Andrew Little in Auckland on Sunday and virtual hustings

Written By: - Date published: 1:00 pm, November 8th, 2014 - 31 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, david parker, grant robertson, labour, Nanaia Mahuta - Tags: , ,

The Labour leadership race continues!

Join Andrew Little for coffee and a yarn this Sunday:

The Fridge cafe, 507 New North Road
10am Sunday 9 November

And the online hustings meeting will be at 7:30 on Sunday, live on the Labour website.

Don’t forget there’s still three Auckland hustings to go:

Sunday 9 November: Central Auckland

Monday 10 November: West Auckland

Tuesday 11 November: South Auckland

If you know of any other events happening, leave them in the comments.

Voting closes 18 November. Ten days to a new Labour leader!

31 comments on “Andrew Little in Auckland on Sunday and virtual hustings ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    8 November 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Are we beginning to see things stack up for one candidate or other yet?

    Key has well and truly destabilized this new government following the election, using militarized patriotism (Security Council profile, flag, Iraq III, etc) . National are revived, bolder, and fresh.

    The test for Labour’s new leader will be whether the politics of poverty, inequality, and middle class decline can overcome National’s nationalism. That’s the challenge for the entire global left movement.

    • Murray Rawshark 1.1
      9 November 2014 at 2:48 am

      If they define their politics as poverty, inequality, and middle class decline, NAct will keep winning. In actual fact that is a good description of Key’s politics.

  2. Heather 2
    8 November 2014 at 4:30 pm

    Today we attended the protest rally in Auckland against the TPPA, we have not read anything quoted from the Hustings of what the various candidates views are about the signing of the TPPA.

    • Tracey 2.1
      8 November 2014 at 4:45 pm

      its unlikely they have changed the policy, phil goff is a fan.

      ” Thank you for your email to Hon David Cunliffe concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Apologies for the delay in my reply.

      There is genuine concern about what might be included in the final outcome of the negotiations, which the Government has not adequately addressed by making clear where it stands on important issues in the negotiation.

      Labour demands more openness and transparency from the Government. As Minister of Trade negotiating the China and Asean Free Trade Agreements in 2008, I involved a cross-section of groups in the process including the Council of Trade Unions and Greenpeace as well as businesses and exporters. That helped ensure we got good input and it also won trust and confidence in what we were doing.

      Those trade agreements hugely helped economic growth and jobs in New Zealand with New Zealand exports to China increasing from $2 billion to over $7 billion dollars in five years and closing the trade deficit with that country. It helped save us from suffering as badly as the US and Europe from the Global Financial Crisis.

      Labour has also set bottom lines for support for a TPP agreement. It must result in a clear and significant net benefit to our country. It must be a high quality agreement allowing New Zealand to gain access for our major exports to countries like the US, Japan, Canada and Mexico, removing barriers like the current exorbitant tariff rates on dairy (200-300 per cent), tight quotas and behind the borders barriers. For our services and manufacturing industries we would also want access to government procurement contracts, a market in the US alone worth $334 billion from which we are currently excluded.

      Labour recognises that the TPP is not just a trade agreement but deals with behind the borders issues and could impact on domestic policy settings. New Zealand must not sacrifice Pharmac or give up our sovereign right to regulate and legislate such areas as health, the environment and economic policy or in areas like gambling, tobacco and alcohol. The policy protections must be tight enough to prevent multinational companies from winning law suits against us when we regulate in these areas to their commercial disadvantage. We support intellectual property protection but not where it goes to extremes which would hinder innovation and create excess profits at the expense of the consumer. The Government needs to heed the concerns of smaller companies in New Zealand including those in the IT sector.

      Labour supports trade deals which genuinely benefit our country. We need growth in exports so we can close the gap between the value of what we export and import. A trade deficit which has persisted over 40 years has meant New Zealand having to borrow to pay the difference. Growing debt has resulted in us increasingly losing ownership of our own country.

      We need growth for jobs and higher incomes. We need growth to increase government revenue to pay for higher quality services in areas like health and education.

      The Petri study from Brandeis University shows that a TPP would likely lead to export growth to New Zealand of over $5 billion a year. The Parliamentary Library, based on the Brandeis study, states that could lead to job growth of up to 22,000 jobs.

