Little not to stand
EPMU National Secretary has stuck with his original decision not to stand for Labour in 2008.
I am one of those who will not be surprised if Andrew is Prime Minister one day. And if we have to have a Labour PM, he might not be a bad choice.
I think it is a sensible decision not to stand in 2008 – the worst possible time to enter Parliament is when your party is likely to go into Opposition. The best time to enter is the election before when you head back into Government.
It’s pretty good news for Phil Goff also. If Labour lose in November, it is hard to see how anyone else can be a credible replacement for Clark. If Little had entered the caucus, then Clark might be tempted to stay on as leader for say 12 – 18 months, so that Little could them be a potential successor.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
“If Labour lose…”? hahahahaha
I agree, Little is a good bloke for a lefty unionist and has his head pretty much screwed on the right way, unlike many others…
February 27th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
He believes there are several years worth of “work” to do at the union, fighting whatever the evil National Party overlords come up with when (not if) they win power. Little isn’t the type of guy to shirk a challenge and he knows staying at the EPMU will be more interesting than warming a back-bench opposition seat.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
“And if we have to have a Labour PM, he might not be a bad choice”
Umm, explain ?
[DPF: Well wow I would like National PMs from 2008 until oh around 2070 when I piss off, it is inevitable there will be Labour PMs during that time. From what I know of Andrew's career to date, he would be a reasonably good PM - even though I wouldn't like his policies]
February 27th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Buggerlugs:
I agree Little seems a shoo-in for Labour. But I have to reserve my position on Little’s political credentials as I don’t know enough about his background. If/when he stands for Parliament, someone may make something of this catchphrase: “Little” by name, big government instincts by nature
This election is National’s to lose. So far it’s the leading candidate on Dancing with the Polls(TM) – but MMP is inevitably about coalition politics so the long road to Tipperary is still anyone’s race in my book.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
He must be contemplating a long spell in opposition for Labour. I suspect he will make his move when Goff loses one or two elections.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
His best chance to be PM would have been to take a position this year and lead Labour into the 2014 election replacing Clark or Goff after 2011. But he would have needed a safe electorate, there is little room to hide on the party list at the moment.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
“From what I know of Andrew’s career to date, he would be a reasonably good PM ”
Like what ? Migrating from being a student, to student politics then straight into the cloistered world of union grandeur? There’s too much credibility given to the barnacles of the Left in this country – those dangerous zealots who have a lofty disdain for the practicalities of running a business.
[DPF: More that Andrew has turned the EPMU into a much more intelligent beast than many other unions. In many areas he has had the EPMU work reasonably pragmatically with employers for a win-win. Not all areas of course]
February 28th, 2008 at 4:34 am
David, I agree. Just from his last few years’ public comments on a variety of issues, he has demonstrated common sense and an ability to see the other feller’s point of view.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:07 am
“he has demonstrated common sense and an ability to see the other feller’s point of view.” Adolf, This alone would be a burden to any Labour Minister in the present status-quo.
Incidentally is there any link between Little’s announcement and the sudden wealth of time that Tane seems to have had on his hands since the last forty-eight hours?
By the way Adolf. ‘Fiinkesein” – Is that a jewish name? You really should explain to us why you’ve named yourself after a jew……I mean I’m a tolerant kind of chap but there is a limit.
Ps Tane (uncharacteristically) you spoke a lot of sense yesterday. I thought you got too many bad karmas. Shame you let yourself down by being silly when It is obvious that somewhere there is a brain in there.
Well done you!
February 28th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Well, now it seems the rats are not only leaving the sinking ship, they are refusing to board!
February 28th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Well I don’t know Little at all but I wonder if he’s made the right calculation. See I think we and the world are heading into something much much worse than 1929, and by the time the election after this rolls around, the elctorate is going to remember the Labour years with much more fondness than those that National has been able to deliver in its first term. However I also think this election is going to produce a huge landslide, albeit moderated by MMP. The question is, will Labour be able to come back sufficiently in 2011 to take the Treasury benches? I hope not, but I have a feeling their time in Opposition will be less than some people think.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:35 am
The Hive are reporting that Vernon Small in this morning’s Dom Post is saying that Heather Simpson and Mike Williams could be stepping down from their respective positions with Little taking over the presidency of the party.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Lee C – perhaps you should explain to us why you named yourself after the side of ship that people piss off.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:43 am
So – Simpson and Clark bankrupt Labour with deliberate Pledge-card overspend. EPMU bail out Labour. with undisclosed sums of fund-raised cash. Simpson rolls, Clark in the cold. Little moves in. Therefoire EPMU buys ticket into government influence.
If this were National and ‘shadowy big business’ I can name a few who post here who would be hopping around like prawns on a hot-plate. Is it another aspect of undeclared Big-Money in Politics?
