PoliticsJuly 31, 2017

After the immolation: who will replace Andrew Little?

Senior Writer, NZ Herald

Andrew Little poured petrol all over himself yesterday and now he’s standing there with the lighter in his hands, screaming at us, ‘Is this what you want?’ If he burns, though, who will replace him?

Well, maybe he’s not screaming it at all of us, but when he said he and his senior team had talked about whether he should resign, he was talking to all of those progressive voters who now support the Greens or Gareth Morgan. He was saying, ‘You wanna see me burn?’ He was trying to scare them all back to Labour.

But that’s not going to work, is it? When the polls, plural, put your party at its lowest point in over 20 years, and you say you might resign, you’re stuck with it. Every interviewer from this point will start with the question, “Why are you still here?”

He won’t self-immolate. But they will take the lighter from his hands, shower all the petrol off him, and take him to a quiet room for a nice lie down in a warm bed. It seems an odds-on bet now that Andrew Little will not be leading the Labour Party into this election.

There’s precedent: we have eight weeks to go, but Mike Moore took over from Geoffrey Palmer in 1990 with only six weeks to go. Didn’t win, but probably did stop the complete collapse of his party.

So who’s their Mike Moore now?

The answer is obvious: it’s Jacinda Ardern. She has the profile, the personal support, the youthful freshness, the town-and-country appeal (the ultimate urban sophisticate who grew up in small-town Waikato), the political experience (as much as anyone who’s never been in government can have) and after you go down the list ticking all those boxes, she has the thing that Andrew Little just does not have – let’s call it elect-appeal.

Charisma. Likeability-trustability. The person you don’t mind interrupting your dinner when they’re on the news, the person you want to hear more from.

And this year, in a sea of grey men (English, Little, Shaw, Flavell), angry men (Morgan, Peters, Harawira) and irrelevant men (Seymour, Dunne), being an engaging, lively, provocative woman sure does not hurt. It’s Turei, Fox, Bennett and Ardern making the real running as leaders in this election, and of all of them, it’s Ardern who has the talent and the big party apparatus to make the most of her chances. Though she still has to be, politically, more provocative. Shock us with something.

Jacinda Ardern. Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images

The trouble is, while all this is probably obvious to almost everyone by now, it doesn’t seem to be obvious to Ardern herself. Put aside her commendable public loyalty to her boss and her oft-repeated desire not to perpetrate the power-hungry venalities of politics and it could be true what she says: she just doesn’t want it.

Two ways to go on that. One is to say, ffs, sometimes the good of the party comes first. Some people are born great (which is, like, nobody), some people acquire greatness (which is all that most politicians can hope for) and some have greatness thrust upon them. That would be Jacinda. It’s her time now and she has to step up.

The other way to look at it is to say that leadership is self-selecting: the calculating, determined ambition you need to become leader is an essential job skill to be leader. Leaders make themselves and you can’t talk them into it.

Which one is Jacinda Ardern? Her call, really. But now – right now, this week – is the time for her to make it. She’s the person who will take that lighter from Andrew Little’s hands and lead him to the quiet room. Is she going to stay there with him?

Who else could they choose?

The point in replacing Little is for Labour to find itself a game-changer. Someone who can talk about their policies in ways that make us take notice. Who can light up their campaign without setting themselves alight. That’s not Phil Twyford or David Parker or David Clarke, all of whom are solid, competent politicians who will not excite any more electoral interest than Little does. It’s not Chris Hipkins or Megan Woods or Nanaia Mahuta or Carmel Sepuloni, who have not managed to distinguish themselves in any of the ways that really count.

From the rest of the caucus, that really only leaves three, if Ardern won’t do it: Grant Robertson, Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash.

Grant Robertson

Robertson very nearly got the job instead of Little, remember. In the 2014 partywide election, Robertson won 49.48 per cent of the combined vote to Little’s 50.52 per cent. And he commanded clear majority support in the caucus.

Robertson is extremely able, affable and an excellent speechmaker. He’s a natural leader, and also naturally witty and relaxed – he’s hard not to like. In many of those personal respects, he’s very like Winston Peters. Unlike Peters, though, he’s also been loyal to a fault. Being loyal to Andrew Little has meant keeping his profile lower than Little’s, which has taken some dexterity, and has also allowed Ardern’s star to shine brighter. He’s been a thoroughly competent finance spokesperson, even though the job is not a natural fit to his talents. He is, like Ardern, a politician who unites rather than divides.

