- Date published:
8:38 pm, October 10th, 2014 - 39 comments
Categories: admin, humour, labour, notices, The Standard - Tags: andrew little, bullhorn, Labour leadership, leadership
At 3pm on
Saturday Sunday, Andrew Little will be on The Standard for discussion with questions from our audience of ardent left-wingers, greens, those who are just interested, and the odd window driven troll.
As always with candidates, this forum will be fully moderated. So if you want questions like “when did you defenestrate your mother-in-law” or its less intellectual equivalents, then this is really is not the forum for you. Because I will be happy to answer you in OpenMike as I drag you to your fate.
However if you want to ask searching and hard questions of this candidate for the leadership of the Labour party without the hinderance of the inflated egos of the media , then this will be your chance.
We will attempt to get the post up an hour or so early to provide you a basis for your questions.
Please, no speeches (or the fenestration awaits). We want to hear what you ask the candidate and their response rather than your current hobby horse.
If any candidates wish to use the facility of The Standard, then don’t hesitate to use the contact page. Last month we peaked at about 114 thousand unique visitors for the month, most of them from the left. So this is a good place to talk to the 40-60% of the audience who you need to convince to vote for you both in this election and into the next election.
As an aside, someone else didn’t suggest a title for this post… So today you get some latin.
What is your vision of the Labour party under your leadership if you win.
Rate yourself as a debater amongst the candidates. can you get the answers from John key at question time better than they could?
What is your opinion on opening up more avenues for Labour to get party funding? Do you think the party does enough to garner support for the cause? What can you do about that?
Oh and are you an opinion seeker or an opinion provider would you say.
Post will be up on
SaturdaySunday. Put it up then…
I put a post up because I’m going to help someone and build a ramp for a pensioner so she can get out of her house.
and I can’t delete it anymore mate, sorry about that.
I will push it over on sunday
Excellent lprent, can’t wait.
Edit, in case anyone wondered what I was what?ing, BM asked Andrew if he was sorry for being a man. Perhaps BM realised the error of his ways, or remembered that Lynn is in moderation mode 😈
Do we take it then that Andrew is seen as a real chance as leader? It was not long ago that he was regarded here as an outside chance at best?
Stick around, Your IQ will go up by 10 points in six months or your money back. Oh you didn’t pay any money – well what a bargain you’ll be getting.
We have always put up posts from any of the candidates for the Labour leadership who want to have the space.
Presumably if they want to contend for it, then they are a contender.
I would never ask anything about defenstrating mothers in law. It’s not PC and I don’t know what it means. But Andrew will know, I think after you’ve been in politics for a while, you’ve heard everything that’s weird.
From memory, defenestration was a topic in an old set of stories from Arthur C Clarke. Tales from the White Hart. Probably the first time I heard it.
However, most commonly these days in the computing community it has been corrupted into the verb as short-hand for the art of getting rid of Microsoft Windows…
Andrew Little on Morning Report. I thought he did well, not perfect but with the potential to fill the role.
Not sure about his equivocating on the left/right thing, but he did make a clear statement that his values and instincts are ‘more left than anything else, absolutely’.
I also liked how he didn’t let Espiner frame the Labour leader’s job as ‘taking out Key’, but that instead it’s about Labour getting its platform and presentation sorted.
@ wekarawshark (6)
I think he did well to not be forced into defining himself as left or right. It’s a media game. Say left, and you will be framed by somebody else’s idea of communism. Say ‘right’ and you will be framed by somebody else’s idea of Jamie Whyte.
Much better not to let yourself be forced into accepting a label …..Let the Party vision, and the Party policies do that far more eloquently.
If he stays away from “taking out Key”, and concentrates on what he is doing at the moment, he has the potential to do really well. He hasn’t put a foot wrong yet, since his announcement. Of course it is early days.
Mr. Botany (B.)
If Labour can no longer call itself a lef wing party because of the game, then it’s got serious problems. But we knew that already 😉
I am referring to labels given within the Labour Party. It’s divisive apart from anything else. And it’s also relatively meaningless when the user of the label is using it in the context of “I do not like Joe Bloggs”.
