We have always been at peace with Eurasia
December 14th, 2010 at 5:04 pm by David FarrarNZPA report these words from Andrew Little:
“There’s no tension at all — the party is united,” he told NZPA.
This is the day after he gloats about how an MP is lazy, and how his mission was to get rid of him. That is a strange way to describe no tension and total unity.
Related posts:
- The rise and rise of Andrew Little
- The EU wins the Nobel Peace Prize
- Little confirmed as President
- Will the Maori Party have peace in our time?
December 14th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Bloody NZPA typos.
Clearly he was being brutally honest and saying “the party is untied“… as in coming unfastened and falling to bits
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
damage control aye Andrew
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Maybe the Party are united in thinking that Hawkins was lazy and needed to be eliminated?
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
The problem is that yesterday he wast talking with his EPMU hat on. Today he was talking with his Labour Party hat on.
Vote:Reminds me of a Yes (Prime?) Minister sketch. The EPMU Andrew is in disagreement with the Labour Party Andrew.
December 14th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Why doesn’t someone seize the moment and grab the leadership? Or are they all gutless wonders? They could give Julia a call if they don’t know what to do.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Dear me DPF After all these years and you still dont understand the Socialist mind.
Andrew says it all OK so its all OK. You are just a part of the right wing conspiracy looking to foment mischeif as your strap line says.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
“still dont understand the Socialist mind”
Do these reds have Little brain cells?
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Too bad are insolvent or they could tell Andrew to filk off.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
“There’s no tension at all — the party is united,”
… in their belief they need to get rid of Goff?
Vote:The only disagreement must be in the timing.
December 14th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
“The key objective was to remove George Hawkins and we achieved that objective.”
Would Hawkins have otherwise stayed on? How did “we” achieve their objective.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
No sign of Cunliffe and Hughes in the House today; is the number-crunching underway?
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Prolly down sniffing round EPMU headquarters looking for a handout.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
re Pete George – “The key objective was to remove George Hawkins and we achieved that objective.”
To most it would have been abundantly clear that the Manurewa by-election occurred solely as a result of Hawkins’ desire to stand down as an MP – yet it’d seem that even that manifestly simple fact was construed by Little and the EPMU as meaning that Hawkins intended to remain.
Notwithstanding the confusion so evident in almost every union-sourced utterance, Little has indeed made a monumental fool of himself and clearly represented both the microbial size of the “little” mind, as well as the elemental nastiness to which the thwarted union instinct resorts.
In all probability this time – never before has he self-inflicted such an uppercut from such a downward blow.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Any tensions that occurred have disappeared overnight. But these things happen in the Labour Party all the time. Move on, nothing to see here.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
What a bloody joke the Liarbors really are.
Current leader Phill Gaffe.
Best, obvious, prospective leader. Little Andy!
You’d have to be an intercoursing (
) socialist inbreed, steeped in class war theory, to believe there is any future in that lot.
Maybe they should have begged George to stay on and become Leader.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
No no, David, you’re confused. This is Andrew Little the Labour Party President you’re talking about – the guy who described a sitting Labour MP as a lightweight and who admitted to having as an objective the removal of that MP was Andrew Little the National Secretary of the EPMU.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
is the title a reference to something that I missed?
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Still never forget that the current, esteemed deputy leader is more qualified than any of the rest of them.
She used to be a bloody dental nurse.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
“We have always been at peace with Eurasia”
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Everything that Little Andrew says is “Double Plus Good’
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Don’t be little Andrew.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
FFS, both Labour and the Nats have a good number of lazy and incompetent MPs. I’ll admit even the Greens had one or two in that category in the past, although I’m reasonably confident the current bunch are all hard workers and competent.
I actually admire the honesty of Andrew Little. Hawkins was deadwood, and had been for years.
How about the Nats start with Sandra Goudie, and move on up from there?
Is Peter Goodfellow up for it?
Andrew Little needs to look at the likes of Choudhary too.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Wong was utterly out of her depth in the House, and was simply awful on camera when out and about.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
“I’m reasonably confident the current bunch are all hard workers and competent.”
