- Date published:
10:00 am, October 29th, 2014 - 35 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour, Unions - Tags: affiliates, andrew little, dairy workers union, dwu, Labour leadership
The Dairy Workers Union executive has endorsed Andrew Little in the Labour leadership race.
The Dairy Workers Union (DWU) commands about 2.75 per cent of the overall vote for the leader.
Under Labour’s rules, affiliated unions hold 20 per cent of the vote, MPs 40 per cent and party members 40 per cent.
The DWU decision will cement Little as the frontrunner and comes after the biggest affiliated union, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, endorsed him.
The recommendation is not binding on the unions’ 60 delegates but is likely to carry strong weight.
No word yet on whether the remaining affiliates will be endorsing any candidate.
I understand one of the other affiliates have backed Little with solid support from voting delegates. No surprise when you look where and what spokesperson position (Industrial Relations) Little has.
He is the only contender making the right noise around ‘the future of work.’
Given the Govts attacks on worker rights, having a strong unionist as head of the Labour Party might be a Very Good Thing.
Little and Mahuta.
Seems to me the only combination that ‘works’. You cannot get more balanced than that ticket
I agree totally – I have my fingers crossed that this will happen
+100 millsy and JanM
This endorsement stacks up against that of a knight? pfft.
Sir Michael Cullen, the gallant knight who rode out, endorsement in hand?
tee hee, yes – I’m sure the Labour members who are voting are going to take a lot of notice of a man who flew in the face of their party policy to accept a reinstated knighthood from a National government
Sir Geoffrey Palmer the latest to endorse Grant http://www.grantrobertson.co.nz/geoffrey_palmer
You’d better explain to the young folks who he is/was. I remember seeing him at a Labour rally back in the 1980’s.
How sweet – the kiss of death, hopefully. It’s not that they didn’t do their bit at the time, but they are yesterday’s men, neither of them leadership material, who have lived privileged lives with probably little real idea of what’s going on out there now.
It would be very unwise to write Grant Robertson off on the strength of this.
This will likely be won not on first or second preferences, but on third preferences.
Meaning, everyone but everyone is going to have to live with a significant compromise.
A Note of Caution: Parker may be winning more ordinary Party members, under the Radar, than we think
Although I’ve been a member (on-and-off) of the Labour Party in the past, I’m not currently and so won’t be voting in this leadership contest. Among my wider family, only my father (in his early 80s) is currently a paid-up member. I went around to my parents house on the weekend and my mother mentioned that my father had voted for Parker. Now, like me, they’d both consider themselves as being towards the Left of the Party. But apparently my father (who is not particularly clued-up on which factions the candidates represent / have emerged from) chose Parker as a result of reading the highly-expensive glossy campaign literature posted out by the Parker team. It includes 6 colour photos of Parker, 3 large portraits and various slogans and quotes in bold type. He presumably has a lot of corporate money behind his campaign.
My parents haven’t received any campaign literature from any other candidate (presumably because the others haven’t secured the finance that Parker has). So don’t be surprised if a whole lot of ordinary members – not activists who are au fait with the personalities and factional politics, but ordinary members – end up voting for the Right’s Parker, while erroneously believing that he’s a good solid Leftie.
We’re talking Under the Radar here.
That’s the kind of tactics we need to win national elections. Good on him.
Parker has a romantic link with someone who has a number of very influential [financial] contacts.
But further marks to him for especially good standard political tactics.
Sheeezus. Can no one count in this party any more?
Swordfish – the most important vote your Dad made, is who he put down as his second preference.
Yeah, I’m aware of this, CV. Just pointing out that Parker may do better than expected on the first preferences among ordinary Party members.
What I worry about is if Robertson doesn’t get in, and someone else does narrowly, and only on third preferences. If that happens, it’s going to be a shite 3 years for the “winner” as well as the rest of the general membership.
It will be anyhow. A gargantuan ego does not quit easily.
“But Brutus is an honorable man.”