What counts against him? There’s only one thing, isn’t there? No, not that he’s gay. It’s that some people think his being gay counts against him.

There’s no evidence for it. Sure, it’s easy to find low-level homophobia all over the country, in the language people use and the jokes they tell. But do we live in a country that would not tolerate having a gay prime minister? The radical feminist lesbian MP Marilyn Waring was elected three times from a rural Waikato seat in the ’70s and ’80s; transgender MP Georgina Beyer twice won the Wairarapa seat and she was also elected mayor of Carterton. It’s absurd to suggest the country as a whole would have some difficulty that the people of the Waikato and Wairarapa have proved they do not have.

It’s also a disgrace that Labour has been too timid to embrace Robertson as leader, despite his natural gifts for the job. Electing him now would in itself be the gesture the party so desperately needs. It would say: we’re prepared to be bold.

Kelvin Davis

That’s also true for Kelvin Davis. He’s not a radical like Hone Harawira, but he has consistently stood up for the oppressed, consistently promoted fresh thinking and determined activism in the north, and consistently introduced a Māori perspective to national political issues in ways that might surprise many Pākehā but probably do not dismay them. He’s not naturally warm, but he has gravitas. You don’t turn away when he speaks. But does he engage emotionally – do we want to spend more time with him? That’s harder to see.

Stuart Nash

The third contender is Stuart Nash. Although, frankly, he’s only on this list because Labour needs to make a big bold call and Nash has the persona of a big bold politician. He’s been prepared to think differently and speak his mind. He’s articulate, too. But what else? He’s distinguished himself for being offside with various party leaders, yet for all his independence it’s hard to pinpoint any quality new ideas he’s produced.

He does have a very strong local following in Hawke’s Bay, and that’s no mean feat for a Labour politician in provincial New Zealand. Still, being popular at home doesn’t make you popular in other people’s homes, and even if it did, Nash’s provincial base is easily trumped by Ardern and Robertson’s urban support.

Stuart Nash. Screengrab via 1 News / tvnz.co.nz

What about the rest of the country?

What’s Labour’s problem? It’s been said many times, but their failure to renew their caucus with exciting new talent in 2011 and 2014 has had terrible consequences for them now. After the whipping they got in 2008, Labour should have been working overtime to bring into parliament several of the country’s best progressive leaders. Think how strong they would be as a caucus, how blessed they would be with potential leaders today, if they had managed to woo the likes of Dame Susan Devoy and Dr Lance O’Sullivan. If they had scored themselves some sports celebrities (seriously, sports people have more driving ambition than almost everyone else on the planet, and politicians need to have it too). If they had lined up a galaxy of entertainment stars the way the Greens have with Taika Waititi, Lucy Lawless and Robyn Malcolm. If they had embraced some of our progressive business entrepreneurs, in Pure Advantage and elsewhere.

Maybe it will all change for the next election. Fearless, articulate progressive thinkers like The Project’s Kanoa Lloyd and Jesse Mulligan would make Labour a better party and parliament a better place, don’t you think? And so would outspoken leaders like Moana Maniapoto and Mike King.

The biggest disaster for Labour will not be to lose the election. The hope of winning has never died but it has not been strong for a while. It will be to do so badly in the election that they do not get any new MPs. They’ve got a strong list, with several potentially great MPs on it, but they need to score closer to 30 per cent for those people to get into parliament. A shrunk caucus of the lame and the sick this year will leave them even less able to fight in 2020 than they are now.

Meanwhile, there’s Andrew Little, still standing there reeking of petrol. Put down the lighter, Andrew. Step out of those dangerously soused clothes. You’ve earned a break. And Jacinda, or possibly Grant, just pull on your damn fireproof pants and get on with it. It’s your turn now.

Want more politics? Check out the Spinoff’s Gone By Lunchtime political podcast, hosted by Toby Manhire with Ben Thomas and Annabelle Lee. Listen to the latest episode here, or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.

Keep going!

PoliticsJuly 31, 2017

#IamAndrew: what on earth is Little playing at by throwing his leadership into question?

Toby Manhire

Editor-at-large

The centre-left bloc just went up in the polls, but the conversation is all about the viability of Andrew Little as Labour leader – and it’s a conversation he started, writes Toby Manhire

Andrew Little’s decision to tell New Zealand he has been contemplating resigning the Labour leadership has proved a success by one metric at least: for the first time in some while, his party is leading the news.

The revelation was spurred by a miserable 24% poll result, the lowest for 20 years in the Colmar Brunton / TVNZ survey, which mirrors Labour’s own internal research by UMR. The polling suggests Labour has lost support to their formal allies on the left, the Green Party, which has achieved a record of its own: 15%, off the back of Metiria Turei’s confession that she lied to Winz about her living circumstances when on a benefit in the 1990s.

And it’s tempting to think that the success of that tactic has inspired Little’s own confession. I need to speak from the heart about how I dealt with adversity. Relatable content. Surely it is only a matter of time before we see an outpouring of personal stories inspired by his disclosure: #IamAndrew.

Little did not accidentally let slip that he had discussed with senior colleagues the option of quitting. He very deliberately took that line to Corin Dann, for an interview broadcast alongside the poll results on 1 News last night. It looks very much like a desperation strategy. He seems to be saying to voters on the centre-left: if you jump ship to the Greens, then the government won’t change – and if you don’t believe me, look at me, I am dangling half my body out this window.

But while you wouldn’t guess it from the foreboding piano music, the Labour-Green bloc actually increased its share of support in the CB/TVNZ poll. The memorandum-of-understanding partners went up one point to 39%, while National stayed put on 47% – as before, NZ First would be needed by either side to make a government. After that last round of polling, Little was chirpily talking up a three-part Lab-Grn-NZF harmony, sucking up to Winston as best he could. Not today: on Morning Report, as on 1 News yesterday, Little – who could easily lose his list seat if Labour remain in this territory – was unequivocal. Such an arrangement on the left would present “a real credibility issue”.

No matter how much anyone from the Greens or elsewhere sermonises about FPP versus MMP thinking, it matter for nowt when the leader of Labour says this: “At 24%, you don’t get to form a government. That’s just the reality.”

And yet he could’ve said all that, he could’ve argued that people need to understand you can’t change the government without a strong Labour party at its forefront, without, in effect, putting his own leadership on the line. Because that is what he has done: while Little has may have refused to say how much lower the numbers would need to go before he walks the plank, it can’t be much. And speculation of that flavour will now be a permanent campaign theme. Andrew Little is going to be asked about whether he will remain leader every day until September 23 – if, that is, he stays that long.

Given that, it starts to look not just an act of desperation but a kamikaze strategy. Didn’t Labour spend most of the last three years seeking to restore discipline and unity to their caucus? The months – no, the years – that led up to the 2014 catastrophe were bedevilled by constant infighting and talk about the job security of the leader. God forbid that they would get mired in such speculation this time. Except now they’re back in that mire, because someone has started talking about whether the leader could resign, and that someone is: the leader. It is an unconventional strategy, I’ll give you that.

In a tense interview this morning with RNZ – at one point Little snipped at Guyon Espiner: “I don’t know what you’re on this morning” – Little confirmed that he was unhappy with the Greens’ approach of recent weeks. They had, he said, “taken up an issue in a way that I don’t think is necessarily helping forge or grow the left and centre-left bloc”. Add into that the contradictory statements by Labour’s Willie Jackson and Turei on potential Green-Labour deals in the Māori seats, and the Labour-Green partnership is beginning to look seriously frayed.

‘At 24%, you don’t get to form a government’. Photo: Adrian Malloch

But rather than chiding the Greens for cannibalising the centre-left vote, Labour might do better to try and learn something from it. There’s no use crying about their own alternative budget getting upstaged by the memoirs of Metiria. They have eight weeks left. They’re in a parlous state in the polls. They might as well go bold, empty the hat of all available rabbits. What’s to lose?

One of those rabbits, of course, is a change in leader, which can now be effected by caucus alone. Already the Mike Moore precedent of 1990, when Geoffrey Palmer was defenestrated at the eleventh hour, is being talked about – a tactic which “almost saved” Labour, reckons Mike Hosking, oddly, in a two-minute-long Mike’s Minute that predicts “the beginning of the end of Labour as a major political force”.

There are many reasons why those circumstances were different, not least that the role Moore was assuming, albeit fleetingly, was prime minister. Would Jacinda Ardern be willing to take the Labour leadership less than two months before an election? Grant Robertson, twice defeated in contests for the Labour helm, has said he wouldn’t seek it again, but if there was a unanimous cry from caucus – most of whom wanted him as leader last time, after all – would that ambition flicker back to life?

These kind of questions, like it or not, are now back in the mix. Andrew Little has put himself on notice. If Labour slips, say, another couple of points, to 22%, whether or not anyone is throwing their hand up in the air to take the reins, Little’s leadership is surely over.

Already it is on the table. He put it there.