Kiwiblog

The NZ Herald reports:

Labour Party president Andrew Little says its next candidate in Te Atatu will have to repair damage done to it by ousted MP Chris Carter to stop the seat slipping into National’s hands.

The party will select its candidate today. After a threat from Mr Carter to stand against the party as an independent if his preferred candidate, Phil Twyford, does not win that selection, Mr Little said Mr Carter was now irrelevant and any remaining local support was “dwindling rapidly”.

How does Andrew than explain the letter from the Te Atatu LEC which said that they supported Chris Carter unamiously?

Mr Carter said he believed Mr Twyford had the best chance of keeping the seat out of National Party hands. Although not a local, Kingsland resident Mr Twyford had a profile from his work opposing the Super City. Mr Carter said if Mr Twyford was not chosen, he himself would consider standing again to keep the seat in centre-left hands.

Mr Twyford has the support of at least three unions with voting rights – the Service and Food Workers’ Union, the Maritime Union and the Amalgamated Workers Union.

Mr Little is standing aside from the selection panel because Mr McCracken was an EPMU organisere about five years ago. However, Mr Little said yesterday that the union had not endorsed any candidate.

With Chris Carter threatening to split the vote as an independent candidate if anyone but Twyford is selected, and with three unions behind him, and the EPMU neutral, even Phil should be able to clinch the nomination.

Mr Carter said he did not know what his political future held and he might leave politics before the election if a good job came along – forcing an unwelcome byelection for Labour.

And this is what will be his ultimate revenge. Twyford gets the nomination, then Carter suddenly picks up a job (maybe with the UN) and we have a by-election. And if Twyford wins the by-election, it brings Judith Tizard back into the Labour Caucus for seven months or so.

NZPA 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.

Audrey Young at the NZ Herald reports:

Andrew Little is right: the threat by retiring MP George Hawkins’ to quit Parliament if the Engineers’ Union organiser was picked to replace shows the sense of entitlement that some MPs develop.

I’d go further and say it was a disgraceful abuse of the process. No one will know how many people in Sunday’s marathon selection in Manurewa favoured Louisa Wall over the Engineers’ candidate because of Hawkins’ blackmail to quit if Jerome Mika won.

But unfortunately for Little, the moral high ground has just collapsed under him with his extraordinary admission this morning that the ultimate aim had been to get rid of Hawkins.

“The key objective had been to remove George Hawkins and we achieved that objective,” he is reported in the Dominion Post.

He also called him a lightweight, which is as much an insult to the local members who put him there year after year. It’s one thing to think it – it’s another to say it.

The party deserves to feel as outraged by Little’s statement as Hawkins’ antics.

The Labour caucus this morning could have expected an explanation if not an apology from Little if he were at the caucus.

This shows the problem of Little’s dual roles. As EPMU National Secretary he can call an MP useless, but as party president he can not slag off a long-serving MP in that way. It will cause MPs and party members to questions whose interests he is representing – Labour’s, or the EPMU?

The re-emergence of factional fighting is Goff’s worst nightmare. It kept Labour out of office for nine years and then Helen Clark kept a tight lid on it for another nine years.

Goff is portraying the Little-Hawkins clash as a personality clash rather than a power struggle within the party to limit the power of the unions.

Whatever take you put on it, Labour goes into the summer break in a worse place than when it started the year.

BBQ season perhaps.

Tracy Watkins and Kate Chapman at Stuff report:

A public spat has erupted between Labour Party head Andrew Little and MP George Hawkins after a replacement candidate was selected to represent the party in Hawkins’ Manurewa electorate last night.

Hawkins said this morning he was “very happy with the selection”.

“It wasn’t someone forced on the electorate by the engineers union who turn up once every 20 years to have a say, so we’re very pleased.”

This is what annoys a lot of rank and file members. They can spend years paying a sub and working hard for the party, and they get the same vote for selection ass a union affiliate member who gets bussed in to vote the way his union has told him to, and otherwise has no interest in Labour.

Little replied saying Hawkins was a lightweight within the party and had been on the sidelines for a long time.

Hawkins comments were unhelpful but not surprising from an MP who believed he had an entitlement to remain in the Manurewa electorate, Little said.

“The key objective was to remove George Hawkins and we achieved that objective.”

Is this Andrew speaking as EPMU National Secretary or Labour Party President? If I was a Labour MP I’d be very worried that the party president openly boasts of taking an MP out.

Hawkins said he had not discussed the selection with Little, who had not spoken to him for two years.

My God. They can’t even pretend to tolerate each other.

He dismissed suggestions, meanwhile, that concerns over his health might be another reason for him to quit Parliament early after winning a place on the Manurewa community board.

“Since I’ve had the stroke, I’ve had deep vein thrombosis, I’m diabetic and I’ve had bowel cancer. None of that’s going to stop me and the engineers aren’t going to stop me.”

George the battler.

Asked why he was opposed to the union Hawkins responded: “If you want to take part in the Labour party you should turn up each month, go to the meetings, have your say. If they did that I would have been happy to support them but that’s not happened.”

The point I made earlier.

A fascinating letter turned up in the post the other day. It was a copy of a letter from the Labour Party’s Te Atatu Electorate Committee (LEC) to Party President Andrew Little.

The letter has the unanimous support of the LEC and expresses their “disgust” at the way Chris Carter was treated by Labour.