      Half of our trade goes to the TPP countries. If we did not participate in a successful agreement our exporters would be disadvantaged by facing barriers in the key TPP markets that our competitors do not.

      We continue to insist that the Government better inform parliament and civil society as to its negotiating objectives and its position on issues of concern. Only then can the public be involved in an informed and mature debate. Labour will support a deal only if it is genuinely in the interests of New Zealand.

      Yours sincerely

      Phil Goff “

    • Pat O'Dea 2.2
      9 November 2014 at 2:47 pm

      @HEATHER, Do you know if any of the candidates for the Labour leadership attended any of the rallies against the TPPA?

  3. Tautoko Mangō Mata 3
    8 November 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Giovanni Tiso asked the candidates. You can read the tweets yourself on the link below.
    Andrew Little signed petition 2 years ago opposing investor-state dispute clause as it is understood. Still opposed. Need to see text.
    Nanaia Mahuta- Not enough info to give confidence that TPPA protects our domestic interest. I remain cautious and would not sign.
    Grant Robertson approach with caution.my major concerns are protecting rgt to regulate in public interest (eg Pharmac), intellectual property + ISDR (ISDS?)
    https://twitter.com/gtiso/status/530506837389770752

  4. Anne 4
    8 November 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Listening to a replay of The Nation this morning, I have to say Nanaia Mahuta has been the most under-rated politician in parliament. She was impressive to say the least . I suspect she was never before given the chance to show her real worth, and now she’s put herself out there and is growing day by day with confidence and self esteem.

    All four of them are coming across well and my confidence in the ability of Labour to re-establish itself as a ‘tour de force’ is slowly returning.

  5. whateva next? 5
    8 November 2014 at 6:46 pm

    The debate on The Nation this morning was excellent, giving a forum for candidates to discuss their point of difference, given they are are all quality leadership material.

    Personally, I agree with Little/Mahuta’s stance of CGT, to many “middle NZers” have already invested (no, not I) in a second property, as their retirement fund, and will vote with their wallets at election time. Of course CGT makes sense, as Parker/Robertson explain, but if people switch off, before we explain……..what’s the point? It will be a process, and thinking about why we didn’t get elected before talking about what’s right gets my vote.

    • Anne 5.1
      8 November 2014 at 7:05 pm

      As Little pointed out, Labour went about it the wrong way. It was political suicide to front up with both the CGT and retirement age policies without first having that ‘discussion’ with the public. Some of us tried to tell them but it fell on deaf ears.

      The discussion should have been started at least 5 years ago, and no doubt would have happened if a Labour-led government had been in power.

      • les 5.1.1
        9 November 2014 at 9:45 am

        Little’s strength is he has a pragmatic approach to policy and its ramifications to the general voting public.His weakness is a total lack of presence.Nanaia was impressive,a little rehearsed but quite compelling.Parker needs media training.Robertson ,the most impressive speaker ,animated but …..

  6. finbar 6
    8 November 2014 at 10:09 pm

    Nanaia,where have they been hiding her.Talk about talent in our Labour ranks.Nanaia.
    Was she not a spark above the other chancers,little did they shine above our understanding of her knowing. of our socialist care.What a Lady,what a leader she would make,cared compromise than those others,Little and his union freinds have hidden from the aid they gave to the Pike,Parker lean give them more,and Robertson,not far from them.Mahuata,spark that Labours soul has lost and deserves to get back.

  7. Sirenia 7
    9 November 2014 at 10:28 am

    Being pragmatic about policy also means being less principled. So throwing away policy because it is tough to sell is a worry. The anti nuclear policy was tough to sell too. I don’t want a Labour Party that gives in and won’t do redistributive economic policy because it might be unpopular with some union members who have second and third properties. Or supports mining and drilling or dirty dairying because it is popular with some people.

    • Anne 7.1
      9 November 2014 at 10:59 am

      The anti nuclear policy was tough to sell too.

      Rubbish.
      We didn’t “sell” policies in those days. We presented them to the public for their approval – after lengthy discussion with that public. The anti-nuclear stance was already ingrained in the Kiwi psyche. All Labour had to do was successfully articulate it for them. We need to have those ‘lengthy discussions’ with the public again!