Except for Delahunty, Hague, Locke, Ronald MacDonald, Kedgely, Rusty and the Bone Woman perhaps.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Sorry Toad. I forgot to mention those two parliamentary powerhouse’s Clendon and Graham.
That seems to cover it all really.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Toad:”Hawkins was deadwood, and had been for years.”
Clearly Toad you’ve not had much involvement with Manurewa. As a Resident and Non Labour supporter I still take my hat off to the man as he has been an excellent electorate MP. From my perspective the only upside to him departing is that with luck it may weaken Labour’s strangle hold on the area.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Labour is a complete train smash, yet they continue to consistently poll at 32%. Throw in the Greens at 8% and you have some seriously deluded people in this country. Doesn’t really bode well for NZ’s future does it.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
It seems Hawkins was well liked by the people he represented, and that presented a problem for the party.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
A cynical man would begin to suspect that poor old Georgie is just too honest to be a proper Liarbor MP.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Hawkins was deadwood though. Whatever he was like as an electorate MP he was useless in the House and that’s where it counts. That’s what my taxes pay for, mostly, and if I am forced to pay for 100+ MPs I expect every single one of them to be first and foremost good value for money in the arena.
After all, even if someone is a brilliant family man, if he’s useless at his job, why should he be kept on, if you and I are his employers, which is what we are?
I don’t care if he’s opposition or govt. The Westminster system like the justice system for better or worse is adversarial. All the opposition MPs if they had any sense would be doing and should have been asking loud and long what Whale’s recently started advocating: are you better off or worse off under National than you were under Liarbore?
The answer’s clear and maybe just maybe if we had an effective opposition with even a single collective brain-cell just one, that would have galvanised the Nats to lift their game. Instead they’ve been given a free ride, assisted greatly by deadwood like Hawkins.
He’s very experienced and with the experienced ones the excuses become less and less available, when poor performance raises its ugly head.
George Hawkins, you don’t deserve my taxes for the rest of your miserable life and I resent paying your undeserved pension just like I resent paying for Hulun and Cullen. You and they are a waste of space and you always have been.
Vote:December 14th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Is this guy the President of the Labour Party, an aspiring Leader of the Parliamentary Branch of the Labour Party, the President of the EPMU, or a General Fuckwit? Seriously, I’m having trouble understanding which of those hats he wears lately. I’m thinking the very latter.
Vote:December 15th, 2010 at 7:42 am
@ JCW – its from 1984 by Orwell.
Vote:December 15th, 2010 at 8:29 am
And directs the reader into the concept of double think – or more to the point the art of believing whatever the hell Little Brother tells you to.
Vote:December 15th, 2010 at 8:30 am
P.S. The term “Little Brother” is a copywrite protected and I get 5 cents everytime someone uses it.
Vote:December 15th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Pete George (8,328) Says:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
“The key objective was to remove George Hawkins and we achieved that objective.”
Would Hawkins have otherwise stayed on? How did “we” achieve their objective.
Pete, more to the point who makes up “we” or is it said in a royal sense?
Vote:December 15th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Good point David, it won’t be “we” the people, it could be:
- we the Labour Party hierarchy
- we a Labour Party faction
- we the EPMU
- “we” the Little individual
If he is going to keep wearing different hats he should make it clear which hat he is wearing when he makes public statements. Otherwise people will guess the worst.
Vote:December 15th, 2010 at 9:17 am
It could have been “me and Phil”
Vote:or
“me and Chris Carter” (in which case “we” might just swoop on Phil himself
or
“me and 17 others”
or
“me and the organisers of the EPMU”
perhaps
“me and Helen Kelly”
December 15th, 2010 at 9:22 am
“me and Chris Carter”
Not likely, “we” has has been reported “The Labour Party will over-rule its Te Atatu electorate committee if it continues to back MP Chris Carter, party president Andrew Little says.”
At least he appears to have named hats in that statement.
Vote:December 15th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Little andrew should have been please at Louisa Wall’s selection. She fits the good Labour mold.
Feminist, lesbian, Maori, (could have been an All Black) Union worker and Public Servant (MOWA).
Vote: