EPMU endorses Andrew Little for Labour leader

Written By: - Date published: 9:07 am, October 20th, 2014 - 67 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour, Unions - Tags: ,

Announced this morning:

The National Executive of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union unanimously endorsed Andrew Little for the role of Labour leader, at a meeting held yesterday.

“I have been speaking to our workplace delegates at forums across the country over the past two weeks, and the overwhelming feedback I’ve received is that our members support Andrew,” says Bill Newson, EPMU national secretary.

“We’ve had firsthand experience of his leadership, his dedication to working people, and his ability to rebuild and modernise an organisation. These are skills which will be vital for the Labour Party over the next three years.”

The National Executive chose not to recommend rankings for the other candidates, who bring their own strengths and abilities to the race.

“It’s really exciting that ordinary members of the Labour Party get to participate in this democratic process to elect a new leader,” says Bill Newson.

“There’s a great lineup of candidates. But based Andrew’s known strengths, the EPMU National Executive want to send a strong message that he is the best choice for the future of the party, and for working New Zealanders.”

No word on whether Buddy the cat will be his running mate.

67 comments on “EPMU endorses Andrew Little for Labour leader ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    20 October 2014 at 9:25 am

    interesting that they dont wait to hear from all candidates. I can understand that for them they know him by his actions which is more powerful than words.

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      20 October 2014 at 9:42 am

      DC endorsing AL may also have been a minor influence as well.

    • Colonial Rawshark 1.2
      20 October 2014 at 1:42 pm

      As the EPMU have delegates and offices up and down the country, they will already know all the leadership contenders reasonably well.

      That’s the thing which I believe Robertson has miscalculated: members and unions heard from him just 12 months ago, last time he was vying for the leadership. Has enough changed to substantially shift support his way in that time?

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1
        20 October 2014 at 9:13 pm

        “That’s the thing which I believe Robertson has miscalculated”

        Miscalculated how? What exactly are you expecting him to have done differently for this new race?

        If Little hadn’t have stood, Grant would have a strong case to win the contest. But with Little standing, not so much.

  2. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2
    20 October 2014 at 9:46 am

    The cat is the astute one.
    What is the name of the dog?

  3. Tangled_up 3
    20 October 2014 at 9:48 am

    That’s a good endorsement.

    Perhaps Little should put it out there that should he win he would be happy for Arden to be deputy if the caucus wishes!

    • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 3.1
      20 October 2014 at 4:34 pm

      Humour or a Brain Fart, Tangled_up?

      That would not work at sooooooo many levels. A few of the nicer ones are:

      1. To have one leader a LIST MP, Mr/s. Tangled_up, may be regarded as a misfortune. To have both leaders LIST MPs looks like carelessness. (Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest)

      2. Ardern does not have a well defined constituency among the membership. She has public recognition but her performance at regional conferences has not done much for her

      3. By attaching herself so publically to the Robertson/ABC team she is now part of the problem that Little has to fix. Had she had not attached herself to Robertson she could have pleaded that she was only an unknowing bag-carrier in the ABC. That defence has now evaporatred. For ever.

      • Tangled_up 3.1.1
        20 October 2014 at 6:58 pm

        A bit of humour in that it would neutralise Robertson’s campaign boost i.e., the crowd-pleasing Ardern.

  4. Matthew Hooton 4
    20 October 2014 at 10:07 am

    [Deleted for blatant trolling.]

    • Sanctuary 4.1
      20 October 2014 at 10:16 am

      That’s right Mr. Hooton just like the USSR. That is why the Kommissars have come and taken you away.

      Oh wait, it’s just the right wing governments you like who do the disappearing these days.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2
      20 October 2014 at 10:16 am

      Trading in death threats is quite Stalinist too, now you mention it. Do you think of Uncle Joe when you screw your pants on in the morning, or brainstorm new ways to tell old lies?

      What did he think of little helpers like you, I wonder.

    • KB 4.3
      20 October 2014 at 10:16 am

      What do you care about democracy? I would have thought you would be keen on having a one (National) party state.

