Andrew Little: My vision for Labour

Written By: - Date published: 4:25 pm, November 15th, 2014 - 87 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour - Tags: , ,

A video from Labour leadership candidate Andrew Little. Transcript below.

You know, working with the union, as a lawyer, and then as an advocate and as the secretary, you’re dealing with people and the things that they do that make their lives good. What you earn, how you earn, how fairly you’re treated, those things make a big difference to people’s lives. And for the businesses that people are working for, too, the rules that they have to work under decide whether or not the business can succeed, or is a good business.

And I decided that rather than just working under the rules, I wanted to be part of setting the rules, and the policies, the things that make a big difference. And realising too that there are choices that as a country we can make, and the choices we make are whether everybody gets to benefit, or just a few. And I’m very clear, we’ve got to have laws and policies and rules that means that everybody gets a chance, to be treated properly, treated fairly, to be paid fairly, just a chance to get ahead, because that’s what New Zealand has always been built on.

The Labour Party has been there for New Zealand at its moments of biggest change, actually the moments of biggest challenge, so when in the first Labour Government, dealing with mass unemployment and people who were homeless, couldn’t get into a home, it was the Labour government of the time that made sure that people, not just got work but got meaningful work, and were fairly paid and fairly treated. That people got into homes that were safe and warm. And led us through World War Two, and was there carving out an independent foreign policy, all those things that have made a big difference. And the most recent Labour Government setting up things like KiwiSaver, so that people have a chance to put a bit aside for themselves for their retirement.

And we’re about to face some big changes, about work, and the future of work, and to be honest I don’t trust the current mob to do anything that’s going to look after people. Labour has always been the party for whom people have been at the front and centre of their decision-making and their policies. And that’s me, I want to make sure that Labour is in government at these crucial times, because if we’re not, people get left behind.

I’ve led big change in an organisation before, with the EPMU. I led it through some pretty significant change, from an old-style sort of regional union to a modern, nationwide, high-impact organisation that made a real difference. And actually, the challenges that the union faced ten or fifteen years ago are the issues that the Labour Party is facing now. And I think that I’ve got the personal skills to lead through change, deal with the ups and downs and the difficulties with it, but also to help us reconnect with a whole bunch of New Zealanders who have just gone off us.

You know, I want a New Zealand where everybody has a role to play, people can work and earn for themselves and provide for themselves. That we have, the way our economy is structured, the way we treat people, we have a great sense of fairness, and so that people are provided for. And for those people who can’t be in work, for reasons outside their control, which I think is going to be a bigger problem for all of us, that they are properly supported and looked after, and that we don’t stigmatize people who don’t fit these kind of old economic patterns that we’ve imposed on ourselves for so long.

So I want a country where people feel good about themselves, have a place, have a role to play, can look after themselves, can pursue their dreams, and we are peaceful and safe. That’s a good place to be.

Voting for the Labour leadership closes noon on Tuesday 18 November. Full information on the Labour Party website.

87 comments on “Andrew Little: My vision for Labour ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Clean_power 1
    15 November 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Too many platitudes from Mr. Little. A more charismatic leader like Mr. Robertson is needed.

    • Tracey 1.1
      15 November 2014 at 4:43 pm

      If you dont like platitudes and empty words which dont answer the question you will hate this

      http://thestandard.org.nz/standard-questions-grant-robertson/

    • whateva next? 1.2
      15 November 2014 at 4:45 pm

      Interesting, much as I like Grant, I was thinking the same thing about him, “Too many platitudes”. I see Andrew as already having connected with people in his previous roles, and he is very specific about what is needed for the future of work/jobs in NZ. Affability is not enough, even though Key has convinced the electorate that it is all that is required, IT IS NOT.
      I think all four candidates are excellent and all potential leaders I would be happy with, I am sorry we have to choose, and that they are in effect having to compete against each other.

    • Paul 1.3
      15 November 2014 at 5:22 pm

      You vote Tory.
      Tr***

    • kenny 1.4
      15 November 2014 at 5:24 pm

      We are not going to beat Key on charisma with either of these candidates – so policy it is then! How that policy is delivered/explained is the key.

      I think Andrew is the one to do it.

      • whateva next? 1.4.1
        15 November 2014 at 5:45 pm

        Not sure if Key has “charisma” even though we have been told he has.
        “compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others”
        he does have something that “…can inspire devotion in others” bit it isn’t
        “compelling attractiveness or charm” more like money

  2. karol 2
    15 November 2014 at 4:36 pm

    And for those people who can’t be in work, for reasons outside their control, which I think is going to be a bigger problem for all of us, that they are properly supported and looked after, and that we don’t stigmatize people who don’t fit these kind of old economic patterns that we’ve imposed on ourselves for so long.