The above is expressed in the interests of transparency.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:45 am
I can’t see Goff as a credible leadership candidate. He has been around forever… since 1981. People tend to be voting for fresh new politicians as change agents, and rejecting ones that look old and stale. Goff is about the same age as and has been in parliament longer than Gordon Brown. And, if he became PM after a single term Key government, he’d have been in parliament almost as long as John Howard was when Howard was thrown out of office.
None of which is good news for John McCain. But McCain is working in a system where the executive and legislative branches of government are separate, and McCain is seen as a bit of a maverick and this makes him appear “new” and independent. But after 27 years in the NZ parliament (2008) or 30 years (2011), Goff isn’t going to be able to compare himself with a Lange, an Obama, a Blair, or a Key.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:46 am
“And if we have to have a Labour PM, he [Little] might not be a bad choice.”
Regardless of what you like about his personality (and he comes across as more smarmy than Maharey in my opinion), how on earth can a one-eyed, opinionated, limelight hogging trade unionist be a good choice for a Labour PM? Imagine the state of the economy after 3 years of Little at the helm? I can’t think of a worse Labour PM, present leader included.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Mr. Smaller; perhaps you should explain why you constatantly mispell the word ‘Brain’
February 28th, 2008 at 7:02 am
In some ways I agree with you about Goff davidp, but it’s a question of available alternatives. National has the same problem. I don’t think Key is going to be much good because he lacks political experience and that’s vital. While his corporate experience and the fact he’s a quick study is a plus, politics is a different arena, and his compromise decisions so far in the name of taking contentious elements off the agenda, don’t fill me full of confidence that he’s got the judgement and experience to know when to stand firm against the face of seemingly powerful arguments.
Goff, even though I don’t like him personally, seems to have good political judgement based on his handling of the various portfolios Dear Leader has seen fit to grace him with.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Well reid look at his compromises thus far and ask yourself why he has done them. His detractors say it is for the sake of political expedience. perhaps, but also is he not reminiscent of Tony Blair and his ‘Third Way’, wherein the only way Labour UK could get elected was by not posing a threat to the changes the tories had made before them. IS this just that in reverse?
Similarly I can see why he compromised on the anti-smacking legislation in order to distance National from accusations that it is a safe haven for the ‘fundamentalist’ ‘religious-right’ for example (or what the Standard touching referes to as ‘Family Fist’) . Other policy ideas and back downs; they weren’t popular. Simple as. It is a democratic process after all and a competion to win votes, not, as Ranapia has pointed out: ‘An ideological pissing contest’, which incidentally is how Helen Clark is approaching this, and why she is not only losing credibility with the voters but also within her own Party.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Who in their right mind would want to join the crew as a cabin boy in a sinking ship?
February 28th, 2008 at 7:25 am
No-one has mentioned Shane Jones.
If ever there would be a clash of giant egos it would be having Goff, Jones and Little in the same room.
T’will be fascinating to watch
February 28th, 2008 at 7:51 am
DPF
“the worst possible time to enter Parliament is when your party is likely to go into Opposition. The best time to enter is the election before when you head back into Government.”
I’m not so sure. Assuming he made it into parliament despite the party losing the election, he will be in a small pool of ‘fresh blood’. As such, he would get much more intensive mentoring, and, given the small size of the caucus, more chance of doing something useful.
When Labour next win an election, he will have some parliamentary experience, and be a seasoned veteran compared to the wave of new incumbents arriving. And have a very good shot at a front-bench slot as the party tries to show it has renewed itself in opposition.
If you come in on a party landslide (like National in 1990) you are just another face in the crowd of green backbenchers. Much harder to stand out, much harder to rise.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I think it’s silly that people are talking about whether or not so-and-so would make a good or bad Labour leader. There’s no such thing as a good Labour leader. Any decent person in Labour would quit and join National. I suppose there might be some difference between Labourites, those who want 99% tax and those who want 100% tax, but even the most conscientious and intelligent Labour MP is worse than the least competent National MP. It is simple national selection… the competent move right, the incompetent left
February 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I predict that Little will take over from Mike Williams as President of the Labour Party either before or just after the election. Then after a 3 year stint in that role he will stand as an MP.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I reckon he will wait till 2011 and as you say perhaps take the Party Presidency for a year or 2 and then take one of the safe Labour seats in Wellington, by then King would be 64 so Rongotai leaps out as likely to need a push by then. Do one term as a opposition frontbencher watch labour lose under goff in 2011 as well and then leap into contention in 2012 for the leadership for the 2014 Election. If he is going to be a future Labour leader he needs a seat. Though by 2011 I suspect Rongotai, Hutt South, Mt Albert and a bunch of the Sth Aucklands labour seats will be available. Well if I was him thats what I would do…
I think that there are a couple of other personalities in Labour that would be ripe to throw their hats into a leadership challenge, if Goff was not Cosgrove and Cunliffe come to mind as does Jones. The other longer serving Labour MPs like Dalziel, Hawkins, Hodgeson, Dunyhoeven, Parker, Mallard and Horomia are all unelectable as leaders. All I suspect will be looking for retirement at or around 2011. King, Cullen and Anderton are too past it.