    • felix 4.4
      20 October 2014 at 10:29 am

      Yes Matthew, unions are nasty, evil, dictatorial organisations.

      If only people had a choice whether to participate in them or not, eh?

    • Anne 4.5
      20 October 2014 at 10:34 am

      Do you actually believe what you say or is this your usual stirring? Trying to associate Andrew Little with communism? Trying to project an image of Union authoritarianism? If some of your past actions and utterances are any indication, you don’t really know what a “democracy” even is… let alone how it works in practice.

      Thanks for reminding me of the RNZ political segment coming up this morning. I will listen out for the latest puerile rendition of “twist and turn dirty politicking” by M. Hooton of “Hollow Men” fame.

      • Tracey 4.5.1
        20 October 2014 at 12:42 pm

        its what nats will do….

        hoots thinks if you admit to deliberately breaking a law you should be congratulated for your honesty. of course neither key nor hoots would make such an admission if the consequences were up to 2 years in prison…

        yup hoots trader in street addresses.. cover up of collaborative donor’s against the rules and now flouter of oia laws numerous times…

        what a guy….

        • phillip ure 4.5.1.1
          20 October 2014 at 12:55 pm

          “..hoots thinks if you admit to deliberately breaking a law you should be congratulated for your honesty…”

          ..and williams agreed..

          ..and he/williams was particularly stupid this morn..

          ..even ryan lost her patience with him..

          ..and pulled him up on some bit of bullshit he was trying to spout…

    • Clemgeopin 4.6
      20 October 2014 at 1:35 pm

      Do you get paid to make blatantly stupid, biased and nasty comments? If so, shame on you.

    • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 4.7
      20 October 2014 at 4:37 pm

      🙄

      Girls and boys, : roll : is the best response to idiots.

      Don’t argue with idiots: onlookers might not be able to tell the difference!

  5. Dont worry. Be happy 5
    20 October 2014 at 10:16 am

    @Matthew Hooten….you wouldnt know a democratic process if it bit you in the bum.

  6. Heather 6
    20 October 2014 at 11:03 am

    Glad to see that Hooten’s post has been deleted. The Labour Party election is not the business of the likes of Hooten and the right wing media, they are trying so hard to involve themselves at all levels and will try to ensure the election is a failure by their constant discrediting the candiates and invention of different issues, which are then blown out of all proportion.

  7. alwyn 7
    20 October 2014 at 11:43 am

    I am surprised that you bothered to post on this announcement.
    Alfred Harmsworth, the British newspaper owner, said it best
    “When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.””
    It would have been news if the EPMU had not come out in support of Little. When they support him it is simply a ho-hum moment, surely?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      20 October 2014 at 11:46 am

      I’m surprised that you bothered to comment on this post, and still managed to say so little.

  8. Wayne 8
    20 October 2014 at 12:05 pm

    The deletion of Matthew Hooton’s comment (not that I know what it said) effectively encapsulates why I rarely comment on this site now. It has in essence become a site reserved only for “true believers”. No other viewpoints are to be heard, since they either represent “wrong thinking” or manipulation.

    Now of course you can operate the site on that basis, its your choice. But you can hardly accuse Matthew about “not car(ing) about democracy” if you take that approach.

    • blue leopard 8.1
      20 October 2014 at 12:12 pm

      I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion without knowing what Hooton said.

    • Ben Clark 8.2
      20 October 2014 at 12:14 pm

      Wayne, how often have you had comments removed?

      I would think probably never – because if people, like you, make your argument in a rational way, the moderators don’t censor.

      If you write blatant flame-bait (that you probably don’t even believe cf Matthew’s contribution) designed to derail the thread and just get everyone shouting at you, it doesn’t help the discussion at all.

      If I went on Kiwiblog and constantly compared all of John Key’s actions to Hitler (as opposed to ‘Uncle Joe’ here), I doubt my comments would last long either.

      • Anne 8.2.1
        20 October 2014 at 1:22 pm

        Wayne:
        I don’t think your comments/dissertations have ever been deleted Wayne. There is a big difference between your contributions and most of Matthew Hooton’s …

        Debate may be robust at times and you have to expect disagreements when commenting on a largely left- of- centre site, but you – as a sometime commenter – don’t usually set out to mischievously distort facts in the way Hooton frequently does.