    Good!

    • Bill 2.1
      15 November 2014 at 4:50 pm

      Would quietly like to hope that’s indicative of a desire to move away from these old economic patterns that we’ve imposed on ourselves for so long

      But the realist in me suggests it’s simply an acknowledgement of the fact that these old economic patterns are going to be open to ever fewer people. Although…was it Andrew who made at least a passing reference, or a nod, to the concept of a Universal Basic Income?

    • tricle up 2.2
      15 November 2014 at 5:46 pm

      +1Play money for some..The value of and working poor is(un)recognized and the focus of growth by way of investment into essential assets maybe needs to be recognized as shifting from one driver to another .What a waste of the resources , human included.

  3. Clemgeopin 3
    15 November 2014 at 4:40 pm

    Nice vision and statement there. My own 1st and 2nd preference votes were for Mahuta and Little:

    I received the following email from Andrew Little yesterday.

    “Hi Clem,

    On Tuesday we finished the last of the leadership hustings. I just want to say what a great time I’ve had travelling the country and meeting with all of the strong, principled and dedicated members of the Labour Party right across New Zealand.

    Over the next few days I’ll be continuing my campaign for the Leadership, but with the last hustings finished I want to take this opportunity to say that it’s given me immense hope to spend so much time with the people, like yourself, who make up the heart of our great movement.

    I am more certain now than ever that we can focus and grow our party and be ready to win in 2017.

    It has been a privilege to take my ideas and my experience to you and to engage with your questions and what you want from the party. And it has redoubled my desire to bring Labour together and make it the party of government.

    I’m asking for your first preference in the Labour leadership vote so that we can win this together.

    In solidarity,

    Andrew Little

    PS:
    One of the most important challenges we must confront is rebuilding our Party and our movement. Here are my ideas for making that happen:

    http://andrew-little.org.nz/my-plan-for-labour/

    —————————–

    Well worth reading what he says in the above link.

  4. Tracey 4
    15 November 2014 at 4:40 pm

    Andrew

    I voted greens in the last three elections. My electorate vote went to national in an attempt to derail ACT in Epsom.

    I want to vote Labour again.

    I am heartened by what you have written here recently and been impressed. It is obvious from your words that you understand words arent enough.

    The only thing i see as missing from your “package” is vocal passion. I am sure you will get assistance in this regard should you become leader.

    Passion in vocal delivery is essential. John Key and national have returned us to the passionless people… Where apologies have no meaning, a prime minister is more a comedian than statesman, where lies are explained away and they have convinced the nation that being “comfortable” with lack of honesty and integrity in ministers is all that matters, being comfortable with secret services breaking laws, comfortable with abusing the OIA designed to keep govt open and transparent, comfortable that houses are unaffordable in auckland, comfortable that some kids are attending schools hungry, comfortable that the crown debt has climbed so high, comfortable that dairy prices have plummeted, comfortable that he and his ilk are, well comfortable. Comfortable that we are now followers not leaders when only a few years ago we did some things cos they were fair and right and didnt wait to follow others

    Kiwis will care and wont settle for comfortable WHEN someone with passion shows them another way.

    So, good luck to you Andrew, comfortable is dangerous and passion is what makes peolle believe, follow and change.

    • Clemgeopin 4.1
      15 November 2014 at 4:55 pm

      +1. Very well said.

    • leftie 4.3
      16 November 2014 at 7:35 am

      @Tracey.

      Brilliant post, it was a pleasure to read.

    • Areobubble 4.4
      16 November 2014 at 3:09 pm

      Not seeing little yet. Sure nice politics wanting to revisit CGT and thus make it his own. Still too little opportunity is taken to attack key strengths, unlike Harre who spent her time quickly deconstructing Key on Q&A. Labour have little going for them, as they are still unwilling to invest any implicit understand for progressive taxes, or basic standards we should expect for everyone in society. A home, food, health, society, then profit. This potent value that we can only achieve if we degrade and exploit to game profits has lost us the race, we are 15% behind because of such thinking. We can only move forward if we take everyone forward together, and that requires everyone having an input, that ended with the rise of rogernomics, it reeks of arrogance and disregard for balance. Yet Labour still have forgotten the little guy.

