Andrew Little

Bob Jones on the demise of NZ First

I’ll spare you the detailed description on Barry Soper and Audrey Young’s mandatory buttock grabbing (you can read that here, if you really want), ¬†instead, picking up the story here:

I never thought anything could top Laila Harre’s 2002 defeat explanation with her “unfortunately the public voted with their heads”, but, by God, there’s been some serious challenges – notably from Laila herself.

Even the most hardened hacks were dumbstruck by her protest at allowing her boss into the country. But she was immediately trumped by Kim Dotcom himself, who agreed it was an outrage. If he feels that strongly then America – where he’s destined to end up anyway – will give him a big hello, plus free accommodation for a very long time, although decidedly smaller than his current abode.

Colin Craig continues to delight. Explaining away his nutty image, he instead cemented it by saying: “It was logical to platform off the rhetoric already being discussed.” Psychiatrists are banned from entering, but there’s a trip to Upper Volta for anyone making sense of that.

Having lost female voters after declaring New Zealand women promiscuous, Colin is now targeting homosexuals by an advertising campaign showing him lying in long grass with a come-hither look. Missing is a rose stem between his teeth.

To add to the madness, Labour’s normally sane Andrew Little, jealous of Trevor Mallard’s moa headlines, declared men charged with sex crimes will be automatically guilty unless they can prove their innocence.

Then to further alienate male voters, Labour’s serial apologiser leader chimed in, unbelievably apologising for being a man.

If you were writing a script, you’f be going: ¬†“no, too much, it’s starting to get to the point nobody would believe this could actually happen”. ¬†And yet… the current farce isn’t over yet!
Read more »

Law and order proposals are “Ping-pong policies”

Both Labour and National have taken a hammering from Criminal Bar Association president Tony Bouchier.

Labour cops the worst of it though for proposing to move the burden of proof in rape cases from the prosecution tot he defence, having to prove consent occurred.

Proposed “vote-winning” law changes relating to criminal justice reform of rape cases could result in more innocent people being sent to prison, the Criminal Bar Association warns.

National and Labour say the current system is not providing justice for victims of sexual violation, and reform would make the system more victim-focused.

National wants to explore whether a judge or jury should be able to see a defendant’s refusal to give evidence in a negative light. Legal experts have called this an attack on the right to silence. ¬†¬† Read more »

Unions own Labour and why 20% stacks up ‚Äď Observation by the Owl

Helen Kelly and Andrew Little have completely stuffed Labour. This is a party which will never recover.

It will be doomed to the backwaters and is the new Alliance Party.

I give Labour another 3 more election cycles before it fades from history.

Here are some of the parallels

Unions got 20% of the vote to elect the Labour Leader

Total people belonging to unions in NZ (actually less than 20%)

Labour polls 20% ¬† Read more »

Unfortunately Tracy there is nothing to like and even less to trust

Tracy Watkins writes about The Cunliffe and his likeability and trust issues with the electorate.

Labour leadership is a brutal job. If Helen Clark had been made of different stuff she never would have survived Opposition.

Her colleagues tried to roll her just months out from the 1996 election and with good reason.

Labour’s polling under Clark was disastrous. Support for her as preferred prime minister was laughable. Voters thought she was arrogant, aloof and out of touch.

Everything about Clark – her hair, her teeth, her mannish voice – was picked over and dissected as another reason for voters to reject Labour. They were the worst years of Clark’s life. But when a delegation of Clark’s colleagues knocked on her door asking her to resign she stared them down.

There is said to be a desk somewhere around Parliament that still bears the scars from Koro Wetere digging his fingernails into its surface during their faceoff.

The story even had an (almost) happy ending when Clark took Labour close to winning the 1996 election – though perhaps not as close as her supporters believed on the night.

It was largely thanks to Winston Peters and MMP that she was able to keep Labour’s hopes alive before Peters opted to do a deal with National. But it was enough to secure Clark’s leadership. Three years later she led Labour to a sweeping victory and nine years in power.

Is Clark protege David Cunliffe made of the same stuff?

The difference between Helen Clark and David Cunliffe is two-fold. She had balls and a spine, both things that are sadly lacking from The Cunliffe. His self doubt is immense and hasn’t been helped with former leaders knocking on his door at parliament and assuring The Cunliffe that he shouldn’t worry, the polls will come right, chin up.

Labour’s poll ratings have sunk like the Titanic under Cunliffe’s leadership.¬†The latest Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos political pollhas Labour marooned in the mid-20s.

Forget about winning – avoiding an old-fashioned drubbing has become the priority. Only MPs with seats in Labour bastions like Manukau seem safe.

It is not at all far-fetched to imagine Labour sinking to National’s low point in 2002 – 21 per cent.

Under that scenario the damage to Labour could be immense. Unthinkably, even finance spokesman and number two on Labour’s list, David Parker, could be at risk. So too would stars like Jacinda Ardern and Andrew Little.

The only difference between now and 1996 is the election date. When Clark’s colleagues knocked on her door in May 1996 the election was still five months away. Even if Labour wanted to change its leader now, it probably couldn’t. Voters would punish such a visible display of panic and disarray just two months out from an election. Many in Labour’s activist base would revolt.

Cunliffe was their man, their nuclear option against a caucus that did not reflect their world view. A change of leader now would bring to the surface all the things voters reject – panic, a party in disarray and disunity.