I’m being a drag I know, as everyone has gone into the voting system already and understands it, but could you confirm that I’ve got it right. I’m assuming that the winner is the one that gets 51% of the votes.
Say a voter puts down A as first preference, B as second, C then D.
If A hasn’t got 51% of the first preference votes, and none of the others have either, then the individual votes are noted for the first preference line-up.
And then the second preferences are added to the first preferences, to see if there is a 51% majority now.
And so on down the third, and then the fourth preferences until a clear winner is evident.
Is it a 51% majority required? Is this the way it is done?
51% is a win yes. To get to there:
1) The first preference votes from all 3 groups (MPs, members, affiliates) are added up.
2) The lowest ranking candidate is eliminated.
3) All those people who put the lowest ranking candidate as their no.1 get their second preference votes added on to the remaining 3 candidates.
4) The lowest ranking candidate out of those 3 is eliminated.
5) All those people who put that candidate as their no.1 (or sometimes as their no.2) will get their next preference vote counted towards the remaining candidates.
And so on.
Basically: Only when a voter’s preferred candidate is ranked last, does that voters next preference count for anything.
Maybe you can help me out here Colonial Rawshark.
In order to assist your no.1 candidate… do you put the candidate who you suspect to be that person’s biggest rival at No.4 even if you may be happy to put him/her at no3? Or does it not really matter?
If if your No.1 is still in the race It doesn’t matter as your 2nd (& 3rd) preferences don’t get counted/used unless your No.1 candidate is eliminated.
Putting the biggest rival of your No.1 as 2nd, 3rd or 4th has no effect while your No.1 is still in the race.
Ok I get it. Thanks Gregj.
Thanks for asking that question greywarshark: I have been bamboozled about it too. I just watched an episode of a Danish series called Borgen, about a fictional first female PM of Denmark, and thought bloody hell, is the whole world following exactly the same script? This episode was about cutting early retirement to pay for education, Labour Party leadership issues and leaking.
Andrew Little 1 is the way to go. You can always chose someone else in 2017 .Let John Key fight his sixth Labour leader after Clark, Goff, Shearer, Cunliffe and Little. I suspect it will be Grant Robertson by 2020
Helen and Key both got 9 years because of economic timing. Helen enjoyed 5 years of economic growth but lost when the global economy crashed before the 2008 election.
Key has been re-elected twice because of 6 years of strong economic growth. If the economy turns down sharply before the 2017 election, Key will retire because he knows (as all experienced politicians know) the incumbent party will get trashed.
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
Thanks fisiani we are going to look silly one day after we had ignored your advice again, and this one time you were RIGHT. Sometime in the late 2020’s. I think.
Olwyn I am glad to see that it was useful to you as well. I tend to think that everyone else is like fisiani and knows everything. And CR is pretty good at coming up with the answers. Interesting about the Danish series. Do you think utopian ideas are like viruses, gradually infecting people globally? In Sweden they seemed to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Is fiscal rectitude the same as being anal-retentive?
I’ve seen the candidates on the hustings now. Voted Little with my first pref. He spoke with a fair bit of fire and humour and he’s the only one with the experience to fix the party.
The caucus and the members have been at war. Some in caucus think they should select the leader. Many of us think we should. The Shearer fiasco proved the judgement of the masses was superior to the judgement of two dozen.
In last year’s contest Cunliffe overwhelmed Roberston in the membership and affiliates votes but Robertson carried the caucus. The majority of that caucus still thought this is their party, not ours.
I am voting against the two caucus insiders.
Parkers glossy lie sheet is impressive but it doesn’t need huge backing. 10 or even 20 thousand cpies is probably only 50-60 cents each plus postage etc equals less than 20 grand, about half the salary increase for Leader of the Oppo. It’s a good punt.
And that’s what surprised me about David Cunliffes quagmire on the last shit fight, it’s not as though he needed the money as he was already on enough and the PM’s job paid about ten times as much as his campaign cost.
For us poor mugs,when we want to increase production we have to come up with the money ourselves from projected income.