      • Tracey 4.4.1
        16 November 2014 at 3:14 pm

        They havent confirmed their policies for the next three years. These leaders are having to speak to policies not yet agreed upon by those who do that.

  5. Red delusion 5
    15 November 2014 at 5:01 pm

    Would help if he could win an electorate seat first. Running a union or mafia hardly makes you fit to run a country

    • bruhaha 5.1
      15 November 2014 at 5:08 pm

      Mafia? You mean like the currency trading division of Merill Lynch? Little stood in a blue seat. Unlike Key who had his supporters roll one of their colleagues out of a safe seat for him.

    • Tracey 5.2
      15 November 2014 at 5:15 pm

      Dont worry, they can parachute him into a safe seat. Just like nats did with the faux mp for hellensville

    • George Hendry 5.3
      15 November 2014 at 8:19 pm

      “Running a union or mafia hardly makes you fit to run a country.”

      I couldn’t agree more. And sincerely trust that the contributor with the delusory alias has copied Mr Key in.

  6. finbar 6
    15 November 2014 at 5:18 pm

    He comes across as gormless.Shallow it may sound,but that is how i see him.His Union history has been compromise,compromise that employers manipulated for their advantage,if that is a gateway for Labour control so be it.Compromise is its daily result in our work force today,slack employer safety to workers care,minimum usury of hours and usury of working rights and protection.His Union accepted these rules as a balance for jobs and skill set against no wage rise.Truth i think .membership is our drive,our job protection.

    Grant,what can be said.Full blown career politician,has he got the stuff that is going to spark up LABOURS FUTURE.Cant see it.

  7. odysseus 7
    15 November 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Up til now, have not been a Little supporter but this is sounding not too bad . Pity about the shirt though….

    • Atiawa 7.1
      15 November 2014 at 6:29 pm

      So, who have you supported and why have you supported that candidate?
      AL is the only candidate constantly talking about jobs and wages and why both require improvement.
      We don’t see too many people wearing those shirts. He’s getting plenty of attention with his talk, he doesn’t need to wear an urban bushmans shirt like that to be noticed though. Everyone to their own I suppose.

    • Murray Rawshark 7.2
      15 November 2014 at 7:59 pm

      The lumberjack shirt is commonly worn by student politicians when they feel they need to show their proletarian cred. It’s the sort of thing you expect to see from a lawyer who starts working for a union. Where are the people who came up from the shop floor? We need a few more of them to keep things real.

  8. Whateva next? 8
    15 November 2014 at 5:57 pm

    Oh c’mon, we are in an extremely crucial time for NZ, give him a break, and appreciate his commitment. I have a sense of humour, but at the moment, there are more important things going on.

  9. Yoza 9
    15 November 2014 at 6:58 pm

    Anyone care to comment:

    “Finlayson says ‘alienated people with a chip on their shoulder’ is the threshold to get onto the terrorist watch list and admits that it doesn’t need to be religion based. That means environmentalists, Unionists, Maori activists – anyone who challenges the status quo is a possible target for these spying powers.
    That’s why Andrew Little’s acceptance of 48 hour warrantless searches is so disappointing.
    Based on Finlayson’s definition – anyone reading this blog qualifies to be on the terror list.”

    Who taught Little the goose step?

    • Areobubble 9.1
      16 November 2014 at 3:42 pm

      Heating imaging that was available at airorts , now to be used, without warrant, on anyone’s bedroom, just because some spy, wins, tax man, thinks illegal it is possible.
      So how long before the content ends up online? First the terrorist had no privacy, then the political activists, then any criminal driver, then they came for our privacy and there wax nobody left who didn’t fear them.

  10. Yoza 10
    15 November 2014 at 7:16 pm

    Crikey:

    Little: The problem we have with security issues like this is that a lot of the case for intervention or that sort of surveillance is never made public. So what the Government has proposed is a 48-hour warrant with ability to do that sort of surveillance to allow a warrant to be prepared. I think when people are, you know— New Zealanders want a secure country. They want to know the people that they’re living alongside are safe and are engaging in safe activities. We might have to accept that small erosion of our protection and our rights to allow that to happen.

    This is quite an extreme statement coming from someone who is preparing to lead a left-wing opposition group. We might have to accept a small erosion of our protection and our rights to preserve the positions of privilege and authority conferred on the likes of Andrew Little.

    • Anne 10.1
      15 November 2014 at 7:43 pm

      We might have to accept a small erosion of our rights to preserve the positions of privilege and authority conferred on the likes of Andrew Little.