Read more »

No one likes The Cunliffe

Cunliffe - Sh_t

David Cunliffe aka The Cunliffe, isn’t as popular as Greg Presland thinks he is.

In fact the Fairfax Ipsos polls shows that Labour would do better without him.

Vernon Small delivers the bad news.

Labour would get an immediate lift in the polls if it dumped leader David Cunliffe, a new poll suggests.

The stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll reveals that Cunliffe may have become Labour’s biggest liability, with a significant number of voters saying they would be more likely to vote for Labour if someone else were leader.

Click here for full poll results in graphics.

The effect is sizeable, making a 13.5 percentage point difference to Labour’s vote.

Although a similar effect is seen on National when asked the same question about John Key, it is much smaller.

The finding will plunge Labour further into crisis after yesterday’s poll result cementing Labour’s support in the mid-20s.

Privately, Labour and the Greens now acknowledge that it would take an unprecedented swing against National to force a change of government on September 20.

Some Labour MPs were yesterday privately canvassing leadership options, even at this late stage.

But they believe Labour would be even more severely punished by such an outward sign of panic. ¬†¬† Read more »

Cartoon of the Day

justice-Labour-style2

Credit: SonovaMin

The backdown has started, Andrew Little was just thinking out loud apparently

The other day Andrew Little said that Labour had a new policy where they wanted to shift the burden of proof in rape cases from the prosecution to the defence.

Essentially Labour thinks that someone charged with rape should have to prove consent.

Predictably, after copping a flogging online and on talkback for the last few days, they are now in full reverse ferret mode.

A case of Andrew Little thinking out loud.

Labour’s downplaying its justice spokesman’s proposal to shift the burden of proof in rape cases.

The party wants the Law Commission to consider a shift to an inquisitorial system – to make courtrooms less combative for alleged victims of sexual assault.

Mr Little’s suggested the defence should have to show there was consent, to prove the accused’s innocence. ¬† ¬† Read more »

Malcolm Harbrow from No Right Turn on Labour’s rape law changes

Malcolm Harbrow from No Right turn is a nasty spiteful hard left acolyte, but occasionally he stumbles in the right direction.

Today he lambasts Labour for proposing to overturn our Bill of Rights and remove the presumption of innocence and the onus of proof onto the defence in rape cases.

This clearly violates the¬†presumption of innocence¬†affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act¬†(not to mention the¬†Universal Declaration of Human Rights,¬†ICCPR, and every other major human rights instrument). Under that presumption, the state has to prove each and every aspect of its case (“the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies”). That’s clearly not the case under Labour’s proposal.

Our Supreme Court has already found that the presumption of supply in the Misuse of Drugs Act violates the Bill of Rights Act for exactly these reasons. They will draw exactly the same conclusion about this proposal Рas will the UN Human Rights Commission.

I accept that rape cases are difficult to prove. This change will make them remarkably easier. If Labour gets its way, there will be a lot more convictions for rape. And a lot more of them will be of innocent people. We presume innocence because we believe it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. Labour clearly does not believe that any more. ¬†¬† Read more »

Labour’s war on cops continues

According to Labour, the cops are liars.

Police were under government orders to “minimise” the number of domestic violence charges they lay to make crime statistics look good, Labour MP Andrew Little claimed yesterday.

But the claim has been strongly denied by both police bosses and the Government.

Family violence figures released yesterday by the University of Auckland’s Family Violence Clearinghouse show police charges for domestic violence offences dropped by up to 29 per cent from 2009/10 to last year.

And for the same period, the number of offences recorded by police fell by nearly 10,000.

But the number of investigations into family violence grew from 86,800 in 2010 to 95,100 incidents last year.

Little, a list MP and New Plymouth’s Labour Party candidate, said he believed the drop in family violence charges was due to the Government putting direct pressure on police to lower the crime statistics.

“What I have been told authoritatively is that front line police have been told to minimise the number of charges they lay.

“That is not just family violence but across the board. I’m told it’s not just domestic violence, it’s all forms of offending.

“I think that a combination of that and using police safety orders is what is showing up in the reduced number of charges in relation to domestic violence,” Little said.

Just when you think they can’t get any more desperate, Labour resurrect their hate campaign against frontline police.¬† Read more »

Labour’s rape law plans will destroy your civil rights

Labour is hell bent on changing rape laws to put the onus on the accused to prove consent.

The Labour Party’s plan to reform the criminal justice system would mean that the accused in a rape case would have to prove consent to be found innocent — a change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.

But Labour’s justice spokesman Andrew Little said the current system is broken and in need of a major shake-up. The party favours an inquisitorial system, where a judge interviewed the alleged victim after conferring with prosecution and defence lawyers.

The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter and the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove it was consensual.

“The Crown has to prove more than just sex; the issue of consent has to be raised by the Crown, they have to prove the identity of the offender. They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent,” Mr Little said.

He said the issue of proof would only apply where allegations of rape had been raised.

“It is pretty radical thing to say that ‘all sex is rape’ unless you prove consent. The reality is that in 99.9 per cent of cases, no one is being asked to prove consent.”

Andrew Little is showing just how much of an idiot and book learning lawyer he is.

There would be a massive increase in rape convictions…the courts would be overflowing as this device was used by partners to get revenge.¬† Read more »