I am not so unhappy to see the terms used when the user is clear about the policies that are being criticised.
I am intrigued as to the methodology that “Vote Compass” used to position the political parties, and contributors on a “left-right” basis. They positioned Greens and Mana furthest to the left, and the Labour Party between them and National.
Fwiw, I was positioned between the Greens/Mana and Labour. I suppose that labels me as “Labour Far Left” and “Greens/Mana Far Right”. Interesting, but about as helpful as an empty glass in the middle of the Sahara.
Mr. Botany (B.)
I think Little has good potential and a serious mind, but is taking his run at Leader too early. And if he won, would the Robertson faction not go back to ignoring the voice of the membership and affiliates, and undermining Little as Leader within months.
Robertson should resign if he doesn’t win.
Politicians need to have HUGE egos to be in this line of work. Robertson’s ego won’t allow him to quit. Shearer’s ego told him he could be PM, even though he was the least experienced MP in Parliament when he seized / was coaxed into the leadership.
colonial rawshark 7
Could he not start moving on these backstabbers, put them low on the list even. Surely he has opportunity and authority to make his own decisions over his working team? Perhaps Labour will need to be run by a Commissioner in the end to allow a completely new board of pollies to be chosen by the people if the MPs can’t treat the job as a service one to the Labour people who provide the basis for their opportunity to be there!
The leader needs a good set of principled reliable people around him so he can be effective? Otherwise too much time is spent toing and froing and back-stabbing. Otherwise they might get him in the rotunda. That’s the worst spot.
Rinse the blood off my toga! Et tu Brutus!
“Could he not start moving on these backstabbers, put them low on the list even.”
Yes and there is Bill’s view that DC failed to deal with the ABCs so perhaps Little might have the strength or will to do so. However I don’t see any evidence of this yet so I guess it’s a gamble.
“I think Little has good potential and a serious mind, but is taking his run at Leader too early. And if he won, would the Robertson faction not go back to ignoring the voice of the membership and affiliates, and undermining Little as Leader within months.”
If DC is reelected leader, what’s to stop the backstabbing from continuing?
These pollies are probably suffering from the old-style neurasthenia! A good cleaning out laxative would help. Get them all running and returning quieter and more thoughtful and somehow purer. Lots of water too.
Perhaps a week in the ranges camping out with meditation, having long walks and time for reflection and then they would emerge with an agreed manifesto that was manifestly agreed to and followed loyally. The quislings could be paid off. It works for National, but someone was tossing $300,000 around as the quid pro quo? Labour might afford $30,000 as they don’t have too many SFC types in their hip pockets.
In Rutherford’s voice ‘We have a lack of money, so we have to think.’ We need more like him.
Reading Margaret Thorn, past Labour activist and part of a political team with overseas postings. She said that her husband had a thrombosis before he reached pension time and they were quite poor. I think she was a cook at a place she used to visit as wife of an MP in ceremony. She didn’t get the same respect in her new role, and life was hard for them continually. That was then. They deserved better, and pollies should get what they have earned, but not stay when they stop doing their job for the Party, only for themselves.
Kia ora tatou Andrew, congrats on your return to parliament
‘Nough of the small talk brother, let’s get straight into it.
What is your opinion on the repeated bail out of the “Technically Insolvent” Solid Energy.
Just days out from the election the Government announced that they were giving an additional bail to Solid Energy of $103million, this is on top of the $150million the Government gave to bail out Solid Energy last year.
This is more than a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer’s money. The bail out of this insolvent company has been described by the taxpayer’s union as government “culture of corporate welfare”.
In the age of climate change
Gareth Hughes of the Greens said that this money would have been better spent on a “just transition to more sustainable jobs” for these workers, “jobs that don’t fry the planet”.
Do you agree with this view expressed by Gareth Hughes Andrew?
Or do you have some other take on the bail out of Solid Energy?