      He was not saying anything of the sort. You know Yoza, it is that kind of comment that brings “the left” into disrepute. I also recall Little saying in a TV interview on the same subject:

      If there proves to be a case to answer, then we may have to accept a small erosion of out privacy. By saying that he was also saying: If there proves to be no case to answer then end of story.

      I don’t trust John Key to minimise the surveillance to that which proves to be necessary. I do trust Andrew Little (and the other leadership contenders) in conjunction with the Greens leadership, to keep any surveillance to the minimum required to counter any proven beyond reasonable doubt threat.

      • Yoza 10.1.1
        15 November 2014 at 8:00 pm

        Really? Have you not read Nicky Hager’s Other People’s Wars? The security apparatus pretty much does whatever it wants regardless of the directives of our elected representatives. Andrew Little seems to be more accepting of such a paradigm than I would expect of the Greens.
        Grant Robertson certainly wasn’t as accommodating as Little:

        Robertson: Well, quite frankly, going ahead with 48 hours where you don’t need a warrant, I do not think is justified. We saw with the GCSB situation that John Key has pushed out the powers of these agencies. We need these agencies in New Zealand, but it’s a balance between our freedom and our security. And the idea of warrantless surveillance for 48 hours I think takes it far too far, and I don’t support it.

        • Anne 10.1.1.1
          15 November 2014 at 8:30 pm

          Yes, I have read “Other Peoples wars”. Purchased the book and have re-read some of the passages since. I also attended a lecture by Nicky Hager on the subject.

          The main difference in that particular scenario is that it was foreign powers (Britain and the US) who were primarily responsible for the betrayals against the specific directives of the Clark government – not the NZ security apparatus. Having said that, there was certainly some NZ Defence Force cooperation occurring. I actually regard the story as a damming indictment of a section of the NZ Defence Force who were acting in what I regard as a treasonable way. There should have been some heads chopped off (metaphorically speaking) over that scandal, but of course by the time it came to light the Key government was in office so nothing happened.

          And by the way, I’m sure I heard Andrew Little express concern over the 48 hr warrant-less surveillance. RNZ I think. Indeed I expect all four candidates have done so.

      • Murray Rawshark 10.1.2
        15 November 2014 at 8:10 pm

        His actual words in the debate:
        “They want to know the people that they’re living alongside are safe and are engaging in safe activities. We might have to accept that small erosion of our protection and our rights to allow that to happen.”

        He is not on my side. It is his sort of comment that brings the “left” into disrepute, because he’s actually supporting Key. Nanaia Mahuta is far more impressive. As far as I’m concerned, she’s the only one with sufficient courage of her convictions to actually help make a difference.

        As well as that, his comment is nonsensical. A small erosion of our protection so we can be protected? Jesus H Christ, I want protection from the likes of him.

        • Tracey 10.1.2.1
          16 November 2014 at 8:35 am

          thanks for bringing this up murray. I had missed that.

        • weka 10.1.2.2
          16 November 2014 at 10:39 am

          “As far as I’m concerned, she’s the only one with sufficient courage of her convictions to actually help make a difference.”

          But less likely to win (and she has her own failings). If Little wins, he’s strong in other areas, so in this one on surveillance, it’s up to Labour party members and the wider left to get the message to him that that’s not acceptable.

          The point here is there is no magical leader. Policy should be generated from the party not from Little or Mahuta.

          btw, I’d be curious to know if what he said is Labour party policy or his own thoughts. Anyone know?

          • Keir 10.1.2.2.1
            16 November 2014 at 2:41 pm

            But the problem with “policy should come from the party not the leader” is that Little has clearly signalled that he sees his role as leader as dragging Labour back to the centre, with fewer scary policies, even if that means picking a fight with the party base. It doesn’t fill me with confidence that he’ll be staking out strong positions, especially given the centrist signals he’s giving out here on issues like surveillance.

            • weka 10.1.2.2.1.1
              16 November 2014 at 2:53 pm

              He doesn’t support the retirement age rising, that’s a not a left wing policy anyway and from what I can tell many members were unhappy with it.

              He’s unclear on the CGT. Please link to where he unequivocally says it shouldn’t be Labour policy in any form and wants to override the party’s policy development processes against the wishes of the membership.

              I don’t see him pulling the party to the centre, quite the opposite. Look at everything else he is talking about.

