. I’m saying it’s possible that unity isn’t achievable by this caucus, so if that is true, what next?

                  • lurgee

                    I think the likelihood of victory would do wonders for caucus unity. I don’t think either team LIKES being on the opposition benches.

                    It doesn’t pay as well as being in cabinet, you see.

                    Get Labour above 35% CONSISTENTLY and you’ll see a very loyal team indeed.

                    (They won’t start scheming again until they are safely in power. Probably.)

                    • weka

                      so fake unity then.

                    • Scott1

                      Faking it until you make it is demonstrably a valid strategy.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      National doesn’t.

                      The difference is that when Bill English openly disagrees with the lying corrupt Prime Minister in the middle of an election campaign the media doesn’t react the same way to the smell of blood in the water.

                    • weka

                      Of course but faking it until you realise it’s not possible also happens. Why is it so hard to consider that the Labour caucus might not be capable of being unified?

                • Foreign waka

                  Tribalism is the domain of the National Party. The play on and with it. Labor on the other hand likes to be seen as academic but really should be more middle of the road. Only 13% of NZ adults have a bachelors or higher degree and 22% have no formal education (2014). The latter is very worrying. And no one is speaking for them, that is the real issue.

                  • Hanswurst

                    It’s a tragedy that we should feel that those with comparatively little formal education can’t be ably represented by those with degrees. The biggest problem in that narrow respect is the lack of respect shown by the highly educated for those of relatively little education, and vice versa.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      It’s a tragedy that we should feel that those with comparatively little formal education can’t be ably represented by those with degrees.

                      Nah that’s not the tragedy.

                      The tragedy is we think it normal that the smaller, more privileged, more highly educated group should consistently be the ones to represent the larger, less privileged, less educated group. Put another way. People who are qualified aren’t necessarily smart. And vice versa.

                      Look at MJ Savage or Norman Kirk. The days of that Labour are long gone, with too many ambitious pol sci grads in their place.

                    • Hanswurst

                      Ah yes. The “vice versa” was supposed to apply to both parts of my statement. Whoever is doing the representing will be able to draw on the advice they choose to take anyway, so whom they represent is more to do with their background and philosophy than how they gained their qualifications.

                  • Murray Olsen

                    What do you mean by “no formal education”? Primary school provides formal education.

                    • Scott1

                      Just because a lawyer doesn’t “necessarily” know more about the law than you and are a small elite group, doesn’t mean you should refuse to use lawyers if someone takes you to court.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      “comparatively little” ≠ “no”

                      Read it again Murray 🙂

                  • Murray Olsen

                    No reply button for OAB, but the person I was replying to said
                    “Only 13% of NZ adults have a bachelors or higher degree and 22% have no formal education (2014).”

                    What did I miss that I need to read it again?

                • Tracey

                  how will he do that?

    • Aaron 6.2

      Surely if he’s too far left, the ABCs will just become the ABLs?

      Or am I attributing too much rationality to the ABCs? Maybe they’ll swing in behind Little in order to get rid of Cunliffe only to discover they’ve supported a genuine lefty by mistake?

      • whateva next? 6.2.1

        who says he is too far left? bound to be anti-Little comments coming strong and fast, but supporting unions is not “too far left” necessarily, unions will be needed more than ever with a “too far right” government we have now.

        • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1

          The Robertson camp is not going to tolerate someone else being Leader of the Labour Party for very long, Cunliffe or Little, no matter how much the members and affiliates support them.

          • lurgee 6.2.1.1.1

            I’ve always viewed modern trade union types as being on the right of the left. Practical people, used to dealing with business leaders and making compromises. The decline of trade unionism and the rise of the professional politician are the twin plagues of the left.

        • Scott1 6.2.1.2

          regardless of exactly where we place him on the left/right scale –
          I think Labour already has the union vote. It needs to pick up other votes. I probably need to see more of Andrew Little to know if he could do that.

        • Tracey 6.2.1.3

          if you think the national machine havent got the union = hard left/commie strategy ready to go…

          the next leader of the LP, imo, needs to be clear to the membership and caucus about exactly HOW they will counter tge inevitable barrage of smear and lies that will rain down on them from the national act machinery… otherwise they too will die in the water of good intent.

      • Cancerman 6.2.2

        I think you’ll find that although the ABC are the “right” of the party they have been there in a time when Cunliffe was also the “right”. They don’t like his personality.

  7. Clean_power 7

    Mr Little should ponder his options and take the deputy position after Grant Robertson, the next Labour Party leader

    • quartz 7.1

      Your previous comments have called for Cunliffe to pull out of the race and now you want Little not to enter? Why are you so worried about a democratic contest?

      • Clean_power 7.1.1

        No, I’m not worried.

        Considering the current state of affairs in the Labour Party, it is only fair to ask for a stable leader. Mr Cunliffe is a divisive and polarizing figure, and should be ruled out. Mr Little’s time will come in a few years, not now. Mr Robertson must be the next leader.

        • quartz 7.1.1.1

          If the ideal result is this clear then why don’t you trust the democratic process to deliver it?

          • Clean_power 7.1.1.1.1

            I trust the process, believe me. I am quite confident Grant Robertson will win the leadership challenge. Guaranteed.

            • quartz 7.1.1.1.1.1

              If you say so. I’m not fussed either way. I guess we’ll find out in a few weeks.

            • Karen 7.1.1.1.1.2

              I notice you have only been posting since Grant Robertson declared his leadership ambitions – another of Grant’s acolytes?

              • fender

                “Clean_power” has been around for longer than that, but has never had anything favourable to say about Cunliffe

                At least Clean_power is consistant

                • Clean_power

                  You are right. Mr Cunliffe is a divisive figure who should step aside. If he doesn’t do that then the votes will be against him. It is only a matter of time.

                  Mark my words: Grant Robertson will be the next Labour Party leader. No ifs or buts.

                  • fender

                    The divisive label applies to yourself more than DC.

                    Your “mark my words”, “no ifs or buts” is an unpleasant reminder of our PM, please desist..

                  • Clemgeopin

                    Sadly, it is actually people like you that are divisive and damagers of Labour. You and the ABCers seem to be too thick to even understand that.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Clean Power is another motivated-by-hate National Party representative.

                    • Clean_power

                      I am neither a Nat nor an ABCer, but is patently obvious David Cunliffe’s dismal failure at the election requires a new leader, a less polarising leader. That’s why the party will choose Grant Robertson.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      😆

                      What you are is manifest in your effluent in this forum: moderated for homophobia, Taliban and Green in the same sentence, openly hostile to the Left, dishonest, bad faith, embodiment of ill intentions.