        I do grant you there are times when some commenters here become a little too ‘robust’ but they are relatively few in number. Most of us try to be civil about it even when our feelings about something are very strong.

        On the RNZ political segment today Hooton was grossly unfair in his disparagement of The Standard blog-site. He keeps referring to us as “hard left bloggers/extremists”. That is a lie. There are a range of individuals from the hard- left through to the hard- right who regularly comment here. It is this kind of incorrect and/or exaggerated claim Hooton frequently puts about (whenever he can get away with it) that stirs the ire of moderators and commenters alike.

        • blue leopard 8.2.1.1
          20 October 2014 at 1:55 pm

          @ Anne,

          Re The comments of Hooton’s that you mention,

          What is this all about with people attacking ‘The Standard’?

          Has everyone forgotten that an active engaged citizenry is an important, no, essential part of democracy?

          That the discussion of, and sharing of, ideas is healthy?

          What the hell is going on in this country??

          These people criticizing ‘The Standard’ (or other left-wing blogs), I might add, are the ones with a lot of privilege, and here I mean that specifically in respects to their having a platform for their voice. They are the ones getting their opinions broadcast loud and clear. They have a platform and a very visible one and they are complaining about ordinary folk having discussions in a place where a few people may choose to go and view these opinions?

          The opinions shared here are not forced down peoples’ throats like they are on the radio, the papers and television. You switch on the TV or Radio to find out about your world and it is almost entirely infiltrated by a corporate slant – telling you how to view the subject matter and what way to think. Not simple facts, not balanced by diverse angles, no separation of opinion and fact – just one big blur.

          What is it with these people? They don’t want discussion nor anyone’ opinions but their own to be visible?

          • Anne 8.2.1.1.1
            20 October 2014 at 3:12 pm

            What is this all about with people attacking ‘The Standard’?

            Can be summed up in two words: Dirty Politics.

            Matthew Hooton is part of the right-wing plutocratic society that believes opponents must be destroyed (TS bloggers and commenters are opponents) at all cost and if that involves lies, deceit, blackmail, illegal acts etc. then so be it.

            Add to that… well known figures who , for one reason or another, have been criticised on this site and are therefore happy to go along with the ‘plutocratic’ meme out of revenge. You know who they are. Few of them have ever bothered to come here and read the plethora of excellent posts and the many intelligent and well thought through comments that go with them.

            • blue leopard 8.2.1.1.1.1
              20 October 2014 at 3:30 pm

              When I read the start of your answer re ‘Dirty Politics’ I was thinking “but, but, it has been left-wingers too”

              …and then I read the rest of your comment.

              Clonk

              Oh dear, it sounds like you have nailed it, thanks for the insight.

              It brings to mind this quote from Malcom X:

              “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

              ― Malcolm X

              I hope the critical lefties are reading this thread.

          • wekarawshark 8.2.1.1.2
            20 October 2014 at 4:28 pm

            “What is this all about with people attacking ‘The Standard’?”

            The standard now has some influence and has proven it’s not going away. That scares some people.

        • RedBaronCV 8.2.1.2
          20 October 2014 at 7:39 pm

          If the likes of Mathew Hooten are having a go at us then we must be bothering someone. Long may that continue.

          Are we asking questions that are being picked up by mainstream reporters?
          Could someone at the Herald please ask Matty why he is picking on us??

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3
      20 October 2014 at 12:20 pm

      Matthew Hooton is a poor choice of mast to nail your colours to, Dr. Mapp. There’s plenty of evidence to support the view that people who trade in death threats are toxic to democracy.

    • Tracey 8.4
      20 October 2014 at 12:54 pm

      remember hoots behaviour from holowmen… giving hagers street address to someone wanting to harm hager…. admitting to blocking oias in contravention of the act for political purposes…. that carer for democracy?