              • Keir …
                16 November 2014 at 3:13 pm

                You may not see him pulling the party to the centre, but he very clearly is. That’s what “too much policy, too much of it too radical” means. He has even come out saying that NZPower needs to be reconsidered – that’s blatantly attacking one of Labour’s most important redistributive and environmental policies.

                Of course he hasn’t explicitly said “I will overrule the membership”, he’s just said “yes it was democratically elected policy but leaders have to lead” which is pretty clear nod and a wink stuff.

                • Tracey …
                  16 November 2014 at 3:18 pm

                  And. ?. That person is robertson? Show me his specific, not general comments, where he will not move centre. I am not sure he has even mentioned yhe word union once on this site

                • bruhaha …
                  16 November 2014 at 3:30 pm

                  So Keir, you never answered me last time. How did you feel about Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe unilaterally announcing policy durning the last leadership race?

                  Was that anti-democratic?

                  • Keir …
                    16 November 2014 at 3:48 pm

                    I don’t object to leadership contenders talking about left wing policy within the framework of the Platform – both Cunliffe and Robertson were pretty good about that, and it was good to see.

                    I do object to leadership contenders who see their role as pushing the party back to the centre by jettisoning key left wing policies like a CGT and NZPower.

                • Peppermint Patti …
                  16 November 2014 at 4:00 pm

                  When did Little says “too much policy, too much of it too radical”? It’s not in the vid.

                  • Keir …
                    16 November 2014 at 4:06 pm

                    See here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11339957.

                    “Too much policy” is a direct quote; “too radical” is a mild paraphrase of his stance – apparently our policy was “scary” – although quite how voters were scared by NZ Power & cheaper electricity bills is beyond me!. (I’m going by what he said on the hustings, so it’s not entirely word for word!)

                    • weka …
                      16 November 2014 at 4:39 pm

                      I think you need to direct quote and link (that’s full quote, not cut and paste bits out of context). Otherwise your comments look like misleading spin. eg,

                      “Labour also had to work out how to get its voters back, including reviewing policies voters were “scared by” or did not understand – such as the capital gains tax, raising the retirement age and the NZ Power proposal to help reduce energy prices.”

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11339957

                      There Little is clearly saying he thinks that some policies need to be reviewed. He says this is because he believes those policies scared voters or were misunderstood by them. What is wrong with this?

                      He hasn’t said the power policy was scarey. Reread his quote.

                      I’m also going to suggest that you stop putting things in quotation marks unless they are actual quotes. Otherwise we can’t tell what Little has said and what is your interpretation (or misintepretation).

                      Now I would like some direct quotes of things he has said that demonstrate he intends to take the party to the centre.

                    • Karen …
                      16 November 2014 at 4:44 pm

                      You have done a lot of paraphrasing when criticising Little, Keir. I met with Little at one of the “meet the Candidates” meetings, I went to the Auckland hustings, i watched the online streaming hustings and I have read all the material issued by all the candidates. I have a different view of Little and Robertson.

                      My understanding of Little’s position on CGT was that he actually supports it but the policy is very complex and was off-putting to many former Labour voters. Both Cunliffe and Parker were tripped up when questioned about the tax during the campaign. The Nats seized on this as a way of confusing the issue further.
                      Little has said it should be reviewed, and perhaps delayed until Labour is in government when more resources could be put into selling the idea to the public..

                      As for Little being more right wing than Robertson there may be issues where this is the case. However, on issues like welfare and state housing, Little is more left than Robertson.

                    • weka …
                      16 November 2014 at 4:49 pm

                      “My understanding of Little’s position on CGT was that he actually supports it but the policy is very complex and was off-putting to many former Labour voters. Both Cunliffe and Parker were tripped up when questioned about the tax during the campaign. The Nats seized on this as a way of confusing the issue further.
                      Little has said it should be reviewed, and perhaps delayed until Labour is in government when more resources could be put into selling the idea to the public..”

                      Thanks Karen, that was how I was taking Little’s comments too, although I’ve just seen the MSM stuff and what he has posted here and he’s implied rather than been very direct.

                      I think Keir’s comments are quite misleading.

                    • Keir …
                      16 November 2014 at 5:28 pm

                      No offence, Weka, but when a politician says “this particular policy is under review” that’s code for “I’m almost certainly going to ditch but I’m not quite ready to make that announcement yet”.