                      All your comments put together amount to nothing more than a weasel, hence, representative of the National Party

                    • Clemgeopin

                      @One Anonymous Bloke

                      What you are is manifest in your effluent in this forum: moderated for homophobia, Taliban and Green in the same sentence, openly hostile to the Left, dishonest, bad faith, embodiment of ill intentions.
                      All your comments put together amount to nothing more than a weasel, hence, representative of the National Party

                      No, that is definitely not I ! Did you address it to me by mistake?

                    • thatguynz

                      “David Cunliffe’s dismal failure at the election” – there’s your problem right there Clean_Power.. David Cunliffe didn’t lose Labour the election. Labour did. To conflate the two notions is disingenuous at best.

                  • Tracey

                    what is mr robertsons plan to counter the barrage from the nats smear and lie machinery?

          • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1.1.1.2

            Thats the nationals partys approach, back room deals to cover the guided democracy they practice.

            • Richard 7.1.1.1.2.1

              @cleanpower.

              Don’t like your post. Very cocky statement as the labour party member I am, your making out my vote for either DC or Little won’t matter, like you have inside information. Or have rigged it for grant.

              Clarify your meaning and be bloody clear about it.

              No one has that much certainty , and no one garentee’s anyone a win in a democratic election. My heads hot and I’ve gone red.

            • Rodel 7.1.1.1.2.2

              CP yeah! yeah! we heard you the first time.

        • Foreign waka 7.1.1.2

          I am not sure whether he is the right person. A carrier politician who never had real contact with the NZ working people. He is far removed from the reality of the average person and albeit having a nice portfolio did so far only convince that he is a “player” and good in office politics. We need someone who actually can formulate some idea what Labors vision for NZ is. Mr Robertson does not qualify in my opinion.

        • ClaretRed 7.1.1.3

          Oh bollocks CleanPower. Just give the man a break for god’s sake. No-one has yet been able to explain to me why DC is so “polarising” as you claim, they just keep repeating it in the hope it will catch on.

          God forbid that we have someone who is articulate, intelligent, compassionate, business-minded AND left-wing as leader of the Labour Party.

          Just keep Cunliffe for god’s sake, there were many other reasons why Labour lost.

          The more that right-wingers like Boag and John Armstrong and Gower and Garner and Sullivan go on about how much they hate him, the more I’m convinced we should keep him.

  8. I agree with him becoming the Labour leader 100%.

    I would hope he would pick his own deputy as he see’s fit and then during the next three years goes about persuading some of the old guard it is time to move on.
    They are next to useless and only there to increase their superannuation payments.
    Time to bring in some new blood into caucus.

  9. anker 9

    I saw Little interviewed for the Nation on the streets of ?New Plymouth, while it was raining.

    He didn’t seem dynamic or charismatic, but what I liked about him was he didn’t seem like a politician and it was about the party, not about him.

    Out of all of the Labour caucus, he has said the most insightful things to date about why Labour feared so badly and he avoided any hint of negativity towards DC.

    I do wonder though why is it that people like Boeg are supporting him??? Why do they seem to hate DC with a passion???? I think it has all be so undignified. The Labour leader was supposed to be able to stand up to JK in the debates, this seemed to be the crucial criteria as to who should lead Labour. Well that’s what DC did well with that. I doubt GR will be able to (remember interview with Stephen Joyce on the Nation) and I am very unsure of Little in this regards. If DC had not been so vilified and seem to have people like him more, I wouldn’t hesitate about him continuing. Of course the reason people don’t like him is that he has been so vilified.

    I also want to put my point across about David P again. IMO it is almost unforgivable that he let the public know he had no confidence in DC. DC may well be leader again and he has contributed to spoiling the brand. Shameful.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1

      David Parker was deputy to David Cunliffe. And his comments on DC”s leadership were appalling and unnecessary. Parker, as much as anyone else on the front bench, contributed to Labour’s failures in 2014.

      • Richard 9.1.1

        +100

        Bang on CV.

        • Kiwiri 9.1.1.1

          +1

          • Rodel 9.1.1.1.1

            Yep. There’s still a place for old fashioned concept of loyalty.. in sport…work..
            corporations…relationships….even politics. Parker’ appalling gaffe has turned me off him.. similar to wot’s that goof who stood against Gerry Brownlee?- so forgettable..Oh yeah Dann the man (not).

      • TheContrarian 9.1.2

        It appears that the ABCers have two distinct wings.

        The “Anyone But Cunliffe for leader” camp and the “Anyone but Cunliffe to blame for the loss” camp.

      • phillip ure 9.1.3

        @ c.v..

        “..Parker, as much as anyone else on the front bench, contributed to Labour’s failures in 2014..”

        + 1..

    • Saarbo 9.2

      @anker
      Agree 100%

      Parker’s intemperate comments were way out of line. Parker’s policy of increasing the eligibility of super must be in the top 5 reasons why Labour only got 25% in the election.

      • Scott1 9.2.1

        maybe Labour lost votes to NZfirst on this issue?

        Seems the worst part of this debate is that the commitment comes now but the saving are way out in the future. To sell it you need to have some way to promise future benefits and spending out 10 or 20 years in the future.

  10. Bill 10

    As I’ve commented often enough of late, my bugbear with Cunliffe is that he has been utterly lacking when it has come to ‘dealing to’ destabilising currents within the LP.

    In his first interview after announcing he would be running (Campbell Live) he, yet again, and in a seeming inability to develop strategy and learn from mistakes, stated he’d be happy to have his opposition (Robertson this time) as deputy.

    I mean, that idea of keeping your enemies close worked out really well over the past year, right?

    Anyway. If Andrew Little has the wherewithal to stamp his authority on caucus (something Cunliffe seems incapable of doing), then he should stand.

    I guess whether Cunliffe steps aside at that point would be seen as neither here nor there by some, given the preferential voting system in place. However, I’d rather see him step aside and endorse Little.

    And then I’d like to see Little stomp where Cunliffe has pussyfooted and essentially read the riot act to the wannabes and has beens with every intention of translating his displeasure at them into action raining down on them.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      I find it amazing that Cunliffe, after all this time, has not understood the measure of the ABCs and of Robertson.

      But can Little make any difference at all, as leader if he gets it? I honestly cannot see Grant Robertson or his supporters being satisfied with Little at the top. Which means that even if Little gets in, it will be a 2017 loss and Grant stepping forward again to put himself up.