      During the 1970s and 80s, people from all walks of life and backgrounds came out to march against the nuclear nightmare scenario. Political barriers were crossed – something the US and Britain (among others) failed to understand at the time. And we proved to be right. New Zealanders can feel very proud of themselves.

      You’re being disingenuous (again) Sirenia. No-one is throwing away policy because it is tough to sell. All that is being asked of… is that Labour recognise the public have to be given time to “discuss” and “understand” the issues before they can be presented to them as a ‘fait- accompli’.

      You do your ‘vote Grant Robertson’ cause little favour.

      • Ad 7.1.1
        9 November 2014 at 11:08 am

        Anti-nuclear ship visit bans were a pretty tough sell inside the Lange-led Labour caucus of the time. The internal contests are pretty well documented by both Palmer and Lange’s biography.

        Your common point is that Labour went straight for the instrument with the greatest chance of affecting the housing crisis: CGT. The tax proposal itself therefore became the lighting rod of debate. The instrument replaced the crisis.

        Labour could simply have spent more time orchestrating protest and debate and coverage about the crisis itself, and rolled out the instruments (as most governments do) once elected.

        • Anne 7.1.1.1
          9 November 2014 at 11:18 am

          Labour could simply have spent more time orchestrating protest and debate and coverage about the crisis itself, and rolled out the instruments (as most governments do) once elected.

          Exactly: a more concise way of putting it.

          • Sirenia 7.1.1.1.1
            9 November 2014 at 3:19 pm

            A failure of the last Labour leader then not to lead that debate.

            The bigger point is that policy is decided through democratic party processes. A leader who doesn’t like those policies cannot just overturn them.

      • Chooky 7.1.2
        9 November 2014 at 2:35 pm

        +100 Anne…have to agree about the anti -nuclear stance….it was already ingrained in the NZ psyche before Labour adopted it……..this was due to activists like Nicky Hager ( a truly great NZer) …remember the floatillas…greeting the warships?

        i was elated when Marilyn Waring stood up ….and very courageously Labour Helen Clark and then David Lange adopted it..(it was very controversial and the atmosphere was tense and even dangerous! …the Trades Hall bombing was around about that time!…and the CTU…union movement had just adopted it )

      • Tracey 7.1.3
        10 November 2014 at 9:38 am

        helen cauldicott spearheaded and fran wilde??? took up the reigns here? it was not a lay down mizere.

        lp came late to the party, as is often the way with such movements. has a nat mp ever been at the vanguard of such demonstration. the guy driving his tractor might qualify but the topic was not a universal one as i recall.

  8. RedBaronCV 8
    9 November 2014 at 11:22 am

    Anne is right – don’t dump policy on people and expect them to like it. And if labour stuck to the line of we need to get wages up/ share the national cake more equally ( don’t forget the contractor- small business person) then many more people will have the money to enable themselves whether it is housing, health or retirement.
    Leaving state provision for the remainder.
    And this should be shoved at Nact regularly. “Weeeell John we wouldn’t have this problem if people were paid more………’

  9. lprent 9
    9 November 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Gotten Lyn away this morning, had a snooze and I feel human again.

    Off to the central Auckland meeting now.

  10. fisiani 10
    9 November 2014 at 2:37 pm

    We will know soon enough who will win the leadership vote but who will be the leader in 2017? Grant Robertson is ambitious. By 2017 he will have warmed the Opposition benches for 9 years and never had a single day in government, Will be prepared to spend another 3 years as a seat warmer? If whoever is leader fails to get the polls higher than Cunliffe or Shearer levels when will the knives come out? Robertson would like to be the leader at election 2017. That’s an undeniable fact. He would not be standing for election now if he did not. Next month he will still want to be the leader. Next year he will still want to be leader. He will always want to be leader and will position himself best to become leader.
    No one in National is challenging John Key. Not now. Not in 2017 and not in 2020. By 2023 John Key will be 62 and pondering standing for an historic sixth term and Grant Robertson will be one of five who have spent 15 years in Parliament and not a day in government. One of the aspiring current leaders shares this dubious distinction.
    There seems to be perception by the John Key haters that the public will eventually tire of John Key. Despite this the number of National Mp’s in 2005,2008,2011 and 2014 keeps rising. Where is the evidence of such tiring?
    An interesting aspect of the above is that there are senior people in the National Party who have come to realise that they will never be the leader. An entire generation will be bypassed but the next National leader entered Parliament last month and will be the leader for 2026. That’s not much of a clue given the vast number of new National MP’s who did so.
    I wish the new Labour leader well. They will have a struggle to have a united caucus and Party.