Considering that the bail out was originally sold to the public as a measure to save jobs, do you think that following Solid Energy’s continuing their brutal layoffs and closures, that the Government should have heeded Gareth Hughes advice?
Andrew as a life long union man and an advocate for the workers in parliament, are you of the view, or do you disagree with the statement below;
‘Coal mining is an unacceptably dangerous and ecologically unsustainable industry in the 21st Century. Not unlike Asbestos mining in the 20th’?
Pat O’Dea Mana Movement spokesperson for climate change
thank you pat I also would like to hear the answer to that question
fenestration. A new word to me. So my wife and I are adapting it for household use. She spilled a bottle of cream that did not have its lid on properly. My fault because I did not consider the capping fenestration. Hmph!
I suggested to a RW trole that he keep commenting here and his iQ would be up 10% in six months. I reckon that applies to all of us. Reading all the stuff here certainly keeps my brain humming and increases my vocab sometimes in sstrange ways,.
A few questions, Andrew:
1) You have said that there were too many big, abstract policies during the last campaign and that people voted for stability. You’ve also said that Labour needs to meet people’s concerns rather than trying to shift their opinions. these are both reasonable statements, but how would you ensure that a party you led did more than just follow opinion polls, and took a leading role in shaping the political landscape and developing concrete solutions to social, environmental and political issues?
2) Team building skills – what would you do differently?
Hello Andrew –
I am thinking about tax as it affects lower income people. A small change there would have a big effect on this group. Would you comment on –
1 Doing away with secondary tax? It I think dates back to when everyone could make a reasonable living from one, and doing extra lifted one into the higher income level. Now multiple jobs may be required to basically manage. It would wipe a barrier to achieving better conditons.
2 I would like regions that have peaks of tourism say in low populated areas to get more from such tourists. This would be done by allocating some GST taken from the area (which would be identified by a number code in the GST number) and go back to the Council providing infrastructure, roads, toilets, care. The more effort an area did, the more business it achieved for its efforts, the more it would receive. I consider this would be a very positive and encouraging return for regions. (Don’t know how it would apply to Auckland – the local and central govt could argue that one.)
3 Stop taxing savings. I have been taxed at 39.5% i think, huge, until I got to and got the code changed. Now it is down to 19.5% I think. Why? The little interest received gets taxed at this huge amount. It’s a disgrace.
4 CGT on all houses over average for that area? Seems reasonable. There are I think 100,000 NZ businesses in the housing industry, far more than in any other NZ industry sector. Why should they be able to have taxation friendly opportunities when there are rich pickings to be had in this area, the most important business to most apart from dairy. Or bring back stamp duty, or both.
5 Estate duty, what about it? The rich get rich, and the poor get children was the old cry. Less children now though, that can be contained, but the rich are still accumulating capital. And staying rich, and the poor staying poor. A reasonable small percentage estate duty across the board would help restore the coffers after lots of tax avoidance by the wealthy smarts.
I worked for the IRD contact centre until last year, so although I’m not Andrew Little, and I’m a bit short of time to fully answer the tax questions, I can quickly post that no secondary tax and no tax on savings favour the rich, not the poor.
For example, I took a call from a doctor who was doing some extra work for a second practice (it’s quite common for doctors and surgeons to have second jobs of one sort or another), and they wanted to know why they had a bill from the year before. The reason was they earned 6 figures from their main job, so every extra dollar they earned from their second job should have taxed at the top rate, not the bottom rate as actually happened (they used two M codes instead of ST for the second job).
The only ways to truly eliminate secondary tax are to either update FIRST (the taxation computer system at IRD) so it can calculate tax in real time based on current earnings, and legislation to permit this, or to create a flat income tax system (i.e. same rate on every $). Any other system will allow people to pay less tax than they are supposed to, or more than they should.
No tax on interest generated by savings (the actual savings themselves are not taxed, just the income they generate) favours people who have more savings over those who have less, particularly people who don’t work, or don’t work much, and primarily live off interest from savings. Again, not exactly favourable to the poor…
“I can quickly post that no secondary tax and no tax on savings favour the rich, not the poor.”
How does your example demonstrate that removing secondary tax doesn’t favour the poor?
@ Craig H
As weka is I think thinking, you are considering two different tax concerns. I did point out somewhere that when you have very little money, every $ more in your hand is effective for you. So I would like the matter being looked at first from that point of view.
For people getting lots, they should be preparing annual tax returns that show all their income and any adjustments come from the overall situation. They are likely to be getting into marginal tax rates, and paying tax on discrete sums would not give a true reading of what they should pay under the correct tax regime for their total earnings.
And it shouldn’t require a super computer to work that out.
They should be able to do it on their computer at home and fax it or email the spreadsheet which of course they will know how to do, or their accountants.
I agree that it would be nice to get some tax on people who are so wealthy they can live off their interest. So may be 2% on interest under $1000, that is most of us, and say 15% over? If they were living off dividends, what would they pay on those?
How would you manage the ” I want a PrimeMinister I could share a pint with” approach to the electorate choosing who they want to govern the country?
Andrew were you not running for leader or you miss out.
Would you be happy being the deputy and taking on the roll of uniting the Labour caucus?
This has been answered on Q&A with Andrew Little.
I even corrected the spelling for role!
1 I’m thinking now about small business in NZ. Would you increase assistance to people trying to get these off the ground, if they had a good business plan and experience say?
There isn’t enough money circulating in the communities that stays in the community and we need more entrepreneurial spirit. Seeing that established businesses are not willing to pay decent wages and respect their employees by giving them set hours on a permanent basis, people could put the same sort of graft into starting businesses that often take a number of years to get going before they can bring in good money. I think they would if given advice and extra skills available to carry out some good idea.
Would you support help, loans and advice for small business.
2 Then there is the Grameen style lending for small one-person initiatives. Ordinary people helping themselves, when they have an idea they can earn from. Can we get more of this going. We have something in Nelson like that but haven’t enquired lately how it’s going. It has been successful for some years. Would you support this.
3 Also there is the situation of working beneficiaries. To me it seems a good idea, now we have the flood of cheaper imported goods that have killed off our own initiatives here and helped keep our wage rates low. The economy functions at that level. If people could get as much work as they could reasonably manage and still be able to get monetary and accommodation assistance, we would get healthier happier people and they could manage on a lower income with small aspirations and be happy. But social mobility would be available too. So would you be open to this practical approach, paying benefits and encouraging people to work and receive top-ups and not be counting every penny people earned, though keeping in touch to ensure that benefits be slowly reduced when appropriate levels of earnings achieved.
4 Would you support a citizen investment fund to buy NZ developed and operated businesses to stop all our innovative, profitable businessses being sold overseas or getting into one wealthy NZ person’s hands, but rather being managed and run well by and for NZs.
Andrew, you stated on a TV3 interview on the 11 October , that “Labour should not have anything to do with Internet Mana”
Are you aware that is a relatively controversial position that Labour took?
Could you please comment on the possibility of embracing Mana in future elections, in the same way that Labour previously worked with Jim Anderton, and National is successfully working with Act and United Future?
Have your transferred this question over to the current thread for Andrew Little? You will need to do so as I am for it to be on the hot spot thread.
What about regional cooperatives hosting industry with investment funds from the local citizens backing it? Would that get your interest and support?
I was rather looking forward to David Cunliffe’s contribution.
Since I don’t think that we will get to see David Parker or Grant Robertson availing themselves of this worthy public service anytime soon.
So I expect that this will probably be the last post we will see like this.
More’s the pity
Robertson put up a post last leadership election. It’s an interesting read. I hoep he does it again, but would prefer a Q and A where he gives more time to answering questions than he did last time.
Also one from 2011 http://thestandard.org.nz/grant-robertson/
Here’s DC’s from June this year http://thestandard.org.nz/david-cunliffe-qa/ There’s one from DC from last year too but I can’t find it.
edit: DC’s post from 2011 http://thestandard.org.nz/david-cunliffe/