                      Similarly, “personally I agree with you but let’s leave it until at least the second term” is code for “I’m on your team honest but we are never ever going to do that while I am leader”. As with all sentences, it’s the part after the “but” that matters. Saying “I personally support this” costs the politician nothing – although Little will be absolutely crucified if he goes into a General Election saying he personally supports a CGT but Labour doesn’t have any plans for one, so I would expect to see that walked back if he wins. Saying when they will do it, being specific, that costs them something, and Andrew Little isn’t willing to do that. It’s a politician’s way of dodging the question.

                      (These examples are all of course made up examples, but they convey the point.)

                      And to be honest, my interpretation of Little’s shift to the centre isn’t idiosyncratic. It’s pretty much the consensus read of his policy views – I mean, here’s Martyn Bradbury stance: he “might just be pitching for National voters” (http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/11/08/the-nation-review-labour-leadership-debate/), and I don’t normally agree with Bradbury on the colour of the sky!

                    • Peppermint Patti …
                      16 November 2014 at 6:30 pm

                      Which words are you “mildly paraphrasing”? I can see him talkin about policies which scared voters, but that could be for lots of reasons not beccause they were “too radical”.

                      You kindof seem to have this line about Little calling things radical when he didn’t. You did it here on twitter too https://twitter.com/KeirLeslie/status/531977582300782592 and now youre attacking lprent for saying things you dont like https://twitter.com/KeirLeslie/status/533847488898138112

                      Maybe you should just stick to talking about things people are actually saying instead of what you want to tell people theyre saying?

                    • weka …
                      16 November 2014 at 6:45 pm

                      Keir, I’ve been polite about your skewing. Now I’m saying link or it didn’t happen so STFU.

                      You may well have some valid criticisms of Little. Unfortunately your unwillingness to present evidence, and your conflating opinion as fact completely undermine your view to the point that your comments are so messy as to be useless.

                    • Keir …
                      16 November 2014 at 6:51 pm

                      Patti, it’s true that Andrew Little is against all those things – or he’s against the Labour party doing anything about those things, I don’t really care which, not having a wish to make a window into his soul.

                      I mean, he really did attack women’s only selections (along with Shane Jones et al) on the grounds that we should select on merit not gender. That’s an actual thing he did and said, and I disagree with him on that point.

                      He has put the Capital Gains Tax and NZ Power on the chopping block (they might survive,they might not! Who knows, but it looks pretty grim for them.) I disagree with him on those points: I think a fair tax system and affordable publicly regulated utilities are key goals for Labour.

                      I do think that New Zealanders should be able to die with dignity, and I do think that if there’s multiparty support for it, then Iain Lees-Galloway should work towards that.

                      Those are substantive policy disagreements I have with Little, and it’s because Little seems to want to tack to the centre and throw overboard policy and I think that Labour needs to keep offering a clear and bold alternative to the National party. The fact that Little is coming across to me and almost everyone else as a centrist strongly suggests he is in fact a centrist.

                      The precise way you word it is up to you, but those are substantive policy disagreements I have with Little, and they are substantive differences in where I think the party should be and where he seems to think it should be.

            • Clemgeopin 10.1.2.2.1.2
              16 November 2014 at 3:30 pm

              I think the problem for Labour is that if it only gives left and far left signals, it will be hard pressed to get much over 25% party vote.

              It needs to get around 40% vote. That can happen only if Labour has both centrist and leftist policies. It is the centre of the bell curve where most votes are. A party needs to win at least half from there to be in a position to form a government. Labour needs to attract a chunk of soft votes from National and NZF.

              Remember the society has changed. Most people do earn very good incomes and are careful where they place their votes.

              The far left votes should be cornered by parties such as Mana/IMP. Labour should leave that primarily to the minor parties though without ignoring the poverty and social justice issues.

              The Greens should concentrate less on left social issues and push on with pure Green issues and centre/right-of-centre issues to attract environmental and blue Green votes from both left and right.

              Labour should have left and centre social, economic and environmental policies.

              National and ACT should thus be pushed more towards centre, right and far right-of-centre agenda and diminish their support to low 40%.

              NZF will do what they do but are an unknown quantity as to who they will support in government. I suspect that in the future, they are more likely to go Nats way, in the same way as the Maori and conservative parties. Therefore, Labour should become competitive with NZF and the Cons on certain issues dear to the elders and conservatives.

              With such a strategy, there is a very good chance for Labour to increase its vote to 40%, and be in a position to form a coalition, possibly with the support of the Greens(10%), Mana (3%) and perhaps NZF (7%)

              Leaving Nats at about 40% and struggling to get enough support from their usual pathetic parasites.