    • Colonial Rawshark 8.5
      20 October 2014 at 1:38 pm

      Mate, if Hooton was comparing and contrasting the EPMU with the Soviet Union, then he deserved to get shit canned for blatant trolling and worthless provocation.

      An of course he can be accused of not caring about democracy. His comment was not aimed at furthering the kind of serious debate needed for democracy, merely disrupting and derailing it.

      It has in essence become a site reserved only for “true believers”. No other viewpoints are to be heard, since they either represent “wrong thinking” or manipulation.

      Just remind us – have you ever had a comment deleted Wayne, despite having your own separate and quite different viewpoint?

      • Wayne 8.5.1
        20 October 2014 at 2:35 pm

        Colonial Rawshark and others

        No, I have not had a post deleted, but I have noticed that my contributions have tended to generate a lot more intemperate comments than they used to do. In part my comment re Matthew’s deletion reflected that.

        I have certainly formed a belief that many people who regularly comment on this site would prefer not to hear a view from across the divide (so to speak), and this is expressed much more forthrightly than it used to be. Now I expected that to occur as the election loomed, but it seems to have continued since.

        I do regularly read the site, but only I contribute if I have a quite specific comment to make, such as pointing out Prime Ministers Clark commitments to the military effort in the Middle East in 2002 and 2003. But even that is likely to treated with comments about being part of the corporate structure of Amerika or such like.

        • Anne 8.5.1.1
          20 October 2014 at 3:30 pm

          Fair enough comment Wayne. I agree there has been a higher level of invective in recent times, but I think you can put that down to the Dirty Politics revelations and a feeling of deep anger about the election outcome.

          Much of that anger is directed at the MSM for their ongoing, one sided and often vindictive bias towards the left – and Labour in particular (yes, some of it was deserved but most of it wasn’t) – and the knowledge that many voters were manipulated into believing Labour was the perpetrator of the dirty politics when they were the prime target.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.5.1.2
          20 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

          Yep, well, you keep on promoting policies that directly result in more children dying from preventable diseases, exacerbating inequality, you’ll find increasing levels of “intemperate” behaviour at all levels, Dr. Mapp.

          Do you think people owe you polite discourse while you shit in the rivers?

          • geoff 8.5.1.2.1
            20 October 2014 at 7:44 pm

            Bingo! +1 OAB

            This all sounds like a version of the ‘But I am offended!’ routine from Wayne.

        • Colonial Rawshark 8.5.1.3
          20 October 2014 at 3:44 pm

          Wayne, I place you head and shoulders above many others on the Right for the simple fact that you value a serious level of engagement with us commentators on The Standard. Us who sit in darkened rooms, and all.

          Worth noting that the level of “intemperate comments” being made here on The Standard has since the elections been directed at politicians on both the Right *and* the Left.

          (I would actually suggest that some of the most scathing comments have been directed more Labour’s way…)

        • lprent 8.5.1.4
          20 October 2014 at 4:16 pm

          Now I expected that to occur as the election loomed, but it seems to have continued since.

          I am not saying you are one, but I know that the revelations in “Dirty politics” has rather reduced my level of tolerance for the trolls of the right. I have deliberately started banning them for months rather than weeks.

          I suspect that revelation that National, John Key’s ‘office’, and self-seeking interest groups like the grocery council pay the arseholes of the blogs to deliberately target policy critics has worn down my tolerance. Like the current attack that is being run on public health professionals by the government’s sock puppets. Maybe it is being paid for by National’s new health minister and maybe for a group run by ex-National MPs like Katherine Rich.

          The net result is that I really have quite strong suspicions there are few people of good will on the right. They rather appear to be all tainted with the vile excremental sewerage of Cameron Slater, Jason Ede, Carrick Graham, Cathy Odgers, Lusk, Jordan Williams, Katherine Rich, etc. I can’t see any particular reason to not suspect that many of the voices of the “right’ here aren’t playing those silly games that undermine debate because they’re too busy playing short-term games.

          It is a pity that you get caught in the middle. But that appears to be what they wanted.

          • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 8.5.1.4.1
            20 October 2014 at 4:44 pm

            You have our 100% backing Lyn.