      • BM 10.1.1

        Cunliffe lives in his own world, which is why he makes so many dumb comments.

        The guy is a background support player, not a leader.

        • Richard 10.1.1.1

          @ BM ..What? , did you see Backbenchers, Mallard in the crowd as Grants support. Mallard and the Moa middle election. Parker rubbishing Cunliffe for doing a bad job. But parker formed most policies Cunliffe had to sell

          perhaps THEY sabotaged labours chances. Perhaps they are looking like right wingers who infiltrated labour to bring it down.

          Just saying

          • BM 10.1.1.1.1

            No I didn’t..

            Any way, facts are, Cunliffe doesn’t work well with others, hence the less than flattering comments about the man.

            Cunliffe, not labours future.

            • Richard 10.1.1.1.1.1

              Don’t believe the hype. PLUS everyone loathed Patton he was a winner. Same with Monty, stuck up arrogant, was a winner.

              Fact is the hard to get on with usually are the best because they make the hard calls that may hurt their friends but are the right calls.

              Winston Churchill wasn’t liked he in the first world war he was an idiot he wiped out a whole army almost in one battle he commanded WW1, he grew into a fine leader in ww2 but still he wasn’t liked.(as in voted straight out after winning war.)

              Labour are in war mode until we regain the helm from the nazi nats, and we damn well need a war time type leader to do it. IMHO .

              Problem with DC’s leadership is he needs the power to dismiss the factions against him who are sabotaging the war effort.

            • Scott1 10.1.1.1.1.2

              But Cunliffe’s caucus was bit like Obama trying to work with the republicans in congress. Once the ABC was created – the only acceptable position from him would have been total capitulation.

              At that point I don’t think saying he lacks in a skill is particularly relevant – it is just whether you get rid of him for pragmatic reasons or if you flip the bird to Robertson and co.

          • lurgee 10.1.1.1.2

            Mallard and the Moa middle election

            It was three months before the election.

            perhaps THEY sabotaged labours chances. Perhaps they are looking like right wingers who infiltrated labour to bring it down.

            Or maybe David Cunliffe was.

            Oh, and Monty was not a successful general. He got lucky, in Africa, because the other side were exhausted and out of supply. But in France, he constantly blundered and his only effective contribution was to tie up some Panzer divisions while the Americans did the heavy work.

            • Richard 10.1.1.1.2.1

              “It was three months before the election.”

              The election started what 3-4 months ago, ok, start of the election, I don’t count the 8 weeks? they are officially allowed more when the press starts focusing more on it and that to me was 6 months ago ish..

              Splitting hairs comes to mind.

              “Or maybe David Cunliffe was.”

              Um Yeah nah, my bad, I sometimes forget the /sarc tag. Sorry mate.

              “Oh, and Monty was not a successful general. He got lucky, in Africa, because the other side were exhausted and out of supply. But in France, he constantly blundered and his only effective contribution was to tie up some Panzer divisions while the Americans did the heavy work.”

              You are mostly right, however, I would like to dispute lucky, and extend the card of he drew Rommel out and extended his supply lines until he was vulnerable, then took the task too him. I thought he did well with a demoralized and beaten army, to rally them into a winning force. They had been thrashed when he turned up. IMHO

              as for Europe well he was battling bigger ego’s he didn’t have a chance.

            • Murray Olsen 10.1.1.1.2.2

              Monty was a meticulous planner who wanted as many as possible of his men to stay alive. This doesn’t suit Hollywood as much as a prima donna with pearl handled pistols who slapped around soldiers who had been pushed past their limits. The British did plenty in Europe post D-Day, even though they were exhausted and running out of manpower. In any case, the real heavy lifting was being done in the East, by the Red Army.

              To stay on topic: if I wanted an ex-union bureaucrat leading Labour, I would at least want one who had come from the shop floor, rather than one who saw it as a nice career while they were at university.

      • weka 10.1.2

        @ CV. Right, so what does that tell us? That the caucus can’t be left to its own devices (or trusted by the sounds of things). What’s the membership up to?

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1

          I think Cunliffe needs to campaign for the leadership primary on a platform of democratising the party further.

          This will ensure that any caucus member can be held to account if they add to the disarray, disunity and destructive individual ambition that caucus has so far demonstrated.

          I cannot speak for the Labour Party membership in general, but down here in Dunedin South, the party machinery is working hard to build up grassroots membership and activity after the election, regardless of the distractions of the Wellington focussed scrum.

      • Bill 10.1.3

        ‘Understanding’ the measure of someone/thing and dealing with or to them are different things. And Cunliffe has (sadly) shown an inability to act decisively and deal with shit.

        I have no reason to believe Little is cut from that same cloth.

        And neither Robertson, his supporters, nor anyone else within caucus needs to be ‘satisfied’ with Little as leader…they just need to be banged into place by him.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.3.1

          Yep and you have seen how this can and should be done Bill. Labour Party members need a Leader of the party willing to assert authority when the situation demands it. Cunliffe was given an overwhelming mandate from the members and affiliates last year to do just that. And I think Cunliffe has it in him – but he has tried and failed to play the role of peacemaker with types who have no interest in giving him peace.

          • Bill 10.1.3.1.1

            yup. He tried and failed to ‘win the peace’ using precisely the wrong strategy. And I said it at the time when he became leader and I said it again and again in the ensuing months. But okay – shit happens. Now here’s the thing. When he sits on Campbell and says Robertson could be his deputy, he’s demonstrating an inability to learn and develop new strategy off the back of past errors.

            So here am I, a member, faced with giving my vote to a guy who seems to be sincere in his left wing beliefs, but who has no idea how to get them in place, or of how to neutralise an antagonistic caucus, versus giving my vote to a guy whose political approach makes my skin crawl.

            If Little stands, my choice becomes a lot less painful. It’s not that I think Little is the be all and end all – far from it. But at least those that are in dire need of a serve will probably be on the receiving end of one.

            Then we can worry over Little’s inevitable inadequacies.

            And just an afterthought. Wouldn’t it be nice if he gave the various schoolyard tactics of so many journalists short, sharp and very public thrift and demanded of them in no uncertain terms that they begin to learn to behave and conduct themselves like actual journalists? (NZ would fcking cheer!) Now, I know I might be dreaming on that last point, but I’m sick and tired of watching politicians try to engage with these puerile fucks on their own level. Time to kick the ba’ onto the slates.