              I think it will be a costly mistake for Labour not to move towards the centre but yet preserving its soul, its leftist social justice values.

              • weka …
                16 November 2014 at 4:43 pm

                “It needs to get around 40% vote. That can happen only if Labour has both centrist and leftist policies.”

                Nope, it can also happen if Labour moves left and creates meaningful relationship with the non-vote.

                NZF is a very real problem for the left, one that few people seem willing to talk about. Myself, I can’t wait until Peters is off the scene.

                “The Greens should concentrate less on left social issues and push on with pure Green issues and centre/right-of-centre issues to attract environmental and blue Green votes from both left and right.”

                Nope again. The GP has always had social justice as a core part of its kaupapa. Its vote increased when it brought those things to the fore. There is an inherent contradiction between the GP and the blue green vote – environmental policies are impossible under neoliberal govts. Remember, the GP wants change not power.

                • b waghorn …
                  16 November 2014 at 4:53 pm

                  I think labour and greens should cut the bs neither will be in government in the near future with out each other . SYSO

                  • weka …
                    16 November 2014 at 5:16 pm

                    SYSO?

                    The GP has for a long time been working towards a coalition govt, including as recently as the last election campaign where it publicly approached Labour to work together during the campaign. Labour rejected this outright.

                    • b waghorn …
                      16 November 2014 at 5:28 pm

                      I know the greens did all though the tail shouldn’t wag the dog. (Sort your shit out)

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      16 November 2014 at 5:29 pm

                      Why do you think Labour rejected that ‘approach’?

                    • weka …
                      16 November 2014 at 6:18 pm

                      @ waghorn,

                      What bs do the GP need to cut then?

                      The Gp aren’t the tail any more.

                    • weka …
                      16 November 2014 at 6:21 pm

                      “Why do you think Labour rejected that ‘approach’?”

                      Because they thought it would increase their party vote, and/or they thought they could get enough votes to govern without the GP (most likely via NZF). They’ve since admitted their strategy failed.

                    • b waghorn …
                      16 November 2014 at 6:26 pm

                      As a complete outsider the green leaders were carrying on like they were going to sweep to a massive victory and were almost dictating to labour the terms of a coalition IMO

                    • weka …
                      16 November 2014 at 6:40 pm

                      Yes, and I have my own critiques of their election campaign. But that was all after Labour said fuck off. Am pretty sure the GP would have behaved quite differently had Labour been willing to work cooperatively.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      16 November 2014 at 9:18 pm

                      @weka:
                      And how exactly should Labour have behaved and been ‘willing’ to work ‘cooperatively’ with the Greens?

                • Clemgeopin …
                  16 November 2014 at 5:26 pm

                  There are kaupapa and kaupapas!

                  What this greens ‘left’ kaupapa you so profoundly speak of is doing is simply help the greedy Greens steal votes off Labour and also scare away blue greens away from both Greens and Labour in the bargain! It is just a bean sized stupid policy. Not a clever kaupapa. Just a crazy cowpatty. It stinks and is slimy.

          • Tracey 10.1.2.2.2
            16 November 2014 at 3:12 pm

            Great points…

            This is one of the probs with having leadership before review before affirming policy..

  11. fisiani 11
    15 November 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Fine words from Andrew. He represents what is best about the Labour Party. He needs time to bring about the needed reforms. He could well raise the Party vote by 20% from 25% to a whopping 30%. It would be unrealistic to expect him to win in the next few terms when the economy is flourishing, wages are rising, people are content and satisfied. With the safe hands of the current Ministers who are making multi-pronged improvements in every portfolio and the huge array of talent in the 2014 crop of new National MP’s it would be unfair to place too high an expectation on him.

  12. WOOF 12
    15 November 2014 at 7:26 pm

    He seems like a good dwag 🙂

  13. finbar 13
    15 November 2014 at 7:41 pm

    Whoever we select has to be selected for the journey.

  14. fisiani 14
    15 November 2014 at 10:23 pm

    I agree. But it will be a long , long lengthy journey. He will be collecting a pension by then.

  15. Dont worry. Be happy 15
    16 November 2014 at 8:17 am

    Read about ag-gag laws in 7 US States. Illegal to film or record or photograph any intensive feedlot/industrialised farming. Not sure if undercover stuff is then illegal for media to broadcast…anyone know?

    No doubt laws (and food) like this will be forced down our throats in the Little Robber’s reign.

    How long before growing your own food is illegal?

    My life time…my children’s….grandchildren?