  11. Chooky 11
    9 November 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Was quite impressed with Andrew Little’s strategy for Labour …he thinks like a philosopher and an organiser

    ….but does he have the heart psyche /intelligence of Mahuta?…they could make a formidable Leadership duo

    …and why cant Labour have a male/female Co-Leadership like the Greens and Mana and Maori Party?l ( seems a wee bit old fashioned of Labour)

    **************
    From Andrew Little :

    Hi Labour Member
    One of the most important challenges we must confront is rebuilding our Party and our movement.
    If we’re going to be ready to win in 2017, we need to represent and serve more people, in our community and our affiliates. Our policies have to be tied to the interests and goals of more New Zealanders.

    We have to be crystal clear about what we stand for: making sure people earn a decent wage, can live with dignity, and get a fair deal at work. If New Zealanders aren’t getting a fair go in the health system, the courtroom, or the classroom, our caucus needs to be united and proactive about campaigning for them.
    Here are my ideas for making that happen. I call it my Five-Point Plan. It’s simple, practical, and realistic.

    1. Greater coordination across the Labour movement
    We have to remain relevant and represent more New Zealanders. A Labour Party I lead will:
    • have a joint plan between caucus and the Party to campaign and build our membership with measurable milestones.
    • communicate regularly to all members, not just during election campaigns.
    • coordinate external campaigns with community stakeholders, unions and affiliates.
    • link up our fundraising so we’re all working together.

    2. A clear sense of purpose
    It’s not enough to want to be in government. Caucus and the Party need a clear sense of what Labour stands for. A Labour Party I lead will:
    • go back to basics by fighting for New Zealanders’ rights to a fair deal at work, in the health system, in the courtroom and in the classroom.
    • make sure Labour’s policy platform is the foundation for everything we do.
    • have a single campaign strategy for caucus so we work as a team at all times.

    3. Real community engagement
    MPs and candidates are a national voice for local issues. A Labour Party I lead will:
    • give MPs the opportunity to report on their community and business contact, including work done by List MPs and electorate MPs in neighbouring electorates.
    • ensure caucus supports the work of Māori MPs who often cover vast electorates.
    • support important local issues through parliamentary questions, Members’ Bills and the resources of the Leader’s Office.

    4. Constant campaigning
    An effective Opposition not only keeps the Government in check, but campaigns for positive change. A Labour Party I lead will work with the General Secretary and Party President to:
    • create a permanent, active campaign team.
    • ensure all regional actvities include engagement with the general public.
    • regularly communicate with all New Zealanders about our values.

    5. Review our policies
    Too much of our policy is presented as if we are still in Government. We must present a carefully prioritised set of policies without losing sight of our vision and values. A Labour Party I lead will:
    • make sure New Zealanders know what we stand for well in advance of an election.
    • take a team approach to the submission of Members Bills.
    • remove the policy to increase the age of New Zealand Superannuation. It’s unfair to expect future generations to work longer to pay for the economic failure of the last thirty years and there are alternatives.

    This is the plan which will get us back and ready to win in 2017. That’s why I’m asking for your first preference in the Labour leadership vote.

    Andrew Little MP

    • fisiani 11.1
      9 November 2014 at 3:34 pm

      Good speech by Andrew Little. No wonder The Cunliffe endorsed him. I still think The Cunliffe was shafted by his own team. I suppose Little is the best option.

  12. ankerawshark 12
    10 November 2014 at 9:28 am

    Fisi @ 11.1 The first time I can say I agree with you.

    I think Cunliffe was shafted by his own team too. David Parker being one of the main culprits at the very end, but not on his own by any means.

    I think NM is completely honest decent women. No games just honestly. She indicated this was the case in her interview with Claire Trevitt (i.e. Cunliffe not supported)

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.