It is to be expected that they are supportive of their former MP, but what is exceptional about the letter is the explicit statement of no confidence in Phil Goff.

They specifically state Goff’s leadership is uninspiring, and that they are concerned about his policy flip-flops. They attack him for his attacks on Helen Clark’s legacy and say he is betraying the legacy of a popular and successful Labour Government.

They go on to say that they have been expressing these concerns over Goff’s leadership for many months, including to their area representative.

Now remember that this is a letter agreed to unanimously by the LEC. It shows that this is not just an issue about Carter’s travel, but that there is serious discontent with Goff’s leadership in this solid red electorate.

In National over the years I’ve seen electorates get unhappy over various issues and write to the Board about them. I’ve never seen an electorate committee use the harshness of language about the leader, that the Te Atatu LEC is using – its is unprecedented.

The letter is below. You can click twice on each page to see them full size.

I found the references to Goff betraying Helen Clark’s legacy especially interesting – they indicate to me that the Clark loyalists will roll Goff straight after the 2011 election, unless he wins.

Michelle Hewitson has interviewed Andrew Little. Quite amusing, as normal for Hewitson. One extract to highlight:

I’m not sure who (as in which hat he was wearing) he was being the day I saw him. He is, I think, practising for his campaign. I was initially surprised that he slagged off (he would not, of course, put it quite that way) another union: Actors’ Equity. I’d said that it had been a bad week for the unions, thus, to pinch a bit of union lingo, collectively lumping all unions in together. He said, “It’s been a shockingly bad couple of months for Actors’ Equity. It’s been a difficult week for unions … And I’m not going to defend the Actors’ Equity because the handling of it has been an absolute disaster.” Is it helpful of him to say that? “I’ve spoken to people in Actors’ Equity. They know my view.”

Andrew has spoken the truth, as no other unionist has been willing to do so – he is smart enough to know you do not defend the indefensible.

He has been what I call interfering and what he calls trying to help, behind the scenes. He spoke to John Barnett, and to Robyn Malcolm, whom he flatted with years ago when they were both at Victoria University.

Trying to help behind the scenes is what Helen Kelly should have restricted herself to doing, rather than calling Peter Jackson a spoilt brat. It is a pity Andrew is standing for Parliament – he could do more good arguably as the CTU President.

He has long been seen as not Left enough by some factions of the Left; as too friendly with big business. An indication of where he sits is that he is equally scathing about Fran O’Sullivan and Chris Trotter. In other words: he is firmly in the centre.

Andrew is not centrist, but he is not extreme – he is mainstream centre-left.

Audrey Young blogs:

Labour president Andrew Little has just delivered the best speech he has probably ever given.

It was to the party conference at the Aotea Centre in Auckland.

And it wasn’t so much what he said – but how he said it.

There are many doubters in Labour’s caucus that Little has what it takes to be a future leader of the party.

Andrew is not popular with a fair number of Labour MPs. Some feel he has not raised enough money, others don’t like him holding three jobs – candidates, President and union boss, and others just resent the talk that he may come in and become leader quickly.

But I have been saying for many years that I believe Andrew will become Labour Party Leader, and probably Prime Minister one day. When, is another matter, but he has time on his side.

The HoS today reports:

Andrew Little’s been widely touted to succeed Phil Goff as Labour Party leader, but yesterday he told supporters that Goff was the man to take the party to victory at next year’s election.

What happens afterwards, if Labour loses, he was not saying – Little is a frontrunner for the New Plymouth seat next year.

Goff is goneburger if Labour loses. But I think it is unlikely that Little would become leader in his first term as an MP. More likely is Cunliffe becomes Leader and if he loses in 2014 then watch for a Robertson v Little battle after that.

“One thing is certain about Phil – if he were confronted with a racist outburst he would know it and challenge it, up front, there and then,” he said, referring to Prime Minister John Key’s failure to respond immediately to broadcaster Paul Henry’s slur against the Governor-General.

Here thought Andrew could not be more wrong. Goff was even worse than Key on the issue of Paul Henry. Despite having had several hours to reflect on what Paul Henry had said, Goff’s response was a totally dismissive line about it just a case of Paul being Paul.

It amazes me how much some in Labour try to rewrite history, as they think if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth.

Two good announcements from Labour in two days!

Audrey Young at the Herald reports:

Labour president Andrew Little has called for a fresh debate about republicanism following a speech at the party’s conference by former Wallaby Peter Fitzsimons, an outspoken advocate of ditching the monarchy.

Mr Little said that he backed Fitzsimons’ views, and it was time for New Zealand to engage in the debate.

“It’s a cop-out to say, ‘Yes, I’m a republican, but it’s not time’, that it be left up to somebody else.

“That’s a failure of leadership, in my view,” said Mr Little.

He was not saying it was something that had to be done tomorrow.

“But it is saying are committed to making a move and we do it in a courteous and respectful way.”

It was an issue that ought to be actively debated in terms of what constitutional arrangements might be set up, and negotiating with the UK over what a transition might look like.

A minor correction – we do not need to negotiate with the UK. It would be polite to negotiate with the Queen however.

I’m intrigued by Andrew saying it is a failure of leadership to say yes, but let’s wait until later. Fitzsimons also commented:

Fitzsimons was applauded last night when he spoke of republicanism and changing the flag for Australia. He did not think the decision should be put on hold until the Queen died.