            Anyone on the left who thinks there is advantage to the left from engagement with paid propagandists of our enemy is an idiot.

            As for Stuart Nash’s engagement with these vessels: he is not an idiot and therefore he must be a charlatan. He must be expelled.

          • Colonial Rawshark 8.5.1.4.2
            20 October 2014 at 9:05 pm

            The net result is that I really have quite strong suspicions there are few people of good will on the right.

            There are a few. The ones who worked with Nicky Hager, for instance. The question is, the qualities of people they deliberately select for towards the top of their hierarchy. More goal driven, less empathetic, more materialistic, less ethical and philosophical.

        • RedBaronCV 8.5.1.5
          20 October 2014 at 7:46 pm

          So Wayne why do you come over here? Generally speaking you hand down a point of view from the Mount and then seem surprised that there is disagreement. I also notice that you rarely engage on matters such as housing and child poverty that are of real left wing interest.

          I assume you are not really wasting your time on conversion so my default assumption is that you are trying to defuse points of view that are making real headway in the focus groups. ( so that today you are trying to shore up a RW commentator that is perhaps/ maybe attempting to paint this modest blog on the far side of Lenin??

          • Tracey 8.5.1.5.1
            21 October 2014 at 9:11 am

            Foreign affairs is his stated area of interest. That tends to be what he comments on. He has no obligation to comment on anything else. He’s a busy Law Commissioner too.

        • Tracey 8.5.1.6
          21 October 2014 at 8:21 am

          as with most things in life wayne its best to act or say because of something you want to achieve or get off your chest rather than for the positive response someone gives you. I try to remind myself of this when posting

  9. Tom Gould 9
    20 October 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Not really surprising that his own union has endorsed him. It doesn’t mean that much, really, because the delegates are free to vote for whomever they themselves choose. So there will likely be some voting for Parker and Robertson and Mahuta. I’m curious to know how each of the candidates for election get to ‘pitch’ the delegates for their vote, however? Anyone know? And how do the actual rank and file who pay the dues get to influence their delegates’ votes? Just asking.

  10. Binders full of women 10
    20 October 2014 at 8:24 pm

    C,mon lprent it,s a Monday and I need cheering up…. What did Mathew say? Wanna know if I need to hate him…..

    • Matthew Hooton 10.1
      21 October 2014 at 8:03 am

      That the idea of a unanimous vote sounds Soviet to me and that the EPMU process is not really democratic because ordinary members don’t get to vote directly (unlike the SFWU).

      • Tracey 10.1.1
        21 October 2014 at 8:23 am

        how do you describe a system whereby a candidate buys memberships for people so they can vote for him or her

        • Matthew Hooton 10.1.1.1
          21 October 2014 at 8:25 am

          A routine and corrupt practice

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1
            21 October 2014 at 8:41 am

            Translation: Exceltium helps our clients do this all the time.

          • Tracey 10.1.1.1.2
            21 October 2014 at 8:54 am

            Thanks, sonot democratic.

            Is honesty about deceptive practices your new strategum? That’s twice in two days. Do you believe if you are honest about deceiving people and lying to them and breaking the law (OIA) to get what you want and much later admitting it makes it ok?

            • Chooky 10.1.1.1.2.1
              21 October 2014 at 11:14 am

              +100 Tracey …a very good analysis of Hooton’s duplicitous psychology and PR spinning as usual

              …pity other media outlets dont see through him as clearly as you do!

              • Tracey …
                21 October 2014 at 11:30 am

                he’s following Key’s lead, who is following Joyce, who is following Crosby Textor… the new line is tell the truth about your appalling behaviour, the punters love it… presumably cos they do deceptive stuff and it will make them feel it’s ok in themselves if you do it…

                how many of these people have children I wonder?

                I chuckled yesterday when Hoots was slating Gould doing a review and championing Joyce being brought in after English led them to 20% in 2002… Funny how the arrival of Joyce as reviewer was the beginning of cirty politics… speech at Orewa (racism – kiwi iwi) Hollowmen Bretheren… and accelerated toward the state of play outlined in Dirty POlitics and admitted by Key and Hoots regarding deliberately breaching the OIA…

                BUT that is how Hoots thinks…

    • Chooky 10.2
      21 October 2014 at 8:45 am

      @ Binders full of women

      Hooton is backing Grant Robertson and Jacinda Adern as the best options for Labour leadership….(say no more! )

      .. heard it on Kathryn Ryan’s political ‘Hooton Right Wing Spin Programme’…also heard on this programme is that on the Standard the people get it all wrong on politics….lol…so why does Hooton keep coming here?)

      • Tracey 10.2.1
        21 October 2014 at 9:12 am

        Hoots doesn’t understand a blog that isn’t centrally a direct or indirect tool of a political party.

  11. Michael who failed Civics 11
    20 October 2014 at 9:37 pm

    EPMU had to endorse Little: he’s a life member. There is surprisingly little support for him from rank and file unionists, indicating that they were not well served by him during his time there. To me, that indicates Little is likely to treat grassroots Party members the same way, which is not what I want for our next leader. OTOH, I’m not sure whether any of the other candidates are really up for genuine dialogue with Party members.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      20 October 2014 at 10:13 pm

      There is surprisingly little support for him from rank and file unionists, says a right winger making unsupported assertions in bad faith.

      Edit: possibly a different Michael, still needs some sort of evidence to back it up.

  12. Cave Johnson 12
    21 October 2014 at 6:34 am

    This piece on Little from 2009 in the NBR (David Farrar) makes for some interesting background reading.
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/david-farrar/david-farrarthe-rise-and-rise-andrew-little

  13. Arandar 13
    21 October 2014 at 9:47 am

    Expecting the RW attack dogs to hound Little. They have to – he’s a real threat to all their vested interests.

  14. paddy 14
    21 October 2014 at 4:52 pm

    If Robertson the traitor is hailed by Hooton then I’m all for Andrew Little. The champion of the Left and the candidate chosen by the last and best leader David Cunliffe.

  15. SeanExile 15
    21 October 2014 at 7:23 pm

    This support isn’t exactly surprising. Little has union support, especially from people higher up in the unions. Those lower down I am not sure. I have heard both good and bad, quite a bit of complaints. Quite a few of us knew that unions weren’t lining up for Cunliffe this time around. The natural choice is Little. But its a lukewarm choice in many quarters.
    Thats not necessarily a bad thing.
    Little is pretty central in his policies for a union man. He knows compromise and understand that the most important thing for a member is to have a job. We should remember that, having a job isn’t a right and we need a partnership with the owners of the production means to build this country.
    Those looking for mister confrontational or screaming left winger should not vote for him, they should vote for our left wing lady candidate.

    I am more worried that Little couldn’t challenge at all in his own electorate. It was after all taken and held by Labour for several cycles during the Clark years. Little needs to resonate in places such as New Plymouth if Labour is to stand a chance to topple John Key. Those are battlegrounds and Littles results there are plain awful. That scares me, it also scares me to have a union man leading the party. While I have the greatest respect for our unions a lot of the population is scared of them for reasons we can all discuss. But its an additional hurdle and Little will have to come with a strategy for how to overcome it.

    • Colonial Rawshark 15.1
      21 October 2014 at 7:27 pm

      S.E. what a carefully crafted comment, full of cautiously balanced remarks and meticulously chosen wording.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 15.2
      21 October 2014 at 8:35 pm

      Regarding your comments, my opinion is that our lady candidate is neither “mister” confrontational nor a “screaming” left winger.

      Her aunt has been well-known to carry herself with mana and maintain integrity, and to date, Nanaia has conducted herself accordingly.

      The foreshore and seabed issues challenged her and she came through them well given the cards that were dealt then. She stood strong for Maori perspectives when general public opinion made it challenging to do so politically and personally, yet she was part of the legislative decision and process that preserved public access to beaches, recognised a range of Maori rights, and maintained the legal right of claims to go through the ToW settlement process.

      No doubt, the layers, nuances and complexities of tribal politics to which she would be exposed would make parliamentary politics seem quite straightforward.

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