            • weka 10.1.3.1.1.1

              So how far left is Little?

              • Bill

                You’re asking how ‘left’ the EPMUs former secretary is; the same secretary who made the EPMU one of the more effective unions in NZ during his time there?

                Hmm. He’s nowhere near as left as me. But he’s ‘left’.

                • weka

                  Yes, I am asking how left the EPMU’s former secretary is, not least because many of us don’t have much to do with unions so won’t know what that means.

                  More left than Cunliffe, or less?

                  • Bill

                    Left enough and, more importantly, capable enough would be my take. More or less left than Cunliffe? I neither know nor care. It’s the delivery of left leaning policy that interests me – and that’s absolutely contingent on whoever is leader having the ability to stamp their authority on elements of that caucus and be clear that they will brook no nonsense.

                    • Tracey

                      bill

                      isnt their ability to repel the inevitable two track machinery of nats and act crucial.

                      i havent read any actual strategies for dealing with this.

                  • Keir Leslie

                    Almost certainly more left than Cunliffe when Cunliffe was into PFI schemes for hospitals, almost certainly less left than Cunliffe when Cunliffe was preparing to die under the red flag in the leadership election. Whether or not he’ll be more or less left than a future Cunliffe who’s trying to move to the centre? Who knows, I don’t think anyone can predict where Cunliffe’s ideological trajectory will head after this.

                    He’s no more left than Grant Robertson, and probably will draw support from a more right-wing base within the party than Grant does. (Stuart Nash, for instance.)

                    • Not a PS Staffer

                      Robertson is neither left nor right. That is what pisses the members off so much. I’ve seen him make entertaining speeches which, when alaysed, say very little. Robertson will do whatever it takes to have a big desk in the Parliamentary complex, preferably in the Beehive.

                    • Keir Leslie

                      Actually I don’t think that’s true. As someone who’s sat on Policy Council meetings with Grant when Labour’s Platform was being put together, Grant has solid left wing values, and stood up for the membership’s right to be heard and involved in that process, while still being a respectful chair and a loyal deputy leader.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Grant has solid left wing values, and stood up for the membership’s right to be heard and involved in that process, while still being a respectful chair and a loyal deputy leader.

                      I’m sure that is the case. However, a large number of notable MPs voted against the inclusive, democratic leadership selection process that the NZLP now uses. Grant Robertson was one of them.

                      [lprent: Offhand I can’t think of anyway to prove this one way or another unless you were watching him in the 2012 conference. There are no records of the hand or card votes there down to branches or people. If you want to assert that, then you should also say how you know otherwise I will satrt getting finicky. KL below is completely correct in their objection. ]

                    • Keir Leslie

                      That is a bare faced lie. Robertson voted for, organised for, fought for, helped win us the inclusive, democratic process we use now.

                      I don’t know how or if he voted on Cunliffe’s divisive and self-interested attempt to make it easier to roll a leader chosen by that inclusive and democratic process by giving a minority in caucus the ability to depose them. That was a different fight, and one the membership at conference was pretty closely divided on.

                      But Robertson was a staunch driver of the party democratisation process, while making sure that the leader of the party wasn’t undermined.

                    • Roztoz

                      I was next to GR at that vote. He voted for democratisation.

                      And that was only after a year of pushing the changes through caucus and keeping NZ Council and caucus talking on it.

                      As KL says, the Cunliffe amendment that gave 40% of caucus the right to topple a leader was a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

                      CV please don’t let your conception of Grant and others in caucus cloud your memory of that conference and what sides people have been on.

  11. Hami Shearlie 11

    Andrew Little is a very dour dry kind of personality , wooden-faced with no charm and no seat either – so I can’t see him having the voters warming to him – he would be better than Robertson, but not in Cunliffe’s league!

    • fender 11.1

      “..he would be better than Robertson, but not in Cunliffe’s league!”

      +1

    • Tangled_up 11.2

      I agree he’s not on Cunliffe’s level; but better than Robertson.

      However, with his history he could compete in the affiliated unions vote which could affect Cunliffe’s chances.

    • wyndham 11.3

      Sorry and no disrespect but Andrew Little just does not have IT.

      Don’t ask me to define IT. It just is . Kirk had it. Lange had it. Key (unfortunately) has it. It is the indefinable quality that appeals to the wider population and means votes; lots of them.

      • left for dead 11.3.1

        Very poor examples,sadly Kirk died.Helen Clark did not have it,look where that got her.

        • Chooky 11.3.1.1

          “Helen Clark did not have it,look where that got her”

          ……winning three Elections for Labour not enough for the misogynists?

          • Scott1 11.3.1.1.1

            If by “it” we mean the ability to win elections based on the leader – Helen Clark had “it”. Far better than any current labour candidates anyway. It is nonsense to say she didn’t.

          • left for dead 11.3.1.1.2

            Thats my point,with the right people around her,she exalted (hope thats the proper spelling)one of our best,yes had faults though,don’t we all.

      • Tracey 11.3.2

        key was taught it. so who is going to teach the next lp leader AND Key has it cos of the two track strategy.

        didnt little have his own policy stumble during the election

    • Colonial Viper 11.4

      IMO Cunliffe is sharper on his feet, far more experienced and has that x factor in person which gets supporters and members very excited. Cunliffe has also been put through the Dirty Politics wringer already, and come out the other side. And any new contender would be starting from scratch on that front.

      Andrew Little is no doubt capable – but it’s very early in his parliamentary career to take a run up and as we saw a premature tilt did Shearer’s long term political career no good.

      • Granted 11.4.1

        His popularity in the polls would suggest that Cunliffe does not get people excited. Even his electorate results confirm this?

      • Tracey 11.4.2

        exactly. what he has learned in a year can only be learned through experience… labour is going to waste it again…

        goff… shearer…cunliffe…

      • Westiechick 11.4.3

        Agree. I think he lacks political experience as does the other guy. He and Mallard acted like complete muppets when Collins was suing them for defamation.

  12. MrV 12

    Andrew Littles own Mum wouldn’t vote for him, so colour me skeptical.

    • weka 12.1

      what?

      • Te Reo Putake 12.1.1

        Andrew’s Mum has been a National Party member for decades and when he first ran in New Plymouth she said she was conflicted about which way to go. She also said her loyalty was to her son, so unless MrV was in the polling booth on election day 2011 and watched Mrs Little vote, he’s full of what taranaki bulls leave behind them on the paddock.

        • weka 12.1.1.1

          ta

        • Richard 12.1.1.2

          If labours flag was purple (maybe blues her fav colour)would that have helped littles mum?

          I doubt anyone can persuade a national party fan to switch teams. Families can be the worst. Not even if it’s because of the colours.

          I have an English mum. I’m a kiwi. In rugby the shit hits the fan when the poms play the AB’s it’s tense , very bloody tense.

        • Chooky 12.1.1.3

          lol

    • left for dead 12.2

      Can you expand that a Little,deadly serious/sarq

  13. Tommy 13

    Interesting moves from Andrew.

    He’s long been clear about his desire to lead the party.

    I think his biggest hurdles will be a lack of caucus support, and a lack of charisma.

    His politics are generally good, he’s on the right(left) side of most debates.

    What concerns me is what I heard from his time holding the labour portfolio. Word is he rejected the CTU’s policy because he didn’t want to give CTU president and potentional rival Helen Kelly a win. Instead, he rewrote it at the 11th hour. Also pushed to drop Section7. Also didn’t save Darien Fenton from Cunliffe’s mob.

    Andrew will not win. He does not have the support in caucus or the membership. If he knows this, which he should, then he’s doing this for his own ambition.

    Thats not good for Grant, and no doubt Andrew’ll bargain his votes for deputy etc. That could deny the popular Jacinda Ardern the place the party needs her to be in 2017.

    If Little throws his second prefs to Cunliffe, then the party is back to square one.

    All eyes are on Andrew. I like him. I like his politics. I just hope he doesn’t fuck this one up. Our party can’t afford another chief with so few loyal Indians.

  14. karol 14

    I have watched Little a bit because he was tipped as a future Labour leader before he entered parliament.

    He has done some very good speeches in the House, but he also can be a bit ponderous.

    Maybe he needs more experience?

    I also have a suspicion he’s pretty much to the right within Labour.

    • Jamal 14.1

      Little is a solid social democrat, and as he showed at the EPMU he’s not afraid to fight for it. He’s also a liberal, but because he’s focused on bread and butter Labour issues like jobs and wages some assume (wrongly) that he’s on the Right of the caucus. Ignore the crap and look at what he’s actually stood for in his career. He’s one of us.

    • Chooky 14.2

      @karol…. “I also have a suspicion he’s pretty much to the right within Labour”.

      ….with Boagie as his God Mother you have to be suspicious

  15. BM 15

    My first choice would be Nash but if he wasn’t running Little would be the next best option.

    He’s a bit like Nash, an unknown quantity who hasn’t been tarnished by all the bullshit and back stabbing that’s gone on in the last six years.

    I believe Labour has to choose some who can come in with a clean slate, it’s the only way the public will accept the next labour leader.

    Also the unions keep labour a float, they should have a union person in the top job or at least deputy.

    • Kiwiri 15.1

      It is quite mystifying as to why those RWNJs like you and fisiani display such interest and concern for the choice of Labour’s leader to ensure the Labour Party will be on the road to victory in 2017
      😐

      • BM 15.1.1

        It’s just my nature, I like to help people 🙂

        • blue leopard 15.1.1.1

          lolz that’s rather an amusing comment from you there, BM

          • BM 15.1.1.1.1

            Thank you, you can’t take this stuff too seriously otherwise you’d go mad.

            Getting all worked up about shit that’s completely out of your control, it’s a recipe for a stroke or at the least, terrible bowel movements.

            • blue leopard 15.1.1.1.1.1

              Oh, so that is what your name stands for! Actually I suspect the bowel movement part probably comes from being too far to the right, but I’ll forgive you that wee error and take this opportunity to agree with you.

              I appreciate a good dose of humour, thanks for the laugh 🙂

            • Tracey 15.1.1.1.1.2

              you didnt vote then?

        • anker 15.1.1.2

          Try helping the family with six kids living in a car. They need your help more than we do!

        • anker 15.1.1.3

          Skinny @18. All good. Good to make the best call for the party and I am sure all of us who have a vote will do.

          I have to say I thought it was pr genius turning up at that South Auckland church. Can’t argue with the punters.

          BTW what has happened to Apples, Oranges, Peaches etc. GR pr group who blanket this site a couple of days back?

      • Rodel 15.1.2

        Kiwiri-It’s not mystifying. It’s amateurish attempts at Machiavellian techniques.

        ” Italian statesman and political philosopher; full name Niccolò di Bernardo dei
        Machiavelli. His The Prince (1532) advises rulers that the acquisition and effective use of power may necessitate unethical methods.”

        Pretty transparent really and thankfully ineffective- but it keeps them happy .

    • ClaretRed 15.2

      Well of course you like Nash BM – he’s one of yours isn’t he?

      Chances are he’ll lose his seat in 2017, so I’m not overly worried.

    • Scott1 15.3

      Someone like Nash ticks boxes in terms of being able to attract a certain type of working class man voter back to labour – a key demographic – but a second factor in winning is stability, you need a person who is trained enough in politics to not make mistakes on the political trail. I’m not sure Nash will be able to avoid that sort of thing.

      Heading into the Australian election with latham and howard (2004), I remember latham being ahead and I thought – it is too close and he is going to do something stupid.

      And sure enough…

    • Tracey 15.4

      coming from someone who doesnt consider honesty or integrity to be important in a leader I think we can take this comment with a truck full of salt.

  16. Karen 16

    I still prefer Cunliffe to Little, but would like to have Little as another option. I have been trying to find out more about Little and came across a few random bits and pieces.This interview from Salient in 2007 is interesting – supports free tertiary education
    http://salient.org.nz/features/big-dreams-andrew-little

    I remember when Pike River first happened Little saying there were no concerns about safety raised by the union.
    http://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/why-is-andrew-little-defending-pike.html

    What was good was that he realized the true situation fairly quickly and pushed for the Commission of Inquiry and has a current Private Members Bill promoting the concept of corporate manslaughter.
    https://home.greens.org.nz/node/25068

    I quite liked this piece about work/life balance.
    http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl17110.htm

    I also liked this indication that he supported Louisa Wall and would not tolerate disunity in caucus.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10715366

    In view of recent Brian Edwards’ blogs critical of David Cunliffe it is interesting to see what he was saying just before the last leadership contest.
    http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2013/08/a-sort-of-open-letter-to-the-abcs-in-the-labour-caucus/#more-8420

    • Jamal 16.1

      Don’t put too much stock in Steve Cowan’s work. He’s a Trot with some axe to grind with Little going back to VUWSA days apparently.

    • ClaretRed 16.2

      The good thing about Little possibly running is that it splits the Caucus vote, which means whatever support Cunliffe gets, it won’t look so bad.

      I still think Cunliffe will win on second preference votes.

      • Colonial Viper 16.2.1

        Indeed. It’ll be much closer this time, but I’m still picking a Cunliffe victory. Labour was a few tens of thousands of votes away from giving John Key a very difficult time forming a workable government.

        I do hope Robertson doesn’t come in 3rd place with the membership and the Affiliates, if Little puts his hat in the ring. That would be a long term damper for Robertson.

  17. anker 17

    And I have to say how marvelous, TV 3 news tonight and DC attending church in Sth Auckland and all the PI parishioners saying they support him! Stick that Michelle Boeg and Mike Williams!!!!

    • Karen 17.1

      Cunliffe definitely has Pacific Island support, and he also performs well on marae as a he is a passable speaker of te reo. Can’t see the other contenders competing on this.

      • Granted 17.1.1

        speaking te reo is no requirement to be a PM.

        • Murray Olsen 17.1.1.1

          It probably should be though. Te Reo, NZ Sign, and English would all be useful attributes for a prime minister. The present prumsta is not fluent in even one.

          • Scott1 17.1.1.1.1

            Whether it should be or not – it is probably a disadvantage.
            Speaking Chinese would be an advantage, maybe Samoan might be good.

  18. Delia 18

    I still think Cunliffe is the man, but it seems no one can bury the hatchet and work with him..so what can you do?

    • Rodel 18.1

      Rachel Smalley ? on Radio this morning, Media watch, thinks the media should stop their vindictive attacks on Cunliffe. Sorry Rachel, You’re a bit f**kin late to feel guilty.

  19. Skinny 19

    My personel observation is that you know where you stand with Little, I can’t say the same with DC or GR. Andrew has a good balance of being able to talk and listen, a rare commodity that a leader needs. He also can see both sides of an argument, be firm and fair when required and will compromise when there is a case for it. For these reasons and in the interest of party unity I will support him and advocate to other for a successful leadership bid.

  20. MrV 20

    For starters any Leader needs to be able to win an electorate seat and not rely on being parachuted in on the list.
    Andrew Little has only just scraped in on the list.
    The party has stuffed up by not putting him in a winnable electorate seat (wouldn’t be the first time).

    • jamal 20.1

      That’s fpp thinking from a time when all mps were electorate mps. Little could have gone for an easy red Auckland seat but instead he stood in a conservative provincial Nat seat that’s had major boundary changes since it was held by Duynhoven. Are you saying that all future Labour leaders can only come from safe Labour seats? That any MP with leadership potential should run a mile from the provinces? I’m genuinely baffled by your logic here.

      • MrV 20.1.1

        I would counter that that he lost by even more this time round than last time.
        He utterly failed to get the party vote out.

        • Jamal 20.1.1.1

          And that’s my point – boundary changes that brought in thousands of farmers made New Plymouth 2014 a much more Tory seat than New Plymouth 2011.

    • Rodel 20.2

      Mr V Not true.

    • For starters any Leader needs to be able to win an electorate seat and not rely on being parachuted in on the list.

      As jamal pointed out, that’s FPP thinking. Labour at this point really needs to give a sign that it actually understands we have an MMP electoral system, so that’s something Little does have going for him – if were made leader there wouldn’t be any question about whether the caucus understands MMP or not, and a greater focus on the party vote would be guaranteed.

    • Skinny 20.4

      You will find the electorate soon warms to a MP who becomes leader of a major party. In saying this standing in New Plymouth where many things revolve around farming from the rural farming sector it’s a hard ask. Be interesting if he was standing in say Hamilton West a very winnable seat with the correct candidate.

    • Tracey 20.5

      by “win”, do you mean be given a safe seat, like Hellensville?

      • Skinny 20.5.1

        No what I mean is a seat like Hamilton West should not be held by Natoinal MP who voted for the dirty SkyCity deal, the incumbent being a man of the cloth. Sue needed to be put in a sink or swim position on the party list. You would still get the party vote as well as the candidate vote too.

        If you rolled the dice with a number of long serving MP’s then the likes of Kelvin Davis could have been put on the list in a safe position which would have allowed Hone & Mana to come in with another MP. By not doing this, and failing to confirm a door was open where the Maori party could join the Left in a coalition arrangement, the result was more than likely, a high number of Maori enrolled to vote gave Labour the snub and didn’t bother voting at all. Pretty sure this happened and may come out in the wash of a review.

        • Tracey 20.5.1.1

          my comment was for mrv

          he or she seems to think that key won helensvillle and proved himseld as leaxer or shear won mt albert…

  21. Rodel 21

    I’d like to see Cunliffe as leader and Little as Deputy leader.
    Together they’d make mincemeat of Key & Co.

  22. anker 22

    Rodel @ 20 100+

  23. honey_T 23

    I agree with Hami Shearli;
    “Andrew Little is a very dour dry kind of personality , wooden-faced with no charm and no seat either – so I can’t see him having the voters warming to him”
    And someone else said he doesn’t have ‘IT’ factor. Ive got nothing against the guy, same as cunliffe or Robertson. All very talented pollies with their own strengths. Just not IT! We need a real rockstar to go up against key … I think Nash is the guy. I really really do.

    On the phone to my Dad the other night, traditionally a Labour voter but voted NZ1 this year, I said dad gotta go Stuart Nash is on Prime Time with Sean Plunkett, so he watched it too and then txt me “Stuart Nash PM 2017”

    You see what I’m saying? That was 10 mins of Nash baby!!

    • @ honey i..

      ..heh..!..you’re funny..!

    • MustangSally 23.2

      He might have the ‘it’ factor, but does have the ‘ideological/ethical values’ factor?

      Or does he want to turn Labour into a watered down version of National?

      Beware of ‘cool’ prime ministers, just look at how loathed Tony Blair is now.

    • Duggie 23.3

      So true. Nash/Ardern, or, better still, Ardern/Nash. That’s a ticket!

  24. Cave Johnson 24

    Hey now!
    If I had realised there was going to be a real contest I might have joined up.
    Pity it’s too late. I’ll now defer my decision until after I see the outcome.

  25. Tim 25

    Here’s some maths around the Party Vote which quite frankly is all that matters, seems pretty clear to me, if Cunliffe was such a turn-off then surely his own electorate would’ve reflected that? Goff is the only other one who even gets close!