“As a sovereign nation we shouldn’t be deciding our politics on the health of an elderly English woman. She’s a good woman, no doubt about it. But we should be carving out our independent way.”

Now look at what Phil Goff said a couple of weeks ago:

Goff said the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign was the logical transition point.

“Succession of the monarchy is the time to have a head of state who is a New Zealander,” said Goff. “We need to start the conversation now. Don’t rush it. Fully consult the people of New Zealand. It’s a major change and needs a reasonable consensus.”

Is this the failure of leadership Andrew was referring to?

Regardless I’m pleased that both the Labour Party Leader and President are supporters of a move to a republic. It means that when there is an inevitable change of Government, there will at least be a silver lining – assuming their preferences becomes some sort of formal commitment to starting a process to allow NZers to decide the issue.

The Herald reports:

Renegade MP Chris Carter’s views on who should replace him in the safe Labour seat of Te Atatu are interesting but irrelevant, Labour president Andrew Little says.

Not really. He has the unanimous backing of his electorate committee so I imagine his views on his successor will be highly influential.

Mr Carter told the Dominion Post newspaper that he had asked Auckland lawyer Deborah Manning (known for her representation of represented Algerian asylum seeker Ahmed Zaoui) to stand in the seat but she declined. His second choice was Phil Twyford.

Heh, isn’t that Phil’s problem in all the other seats also

“We have a clearly set out selection process and it doesn’t involve former Labour MPs having a say over who a potential successor might be,” Mr Little said.

“They are interesting comments but they won’t help us select a candidate for Te Atatu.”

But they may. If he is still a Labour Party member, then Chris could get elected to the selection panel.

The Herald reports:

The Labour Party will take action if any of its members were found to have been involved in a possible Auckland Super City voting scam involving the Papatoetoe ward, party president Andrew Little says.

What sort of action? Promote them? Or censure them for getting caught?

The last time a Labour person was accused of corruption, the Labour leadership’s response was to defend him by saying the only thing he was guilty of was working harder for his constituents than other MPs.

So presumably if a Labour candidate is found to be behind the enrolment scam, the line will be that they are just guilty of trying to help people enrol.

Labour have announced:

Labour Party organisations in these electorates will hold their confirmation meetings shortly:

• Bay of Plenty Carol Devoy-Heena

Lost in 2008 by 17,604 votes. Ranked 76th (2nd bottom). I think Tony Ryall can relax.

• Botany Koro Tawa

Ranked No 65. Lost by 10,872 in 2008. Not a lot of new blood coming through is there!

• Christchurch East Lianne Dalziel

An MP since 1990.

• Coromandel Hugh Kininmonth

Lost by 14,560 in 2008. Ranked 75th (third bottom)

• East Coast Moana Mackey

Lost by 6,413 to Anne Tolley. List MP since 2003.

• East Coast Bays Vivienne Goldsmith

Lost by 13,794 to Prince of Darkness. Ranked No 67 in 2008.

• Hamilton East Sehai Orgad

2007 President of compulsory Waikato Student’s Union. Stood for East ward of Hamilton City Council in 2007 and came 10th.

• Hauraki-Waikato Nanaia Mahuta

MP since 1996

• Helensville Jeremy Greenbrook-Held

Very appropriate Jeremy stands against John Key as he writes so many letters to the editor complaining about the Government.  2005 President of the compulsory VUWSA. Is standing for Henderson-Massey Local Board in 2010 elections.

A little known trivia fact is that a few years ago Jeremy and I co-authored a petition to Subway asking them to reverse their sacking of an employee for sharing a free $2 staff coke with a friend.

• Manukau East Ross Robertson

MP since 1987.

• New Plymouth Andrew Little

Former President of compulsory VUWSA, and NZUSA. Labour Party President.

• Rotorua Steve Chadwick

Lost her seat in 2008 by 5,065 votes. MP since 1999.

• Selwyn David Coates

Lost in 2008 by 11,075 votes.Ranked No 74 (fourth bottom) on list.

• Taranaki-King Country Rick Barker

Now this is weird. Barker presumably can’t get nominated again in Tukituki, so desperate to carry on has headed to the west coast. Has been an MP since 1993.

• Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove

MP since 1999. Holding on with a 390 vote majority.

• Wellington Central Grant Robertson

Former President of compulsory OUSA and then NZUSA.

• Wigram Megan Woods

2007 Mayoral candidate against Bob Parker.

If the list above, is Labour rejuvenating, then someone has a sick sense of humour. Their only new candidates are from compulsory student associations.

Of their 2008 candidates, the ones standing again were all ranked in the bottom dozen, and lost by huge majorities.  Where are the Kate Suttons, Michael Woods, Conor Roberts, and Louisa Walls  who all actually have some talent?

The Stuff version of the Andrew Little article didn’t have as much detail as the Daily News version. I love this response to a question on whether he seeks to become Labour Party Leader:

We’ve got a pretty good leader at the moment …

That quote is so good, I’m adding it to my quotes file. I’m not sure what I find more amusing the description of the current leader as “pretty good” or the “at the moment”.

Vernon Small reports:

Labour Party president Andrew Little has confirmed he will seek the party’s nomination for the marginal New Plymouth seat. …

If selected he would use accumulated leave and leave without pay to campaign one day a week initially,  stepping up to full time campaigning six weeks out from the election.

Goodness, one day a week until the final six weeks is at the light end. I guess Andrew knows he will have a high list spot also to fall back on.

Most candidates who actually win seats off incumbent MPs go full-time six to nine months out.

He would quit as party president as early as next May and leave his union job if he was elected.

I guess one of the Vice-Presidents will become Acting President?

Interesting that Andrew will remain in his EPMU job as the EPMU will no doubt be running an “independent” anti-National election campaign. So Andrew will be in charge of the EPMU’s independent campaign against National, and be campaigning for Labour as a candidate.

As I blogged yesterday, the chances of there being a Labour-led Government after the 2011 election is very remote. Not just because of the gap in the polls, but also because of their failure to rejuvenate, but more importantly their failure to mend bridges with the Maori Party who might hold the balance of power after the election.

So unless there is some big event such as a second recession, or a major scandal, Phil Goff is unlikely to become Prime Minister. So who will replace him, when and why?

When?

Turning to the when, and I still maintain that Goff is safe until the election – even if Labour stay below 30%. There are three reasons for this:

1. Lack of enthusiasm for the alternatives
2. The shared delusion that the public will wake up to its mistake and restore them to power once they prove that John Key really is a nasty nasty man
3. The impact of MMP, sheltering Caucus more than FPP did

The last point is quite important. Under FPP MPs got more panicked by the polls. If the polls showed they were in trouble in their seat, then they were facing the end of their political career, so they would desperately vote to change leaders to try and hold on to their seats – as Labour did in 1990.l

But under MMP, MPs can be protected on the list, so they do not fear bad polling so much. And even though the polls may show Labour losing as many as seven List MPs, the fact is no one knows which seven MPs may be toast until Labour ranks its list, and by then it is too late.

So I am quite confident that Phil Goff will remain Leader until after the 2011 election. But if they lose, I would expect he will retire from the leadership and politics within 6 – 12 months of the 2011 election.

Who?

I believe the next leader of the Labour Party will be David Cunliffe. And yes, of course I have my money where my mouth is and am backing that stock on iPredict.

Why?

It isn’t exactly a closely guarded secret that David Cunliffe isn’t the most popular MP with his colleagues. He probably isn’t the first choice for Leader of more than a handful of MPs. But he will become Leader, because he is basically everyone’s acceptable second choice.

Being the acceptable second choice can be a better position than a faction’s first choice. Similiar politics happened in the Waitakere selection – one faction was backing Twyford strongly and one faction (union) backing McCracken. Carmel Sepuloni came through the middle as the choice acceptable to all sides who could unify the electorate – either Twyford or McCracken would have left a significant minority disgruntled.

It is also worth remembering that Helen was positioning Cunliffe as a future leader, if she got a fourth term. She wanted to keep Goff out, and after Maharey retired and Mallard imploded, Cunliffe was her favoured candidate to succeed her. The 2008 loss, meant that Cunliffe did not have enough experience to be viable at that stage, so she let the leadership temporarily transfer to the man she she had worked so hard to keep away from it.

Why Not?

Cunliffe is basically the only acceptable alternative to the caucus. One can ascertain this by going through the others known to want the job.

Shane Jones – even before the hotel porn saga, Jones was not going to become leader. The women in Labour would rather slit their wrists than elect Jones, and while they are not a majority in caucus, they are a minority too powerful to ignore. Also Jones hasn’t shown the required hard work to become leader – he overly relies on his (quite considerable) natural talent. He is also too right wing economically to become Leader.

Andrew Little – Andrew has made a tactical mistake by combining the three roles of party president, union leader and aspiring MP. There is considerable resentment of this in the caucus, and he is blamed for the lacklustre fundraising to date. One Labour person commented to me that how can you expect the President one week to be getting donations from CEOs, when the next week he is delivering strike notices to them. Add onto that the resentment from List MPs that Andrew will be automatically given a high list ranking, knocking them down the order.

So Andrew will enter caucus with a degree of pre-existing hostility. While he may one day become Leader if he proves himself, he will not be given a Bob Hawke type coronation after just a year in Parliament.

Ruth Dyson – John Key would start going to church (to thank God)  if Labour elected Ruth Dyson as Leader. Nothing against Ruth’s skills, but she is a polarising figure strongly associated with the former Government.

Maryan Street – I rate Street as one of the smartest MPs, and she has the ability to be a strong Minister and maybe even Deputy Leader.  But I don’t see at all the charisma to become leader or prime minister. Maryan being elected as Leader would also see John Key, if not start attending church, at least sending his kids to Sunday School!

Grant Robertson – Grant is a very smart political operator. Too smart to try and become leader after just one term in Parliament. He has what I expect will become a fairly safe seat for him, and time is on his side. I think the bastard might even be younger than me! If Grant stood in 2012, he might do surprisingly well, but I think he knows he is better to wait his time and get more experience before he tries to ascend.

Ashraf Choudhary – just kidding

Then what?

It is dangerous to look too far ahead, but my best pick at this stage is David Cunliffe become Leader in 2012, and he contests the 2014 election.

Labour will have a challenge in replacing him as Finance Spokesperson, with a so few MPs having the necessary skills or background. To my mind, the only credible option would be David Parker. So the leadership team could be Cunliffe as Leader, Street as Deputy and Parker as Finance.

Like Goff, Cunliffe will probably be a one shot leader unless he wins the election. They call this the Mike Moore slot. He doesn’t have (at this stage anyway) the loyalty of enough MPs to keep him in the job if he loses.

If National wins the 2014 election (and no predictions this far out), then Labour will have another leadership change. I believe their post 2014 leader will be their long-term leader – like Clark they will be in the job for 10 – 15 years or so, and they will become Prime Minister.

This could see a Grant Robertson vs Andrew Little battle. That would be very interesting. I’ve been pretty impressed with David Shearer also, and wouldn’t rule him out as a contender also. Kelvin Davis has potential also – but I see him more as a future Education Minister.

Of course a John Key or Don Brash type candidate may enter Parliament for Labour in 2011, and also by 2014 become a potential leader. However the fact almost all their Caucus is standing again, makes it harder for them to parachute any stars in.

Time will tell if my predictions come true.

Tomorrow, I will blog on how I would “sell” David Cunliffe once he is Leader.

Two interesting quotes from Andrew Little on The Nation (TV3 Sat 10 am) which I have to challenge:

Oh I think if you look at parties that are freshly in opposition, where we are polling is actually very good.  If you have a look at Labour in opposition during the 1990s, we were polling in the low to mid 20s.  We’ve been hovering around 30 or just a fraction above it.  I think in only one or two polls we’ve come in just under 30, but around about 30 is not bad for a party freshly in opposition.

I’m not sure if Andrew actually believes what he is saying, or if this is just spin, but let us look at the reality.

First of all one has to remember that in the 1990s there were other large leftwing parties such as the Alliance and NZ First.In 1996 Labour got 28% and could have governed with the Alliance and NZ First. Today they only have the Greens so anything below around 40% probably means opposition for them.

But in 1991, Labour’s average poll rating (TVNZ polls) was 42%. Their average for 1991 – 1993 was 40%. Since the 2008 election the average has been 32%.

From 1994 to 1996, Labour did only poll in the 20s. But both the Alliance and NZ First were polling up to 30% each (not at same time). The centre-left was well ahead of the centre-right.

From 1997 to 1999, Labour averaged 41%.

After National lost office in 1999, National averaged 38% in both 2000 and 2001. It was only in 2002 that National dropped down to a 32% average, and we know how that election went.

So Labour’s ratings in opposition are not historically high. They are significantly lower than any other Opposition, apart from the period when the Alliance and NZ First was splitting up the left vote.

Well we have to work with our Maori constituency, our Maori members, our Maori MPs and with the Maori electorate, the wider Maori electorate out there, who still vote for Labour in droves in terms of the party vote.  So we still have that support out there.  Ideally you would like to think that given the issues that the Maori Party typically deal with, what their kaupapa are, that we would have a constructive relationship with them.  But it’s a two way street, if they don’t want to have that relationship, if Te Ururoa Flavell’s statement is correct that he doesn’t particularly care, there’s not a great deal that the Labour Party can do about that, but what we can do is continue to work on those issues that are important actually to working Maori people, working Maori families, and to lift their living standards.  That’s what we’re committed to doing.

I thought this statement came across as rather arrogant, almost blaming the Maori Party for the bad relationship.

If Andrew was smart, he’d talk to Phil about reining in Shane and Trevor’s attacks on the Maori Party. Shane Jones has said he sees his job as to destroy the Maori Party and wipe them out. So, any surprise that Mr Flavell is not feeling too warm towards them.

And need one be reminded of Helen calling them haters and wreckers and the last cab off the rank.

I sometimes think Labour is deliberately trying to lose the election, or to make it as hard as possible to win. They rank Chris Carter higher than Steven Joyce, they fail to get any of their deadwood to retire and they still treat the Maori Party as unworthy supplicants, despite the fact it is almost impossible for them to form a Government without them.

The only thing left for them to do is to announce their policy of increasing income tax on rich pricks, bringing back all the best memories of the last Government.

Paddy Gower at TV3 reports:

Labour high-flyer and union boss Andrew Little will launch his Parliamentary career by standing in the New Plymouth electorate.

Nominations open today, and 3 News has learned Little will put his name forward – confirmed by top-level sources in the Labour hierarchy.

This is an interesting, but not unexpected, development. There was some talk of Andrew standing in Rongotai or even Hutt South if the incumbents retired or went list only. That obviously is not going to happen now.

New Plymouth is the most marginal electorate in the country – Labour’s Harry Duynhoven lost to Jonathan Young by 105 votes.

By putting their local boy and big gun in, Labour are showing they want this seat back.

But it’s a risky move.

Duynhoven had a hugely loyal following in New Plymouth.

Look at the party vote; there’s a 6611 majority to National. So, really, Little needs 6716 votes to overturn Young.

The electorate vote margin is rather misleading, due to the Duynhoven factor. Andrew will be a strong candidate, but it is not really a marginal seat.

So the risk is Little may not win – a loss would be hugely embarrassing and set his career off to a stuttering start.

Of course, he would still come into Parliament on a high list spot.

If Little really backs himself and cares about the New Plymouth, maybe he will have the guts to go all-or-nothing and not take a list spot.

I don’t think Andrew will turn down a high list spot. And as he chairs the list ranking committee, I think it is safe to say he will rank himself highly. He will be busy though, as he will also be running an independent third party campaign for the EPMU.

While risky, there are huge rewards in this – a power base from which to launch his career. Electorates are still vitally important to those who want to make big moves in politics because of the base they give.

You don’t generally become leader if you are a list MP. Hence the need for a seat.

The Dom Post reports:

Saturday postal deliveries may be axed or posties may call only every second day as NZ Post looks to keep its mail business profitable in the face of people switching to email.

In a letter to State Owned Enterprises Minister Simon Power, obtained under the Official Information Act, chairman Jim Bolger said the NZ Post board was looking at several options, including “reducing the number of days that mail is delivered”.

Mr Bolger said yesterday that deliveries every second day were an option. “Personally I don’t think you could rule that out”, but that was not a NZ Post position. “There is only one message – mail volumes are going down worldwide. Digital technology is replacing hard copy.”

However, a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Steven Joyce, who must approve a change in delivery days, said no option had yet been presented to him. “He would take a lot of convincing.”

I think canning Saturday deliveries is a no brainer, and even going to deliveries on Monday, Wednesday and Friday only is worth considering. I really doubt there are many people who need to get their mail every day.

Most houses did not receive a piece of mail every day and some got only one letter a week.

Would be interesting to see exact stats on that, but they sound right to me.

Postal Workers Union advocate Graeme Clarke said an end to Saturday deliveries would be popular among the 1200 posties he represented – provided they were paid the same.

What world does Mr Clarke live in? Why on earth would anyone expect to continue to be paid to work six days a week, when in fact they only work five?

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing secretary Andrew Little, representing 4500 NZ Post workers including 2000 posties, was not opposed to five-day-a-week deliveries in principle. Deliveries every second day would be another matter.

Good to see Andrew not entirely opposed. I think deliveries three times a week is also worth looking at – it could significantly reduce the cost of postage. Remember the purpose of having a postal system is not to create jobs, but to provide an efficient and effective communication service.

Issues of bag weights and pay would need to be discussed.

If bags are heavier, then could be fair enough to look at an increase in hourly rates to compensate. However that is very different to Mr Clarke just saying we should be paid the same for working one day a week less.

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

Labour Party top-dog Andrew Little could step forward for a tilt at the New Plymouth electorate seat in next year’s national elections.

Mr Little, the party’s president and touted by many as a future Labour leader and prime minister, has refused to rule out the possibility.

“It’s certainly no secret I want to get into Parliament next year,” he told the Taranaki Daily News yesterday.

“As to how I do that, or where, I’ve made no decisions.”

He said he hopes to have made a decision within the next two or three months and wouldn’t rule out running in New Plymouth.

This is no surprise. The fact that Labour did not open nominations for New Plymouth at the same time as the other seats they lost, was obviously to keep options open for their President.

Andrew can of course just place himself at No 3 on the list, and be assured of entering Parliament that way. However a seat is almost a pre-requisite to becoming leader.

The city electorate is often viewed as a swing seat come election time and in 2008 National candidate Jonathan Young squeaked in past Labour’s 15-year encumbent MP Harry Duynhoven, with the tightest margin in the country – just 105 votes.

Mr Little has strong personal and family links to New Plymouth, having grown up here.

It was a very tight contest between Young and Duynhoven, but that is not the same thing as being a marginal seat between National and Labour.

While the electorate vote margin was only 0.2%, the party vote margin was a whopping 19.1%. Now nationwide the party vote margin was 11%, so 19% is a huge amount.

Harry Duynhoven had 13% of National voters, voting for him as the candidate. Will Andrew Little attract 13% of National voters?

It is a difficult decision for Andrew. His four main options are:

1. Stand for Rongotai, with Annette King going list only, allowing Annette to retire easily if Labour lose in 2011.
2. Stand for Hutt South if Trevor decides to retire in 2011 to become a full time blogger
3. Stand for New Plymouth.
4. Stand list only

No 1 is what I would go for if I was Andrew. There are rumours that Darren Hughes may seek that nomination though, and Annette is very good mates with Darren and would probably support him. It is also possible Annette will want to keep her seat, as many would see her going lost only as an indication she is not confident they will win the election.

No 2 depends on whether and when Trevor makes a judgement call that Labour are unlikely to win in 2011. He has said he doesn’t want another term of opposition. But I think Trevor still thinks the Government is on the verge of collapsing and is looking pretty comfortable where he is.

No 3 is Andrew’s for the taking. But the big negative is that he may lose, and lose big – which would not help him with his leadership aspirations.

No 4 is the default fall back option. As President, he would receive a massively high rating. But no one has yet become Prime Minister without not just a seat, but in fact a safe seat,

How weird. The Herald reports:

A leading unionist has attacked Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe over the company’s “grubby deal” with police that has led to staff caught drink-driving being penalised twice.

Andrew Little, secretary of the Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union and also president of the Labour Party, said the police had circumvented privacy and information laws and the airline had co-operated. …

Mr Little said that “Mr Fyfe’s response was less one of management heroism and more one of anger that the grubby deal had blown up in the airline’s face”.

He said that under that deal, airline staff processed for drink-driving faced criminal prosecution, appropriately, but also had the facts disclosed to Air NZ, so it could “exact a second punishment, usually dismissal, for the same offence”.

So the Labour Party President EPMU National Secretary thinks that it is a despicable thing that the Police tell Air New Zealand if a pilot gets charged with drink driving. Presumably Andrew thinks that it is nothing for Air New Zealand to worry about, as the drink driving took place in a car instead of a plane. This means that it is only *after* a pilot has also flown a plane while drunk, that Air New Zealand should be able to take action.

My Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is titled The rise and rise of Andrew Little. An extract:

Now under the leadership of Helen Clark, the parliamentary leader was the supreme leader. There was no question of the party president questioning her in public, or some decision being made she did not agree with. Clark’s great legacy to Labour was the unity it had under her rule.

But Phil Goff is no Helen Clark, and the power of Andrew Little is on the rise.

Comments and feedback can be made at NBR.

Goff”s desperate speech and u-turn may turn out to be a nail in his coffin. The Herald reports:

Labour’s president, Andrew Little, revealed yesterday that he has “personal concerns” about the speech.

It is no small thing for a party president to criticise the leader in public.

Mr Little said the speech had been discussed with Mr Goff at length at Labour’s national council meeting.

The president relayed his concerns, which he said were both his personally and those of people in the party.

“The extent to which I’ve got concerns is an issue for me and Phil, and no doubt the party and Phil and I wouldn’t air those publicly.”

But what is the game plan, that you will publicly air that you have concerns, just not what they are? There is no way this does not weaken Goff’s leadership.

A spokesman for Mr Goff said last night that he “absolutely stands by everything he said in the speech”.

It had raised important issues such as National’s “shabby” deal with the Maori Party to get the Emissions Trading Scheme through. Mr Goff also had grave concerns about National “playing politics” with the foreshore and seabed legislation.

So now the leader responds through the media to his own president.

Mr Little told the party conference in September that Labour had been wrong to deprive Maori of the right to test their claims in court when passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

The legislation will now be repealed as part of the governing agreement between National and the Maori Party, and Labour offered earlier in the year to work with National to achieve an “enduring consensus”.

But Mr Goff’s speech effectively changed Labour’s position on the law, saying it was working well the way it was now and repeal would make “wounds fester”.

Yep a u-turn in just two months.

I don’t think anyone thinks there is anything wrong with Labour opposing National’s ETS changes and associated deal with the Maori Party.

Likewise there is nothing wrong with Labour saying it supports the retention of the Foreshore & Seabed legislation. Of course they look a bit mickey mouse when they say they back change, that they are sorry for it, and then do a u-turn.

But where Goff went wrong is bringing together those two separate issues, along with Hone Harawira’s comments, into one overall theme of those Maori are getting away with too much.

The HoS reports:

The Labour leadership is embroiled in a murky polling operation run by a senior MP who has instructed volunteers to deliberately deceive people about their identities and the reason for their calls.

The polls were being run from Parliamentary offices by former Cabinet minister Rick Barker, who has admitted instructing staff to use false names and claim they were calling from a company that no longer exists. …

Details of the polling emerged after a volunteer involved approached the Herald on Sunday claiming the practice was “unethical”.

The volunteer, who is a Green Party member, said it was run by Barker and, when the volunteer participated, took place in Barker’s office at Parliament on October 14.

The volunteer said Barker instructed all the helpers, including a Parliamentary staffer, to say they worked for a non-existent company called “Data Research”, and to not disclose that they were really working for the Labour Party.

A search at the companies office for the former Data Research finds the company, when registered, had two directors – a Robert Bateman Allen and a Trevor Colin Mallard. Now nothing wrong with that – in fact the problem arguably is that they did not keep the company registered, while using its name.

Labour Party president Andrew Little last night said all polling was out of Phil Goff’s Leader’s Budget. Little said he knew nothing about the operation. “It would concern me very deeply,” he said.

This surprises me. In no way doubting Andrew’s word that he knew nothing – just surprised that the parliamentary wing would keep their polling operation secret from the President.

Barker, when questioned, initially said: “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. When provided with details, including dates, Barker said he would call back.

Two hours later, Barker rang and admitted he had encouraged the use of false names by callers.

Wow, Barker lied to the media. That gives him a real credibility problem. I doubt it was a memory problem, as the phoning took place just ten days ago.

Labour whip Darren Hughes, who sits on the party’s leadership council, said he was aware of the polling. He said Barker had spearheaded three polls.

But Hughes defended the use of false names and for callers to not identify that they were representing the Labour Party.

“The name of Data Research was used to get as close to a scientific result as you could, to not influence results because of the way that people feel about a particular party.”

What a mess. The party president says he knows nothing about is, and is deeply concerned. Rick Barker lies, saying he knows nothing about it, until flushed out. And Darren says it is all okay.

Now I will back Darren up on one point. If a party is conducting a poll themselves, they don’t want to use their own party’s name because it does influence the responses, and you do want it scientific.

However as I said, the preferable way to deal with this is to have an actual company registered like Data Access, so you can legally say you are polling on behalf of that company.

He said the use of false names in polling was common: “I’m sure that half the people try to sell us things on telemarketing aren’t giving us their real names.”

Here I disagree. Of course callers should use their real names. They don’t have to give out their surname and home address, but why wouldn’t they use their real first names?

A spokesman for Goff said the leader of the opposition was not available to answer questions, but he had consulted members of the leadership council and been told the method of polling carried out by Barker was a mistake. “It won’t happen again.”

So the President knew nothing, the MP whose office was used lied about it, the whip defended it and the leader said it was a mistake and won’t happen again!

I think Labour need to work on their internal communications and messaging!

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said the details of Barker’s polling operation raised serious questions and could breach the Privacy Act.

I imagine Commissioner Shroff’s concerns would be over what happens to the individual responses. Does Labour destroy the individual responses once they have summarised the results, or do they enter in the responses against their electoral roll database to assist with voter targeting? If they do undertake the latter, that would be a very serious breach of the Privacy Act.

I was interviewed for TV3 News on Saturday about what Bradford’s departure may mean politically, along with Andrew Little, Chris Trotter and Matt McCarten.

I took the view that it was potentially beneficial to the Greens as replacing Bradford with Clendon strengthens their environmental brand and if they are smart they could get as much as 10% of the vote if they position themselves as “greening” the Government no matter if it is National or Labour.

I stressed that the Greens will always support a Labour-led Government over a National-Led Government if one is possible. But if only National can form a Government, the Greens might be able to go beyond their current co-operation agreement to an abstain on supply and confidence agreement.

I understand Matt McCarten saw the move as potentially beneficial to the Greens also, and their ability to work on both sides of the aisle so to speak.

Andrew Little saw it as good for Labour, as Labour could pick up social justice voters from the Greens. I responded that this doesn’t actually help Labour win office, just as National picking up ACT voters doesn’t. And it can actually backfire if the Greens drop below 5% (as they have done in last night’s TVNZ poll). Also I have some doubts that Goff-led Labour will be more convincing to social justice voters than the Greens.

The real benefit to Labour would be if the Greens pick up some centrist voters who were previously put off by Bradford. For that will grow the left’s vote.

Chris Trotter sees the departure of Bradford as being the death of the left as the Greens go middle class.

He’s done a follow-up post today, which has some interesting observations:

The dangers inherent in the Greens’ educative model are demonstrated in their policy on the Treaty of Waitangi. Though the signing of the Treaty, like all historical events, is the subject of multiple, and often sharply contradictory, interpretations, the Greens have adopted an unequivocal and quite inflexible interpretation of the Treaty’s meaning. So much so that when some of their own members, unconvinced by the official party line, openly questioned it’s accuracy, they were deemed ineligible to stand as Green candidates by the Party leadership.

That the dissidents’ views on the Treaty of Waitangi were actually more in tune with those of the majority of Pakeha New Zealanders was an “inconvenient truth” to be overcome by – yes, you guessed it – a taxpayer-funded traveling road-show which would take the “true” meaning of the Treaty directly to the ignorant Pakeha masses and educate them into full conformity with the Greens’ historical interpretation.

This authoritarian aspect of the Greens’ political style is nowhere more apparent than in their so-called “consensus-based decision-making” constitution. Described as a means of “seeking positions that the maximum number of people can support, rather than a simple majority”, what these rules actually make possible is the ability of a tiny minority to over-rule and/or subvert the will of the majority.

In practical terms, it allows the leadership of the party, either directly or through their surrogates, to prevent the membership from directly challenging the Green Party caucus’s political strategy and tactics. Rather than promoting the open contest of conflicting political options, it fosters the cobbling together of compromises. Also, by imposing enormous emotional pressure on dissenters, it drives opposition below the surface of party affairs – a situation which, once again, privileges those in senior positions, and makes rank-and-file challenges to official party policy extremely difficult.

That is an interesting analysis of how the much vaunted consensus system actually can favour the hierarchy.

NewstalkZB reports Andrew Little blast against the print media:

Labour president Andrew Little kicked off the party’s annual conference in Rotorua with a blistering attack on the print media.

He criticised the country’s three main daily papers for editorials supporting the Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, after she revealed the details of two beneficiaries’ incomes. The women had made headlines for criticising government policy.

How dare the media take a position that more information is better than less information.

And Andrew overlooks that one of the women talked all over the Internet about her level of income support from taxpayers, and even appeared in a Labour advertisement talking about her situation a couple of years ago.

Mr Little called the editors who published the pieces “a disgrace” and said they had no place in an organisation such as the Commonwealth Press Union.

Yes how dare they belong to a union if Andrew doesn’t agree with one of theri editorials.

He says the affair demonstrated how fragile freedom of speech is…

Pardon me while I choke as I hear the President of the party that introduced the Electoral Finance Bill and passed the Electoral Finance Act shed crocodile tears for freedom of speech.

and what Labour is up against in trying to get balanced media commentary.

Oh yes. Everyone knows how the print media in New Zealand are terribly right wing. Just like the New York Times is a consistent supporter of the US Republican Party.

The Herald reports:

Labour Party president Andrew Little last night sought to quell speculation about Phil Goff’s longevity as leader, saying he was the only MP who could lead the party into the next election. …

“The reality is there is only one MP in our caucus who can provide the leadership to take us to victory, and that is Phil Goff,” he told the party’s conference in Rotorua.

It is never a good sign when you have to publicly endorse your leader, especially when it has the sincerity of Gordon Brown endorsing Tony Blair.

That is probably a bit too harsh.  It would be a disaster for Andrew if Goff does not survive until the election, as Andrew will only become an MP at the 2011 election.

Of course regardless of motivation, Andrew is basically correct. At this stage Goff is their only viable leader, and I certainly expect him to contest the election. I just struggle to see him actually being elected as Prime Minister, but time may prove me wrong.

On the other hand, if the Dom Post correctly reports:

Phil Goff rode in on a Triumph motorcycle to kick-start Labour on the long road back to electoral success, at this weekend’s party conference.

Then maybe he won’t survive until the election!