  16. goodsweat 16
    16 November 2014 at 9:41 am

    We lead our lives in a series of the habits we have formed. As adults we are set in our ways. I believe looking at a person’s history is by far the best way to predict what to expect from them in the future.

    This is the reason we have credit records. The person that has defaulted on 3 lines of credit is a high odds favourite to default again. The person that has little money that wins $10,000 on Lotto are a high odds favourite to be broke in 6 months. The entrepreneur with sound related habits that goes broke will be on her way again in 12 months.

    In a professional sports team it matters little how well a player might present their verbal case to be included in next week’s run on team. What counts is their skills, fitness, attitude and form. Their selection hinges entirely on these factors, it doesn’t matter how good they are at talking up their suitability.

    Politicians are professionals at talking up their suitability, they all sound fantastic. My litmus test is the history. Look at Key – Previously a successful personable merchant banker doing deals with money, we got just what the can says. True to history. When I look at the Labour leader candidates in this light I think the choice is obvious.

    Little has studied for a law degree and is a qualified lawyer. This in itself is an admirable feat and says much about the person. He has dedicated most of his working life running true to Labour principles and I believe motivated by a heart felt desire to see more people getting a fair go. A qualified lawyer that focuses on the employment sector is not motivated by money, there are far lusher pastures. I’ve seen people question how effective Little may of been in his professional role. For me, that’s not as important as the fact that he was in there boots ‘n’ all. The icing on the cake, he gets right up the rights’ nose.

    To predict the future, look to the past.

    • locus 16.1
      16 November 2014 at 11:05 am

      i agree that track record (especially recent achievements) is a good indicator of how someone might perform in the future. And i there’s a fair chance that Little will be a good leader for Labour and a few years will help New Zealand out of this hole that the right are digging under the social foundations of our country

      however, if you are not thinking about selecting the leader of the Labour party, then i would strongly disagree with your first two paragraphs. People can do amazing things if they get the chance to learn, grow, change, be trusted….

      In your world view, how would someone get their first leadership role? How would someone get the chance to go to university if they had never passed school c? How would someone learn to manage financial affairs if they had never had money enough to learn before they won lotto? And without society giving people a second chance and levelling the playing field – would so many people end up on society’s scrapheap?

      • goodsweat 16.1.1
        16 November 2014 at 11:41 am

        Hi Locus,
        I think you’re a perceptive person and raise an important point.

        Every single human has something that nobody can take from us. Hope is a crucial ingredient in any better place we might perceive. By itself it is solely emotion. When it is put in a pot and stirred up with opportunity great things happen.

        The better NZ I’d like to see is one that germinates and fertilises opportunity in a vast array of ways. Personally I don’t think a government is responsible for creating jobs. I feel many NZers would like to see a government with a view to creating an opportunity renaissance.

        Channels created for these situations you speak of, situations that in one form or another we will all experience in life. Yes locus, the opportunity to force a change in our behaviour. Or the opportunity to set out on a bona fide guaranteed (provided expectations are met) position managerial cadetship at Countdown.

        “All I’m asking is that you give me a go mate.” Is an attitude that pushes all Kiwi’s hot buttons.

    • Tracey 16.2
      16 November 2014 at 3:21 pm

      Was he a merchant wanker? Currency trader… He brought money to the national party coffers, an ability to keep it coming…

      He hasnt brought money to nz… Let alone kept it coming… He still wanted a failed financial hub like irelands as larpte as 2012…

    • Murray Rawshark 16.3
      16 November 2014 at 3:27 pm

      No doubt your mate Key would pass a law for you, saying any Lotto money won by the poor should be taken by the government to allow for more tax cuts for the rich. The poor only waste it anyway.

      You have the spirit of a pig and will not enter heaven. You shouldn’t even be entering people’s fridges.

      • goodsweat 16.3.1
        16 November 2014 at 5:14 pm

        Yes, I feel the poor not only need increased incomes, they could generally benefit from improved money management habits. I’m sorry my thoughts leave you feeling so offended Murray, it’s not what I’m trying to do.

        I expect I dedicate almost of much of my time and money to helping others as you do. Calling me horrid names might make you feel a bit better about you, so go for your life but it’s just water off my back. I have a much better handle on who and what I am than you’re ever likely to.

  17. red lion serratus 17
    16 November 2014 at 4:30 pm

    More salient words from Andrew, that he grasps the concept of
    The precariot so firmly is heartening & from the previous questions the coming AGW crisis to me speaks volumes… Far more than fashion faux passes.