    Name, Electorate, PV won, Total PV, % of PV, Place PV, Loss by

    Shearer Mt. Albert 10,823 36,922 29.3% 2nd 3,536
    Cunliffe New Lynn 12,085 33,661 35.9% 2nd 1,051
    Roberts WN Cent 9,306 39,131 23.8% 3rd 5,383
    Goff Mt. Rosk 12,086 34,097 35.4% 2nd 2,189
    Nash Napier 9,466 36,605 25.9% 2nd 8,539
    Little New Plym 7,947 37,681 21.1% 2nd 13,022

    Data source: http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorateindex.html

    • Richard 25.1

      +1 Tim

      Nice data , and there you go, it’s a painted picture his locals like him and they would know him. Internal party shenanigans on the ABC alleged club. or media tactics to paint him as hated by his own party. As they say “leave it out guv”

  26. karol 26

    Little gets the DPF kiss of death.

    Tweet from Bryce Edwards:

    Farrar on Little: “I… will not be surprised if Andrew is PM one day. And if we have to have a Labour PM, he might not be a bad choice”.

    Or is DPF trying a bit of reverse psychology…?

    • Colonial Viper 26.1

      I saw that. Pretty horrific. But likely a distraction. I guess Nash is off the righties wishlist for the moment lol. Or not.

    • Everything David Farrar says is calculated to create a certain response. Ditto anything Matthew Hooton says. Treating any of their statements as genuine heartfelt opinions is a mistake.

      • Hanswurst 26.2.1

        Treating statements by Farrar or Hooton as anything other than stupid brain-farts is a mistake. They aren’t stupid brain-farts, of course, but you make the world a better place by treating them as such.

    • Wayne 26.3

      Or is he just expressing his genuine view. Just because he has a right blog does not mean he can’t set out his views about the left. People with an interest in politics also have genuine views as to what they think their opponents should do. Not everything is cynical calculation.

      • Tautoko Viper 26.3.1

        “People with an interest in politics also have genuine views as to what they think their opponents should do.”
        A true statement, but Farrar and Hooton do not blog “genuine views” with regard to their opponents in the Labour Party so cannot be considered to belong to the set of people that you refer to in your statement.

      • Tracey 26.3.2

        we just dont know who is paying for this view Wayne, do you?

    • Tracey 26.4

      he loved shearer too didnt he?

  27. Saarbo 27

    @Tim
    +1

  28. Orthodoxia 28

    I signed up to back Cunliffe, but if Little goes in, my vote will go to him. Why?
    1. Parochialism (I have just moved to New Plymouth).
    2. His local campaign. That might sound strange because of the big loss, but I saw Andrew from afar pounding the streets again and again during the campaign and he clearly gave his all. Dan Carter could have stood and would still have been slaughtered by National at this election.
    3. If Cunliffe or Robertson win aren’t we moving towards MAD (mutually
    Assured destruction) as a party? Is some one like Little needed as a compromise and a uniter?

    • Colonial Viper 28.1

      Re: 3) MAD.

      I don’t see an easy way to get the Robertson faction to settle down even if Little wins. Cunliffe won the last leadership primary hands down – but a big chunk of caucus never accepted that result for even one single minute.

    • cardassian 28.2

      Funny how you mention his campaign.
      From my perspective he was nearly transparent.
      However I do live in the poor area of town.

      I also know local LP members and they said they communication was terrible.
      Things like going to a meet the candidates night and not letting the local area members know it was on.
      Now this might be a little thing but it’s these kind of things that stop Labour being all on the same page like National is.

      Now I know that the communication gaffs won’t be his fault but someone in his office not doing their job.
      It makes me think that if he can’t get it sorted in his electorate it’d be magnified if he was leader.

    • Not a PS Staffer 28.3

      Little will be presented with the same problem as Cunliffe and he is likely to take the same actions.

      They are:
      1. Tell Goff, King, Shearer, Mallard and Cosgrove to move on. Cosgrove to resign from the list and the others to put their seats up for by-elections at a time decided by the leader.
      2. Tell Robertson to either put up or fuckoff. Expel him the first time he makes a squeak.
      3. Tell Hipkins to grow a pair and to stop hanging off Kings’ apron strings. Authorise Carmel Sepuloni to knock the crap out of him whenever necessary.
      4. ditto Kris Faafoi- except for the Carmel bit.
      5. Ask Nash what planet he thinks he is on! Give him the bottom place on the pecking order. Teach him humilty, because he has plenty to be humble about.
      6. Give Clare Curran the link to http://www.seek.co.nz

      The difficulty Cunliffe had the last time was he had to hold all of Kings Kids on the front bench because the election was so close. Cunliffe won’t have that need this time.

      • Colonial Viper 28.3.1

        This sounds much more like it. I have been doubting the backbone (in fact, lack thereof) of some of the advice Cunliffe has been getting, tbh.

      • Tracey 28.3.2

        plus 1

      • Bill Drees 28.3.3

        That gang suspected Cunliffe would sort them after the election. That is why they briefed the press before election night and started the campaign to dump Cunliffe. Nash briefed Hooton and Farrar and Cosgrove the Press Gallery. Ardern was used to do the numbers just like Maryann Street was used against Shearer.
        Cunliffe moved quickly to get Maori support by offering a joint Deputy possie.
        Nash fake candidacy was a cover to approach the Unions and some floating votes to see what was needed to bring them across to Robertson.
        The ABCs had to move before Cunliffe wiped them. Had Goff King Mallard retired in this term Robertson would have lost the core of the ABCs and any chance of the Leadership.
        All active members have to prepare candidates and votes for selection meetings. Hutt , Rongotai, Mt Albert, Mt Roskill, Dunedin South and more needs new MPs. Let us sort this shit out.

  29. thechangeling 29

    TRP, i thought the same (about Little) 3 years ago when Shearer was installed and I still think the same now! I guess we’ll know soon enough!

  30. fisiani 30

    i reckon Robertson can unify the Labour Party and Little would be a good alternative. Cunliffe had his chance and blew it badly. He probably needs to retire.

  31. Dorothy 31

    Do not use your name and then undermine Cunliffe COWARD.

  32. Orthodoxia 32

    Cardassian you may be right as I am new to town, but I can count 6 times I saw Andrew around my area of time. Coming from Port Hills, I never laid eyes on the local MP so it impressed me.

    • cardassian 32.1

      Fair enough. Didn’t mean to seem like I was bagging the guy either as I think he’s got potential. Just think he’;ll surround himself with the wrong people and weaknesses will be exposed on a national level.

  33. Undecided 33

    I’m thinking that if you can’t win an electorate seat then you probably can’t win a nation, what could Littles electorate seat see that we can’t

    I have to go with DC at the moment, maybe Nash next time (if he can keep his seat)

    • Tracey 33.1

      oh baloney. Did Key “win” Helensville? of course not, he was parachuted into a safe seat.

    • Duggie 33.2

      Hilarious how everyone here is trying to convince themselves a new saviour has arrived. What everyone does not get, and what your observation alludes to, is that poor Andy has absolutely no charisma. Even his mother here in New Plymouth admitted she wouldn’t vote for him.

  34. Brutus Iscariot 34

    I’ve noticed a few people in this thread and others bagging Davis (and to a lesser extent Nash) for their electorate campaigns.

    Davis was nowhere near a position in which he would have had a chance of coming in on the Labour list. Defeat in TTT would have meant a possible premature end to his political career. Do people seriously think he should have meekly capitulated and possibly committed career suicide in this way? To win against a popular incumbent like Hone Harawira meant he ran a good campaign, and should be congratulated – whatever the electoral maths for “the Left” in 2014.

    As for Nash, i’m not sure his stated focus of making Napier a Labour stronghold is something to be frowned upon. He could not have singlehandedly made an appreciable difference to Labour’s countrywide popular vote, and disparaging his victory as being solely due to the “McVicar Effect” is unnecessarily derogatory.

    They are both winners and fighters – Labour needs more of this. Take the long view.

    • Skinny 34.1

      Davis was given only one real option due to his list placement. Win the candidate vote, it was the party list that failed him. MPs in Christchurch and Hamilton West should have been put in positions of win your seat or ya risk being out. Especially when you consider the likes of Cosgrove & Moroney have probably done their time as MP’s.

    • @ brutus..

      ..”.. disparaging his victory as being solely due to the “McVicar Effect” is unnecessarily derogatory…”

      um..!..no..!..it is just a political-fact…nothing at all ‘derogatory’ about it..

      ..if mcvicar had not hived over 4,500 votes off the national candidate..

      ..nash would have lost..end of story..

      ..nash got no more votes than he did in 2011..

      ..when the national candidate beat him..soundly…

      ..if i were him..i wd focus on finding another high-profile rightwing nutjob to stand in 2017..

      ..that will be his only hope of holding the seat..

      ..(..’building a labour fortress’..snigger/snort..!..

      ..he even had to bullshit when announcing he was ending his joke-standing for the leadership..)

  35. Skinny 35

    With not much support by the caucus and the continued criticism by the shrill media DC would be better off standing aside from contesting the leadership, too many knives would make it untenable. Little comes with less baggage than both David & Grant. Be interesting to know who the preferred deputy the caucus would choose if he contests and wins.

    • @ skinny..

      ..you are joining in the chorus..?

      ..and using the media campaign against cunnliffe as justification for yr stance..?

      ..whoar..!

      ..and are you ignoring the fact that little is hopeless in parliament..?..

      ..that key will just wipe his feet on him..?

      ..whereas cunliffe..?

      ..cunliffe keeps key on his toes..

      ..and anyway..nash supports little..(shudder..!..)

      ..isn’t that enough of a turn-off..?

      • Skinny 35.1.1

        Phil I’ve met them all and to me politicians are a breed of their own. They use you for what they can get, nature of the beast I guess. DC wavers too much for my personal likes. Can he hang on in there long enough to slit throats? I figure Grant won’t be in a position to refresh the benches owing too many favours. Little has a fair bit of mongrel about him in parliament, he will preform ok because he is a man on a mission and is taken serious by many a person, media alike. Nash has passion I will give him that, met him once and actually preferred talking with him over many other MP’s. They guys mixes it with all sorts, so do I not like their bedfellows.

  36. NeutObserver 36

    Yes, Andrew Little seems to be a sensible option.

  37. Not a PS Staffer 37

    I looked up Andrew’s CV. He was the President from March 2009 after Mike Williams stood down following Helen’s exit. Little filled that role up to some time before the 2011election. I’ve always had a positive view of Little. However I’ve reflected on what he achieved when he last held a senior role in Labour; President.

    In that time some of the ailments that aflict Labour today took root.
    1. Phil Goff and Andrew didn’t renew the party in any way after Helen’s exit.
    2. The destructive behaviour of Mallard, Cosgrove and Robertson bloomed unhindered in that era.
    3. The white-anting of Cunliffe went unhindered in that era.
    4. He was responsible for planning the 2011 election in which we lost a heck of a lot more votes that in the 2014 election.

    I’d like to hear comment on these reflections.

    • Bill 37.1

      Afraid my comment is merely further questions in response to the ones you’ve raised.

      1. How long do you give somebody, coming from outside the party, to learn the ropes and navigate the various machinations of vested interests?
      2. How powerful were the future ABCs in the immediate aftermath of Helen Clark’s departure and why would they have sought or encouraged renewal?
      3. What power would the party president be able to exercise with regards members of caucus white-anting?
      4. Just how much input does the party president have in the planning and execution of an election campaign?
      5. Is it reasonable to suggest that a given party president could have averted the implosion of Labour, given that almost anyone with talent left caucus after Clark’s departure?

    • Kiwiri 37.2

      Related to this and looking at Grant Robertson: what have his roles, responsibilities and performance been like in the past six years as part of the senior leadership team in opposition, as well as for the previous two or three election campaigns?

    • Skinny 37.3

      I would say Little would have been treading water with a view to entering politics as an MP. The electorate phone was off the hook with Key like Clark being an imposing leader, hence they both got 3 terms. The deadwood MP’s have the huge advantage of holding and thus stacking electorate. The other problem is the candidate selection process where other deadwood MP’s are part of the election/selection process having voting power. Then you have every Tom, Dick and Harriet with MP ambitions as part of the process too. Then you have the caucus deadwood network looking after each other. The deck is well and truely stacked against outsiders.

      I’ll give the example of Richard Prebble, a friend of mine and other smart people got out played by Prebble numerous times trying to be rid of tricky Dickie, and these guys were organised. So its really little wonder the same old faces stay in at the expense of the good of the party. I would go as far to say going on previous history of ‘both’ main party’s some MP’s are prepared to sacrifice the government benches inorder to justify whatever position they hold.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago