Harry Duynhoven

Who is Andrew Little? Ctd – Is he Electable?

Andrew Little has run in New Plymouth twice now, and lost badly twice. Incumbent National MP Jonathan Young gave him a sound beating in 2011 and absolutely destroyed him in 2014.

At the 5.45 mark of his first press conference as leader he was asked about this. ?Andrew Little you got whipped in New Plymouth, how can you beat John Key nationwide.

Lets take a look at the results in New Plymouth.

Little Young Margin Little Diff Young Diff Margin Diff
2011 13,374 17,644 4,270 -1,586 3,922 5,508
2014 11,788 21,566 9,778
Labour National Margin
2011 8,761 18,073 9,312 -814 2,896 3,710
2014 7,947 20,969 13,022

Read more »

Andrew Little’s New Plymouth problem

Given the lack of talent for Labour’s leadership spill, Andrew Little looks like a good safe bet.

But there is a problem, and that is his less than stellar performances in New Plymouth.

Phil Quin explains;

There’s a lot of smart money going on Andrew Little’s bid to lead the Labour Party, but the numbers in New Plymouth don’t lie. So what are they saying?

There’s a lot of talk about “listening” in Labour circles these days. Announcing his bid for the party leadership, list MP Andrew Little named as his top priority “getting the process underway to listen to the voters who have abandoned us”. Grant Robertson agrees, telling reporters last week “as we emerge from our heavy election defeat, we must now take the opportunity to listen”.

I suspect Little and Robertson have in mind some version of a ?Labour Listens? tour (as Neil Kinnock did in Britain in 1997 and Gordon Brown did in 2010), a series of carefully staged outreach events involving a great deal of ostentatious nodding and taking of things on board. This is all well and good, and may even help in the long run, but there?s no reason to wait for a bus trip to start the process.

New Zealanders have said a great deal already, and in the most unequivocal terms imaginable: they have voted.

As it turns out, electors in New Plymouth haven’t left much to the imagination when it comes to Little. Labour?s performance in the seat since he became the party?s local standard bearer has been disastrous. It seems worth analysing Little?s record in light of David Cunliffe’s endorsement, not to mention his own acknowledgement that the next party leader will need to arrest the party?s decline by rebuilding the party and reconnecting with voters. “We don’t have a choice,? Little told Lisa Owen on The Nation last weekend, ?We’ve lost three elections in a row. Our vote has been going down. We’re down to 32 MPs. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel?.

He should know. In the two elections since Little became Labour?s candidate in New Plymouth, National’s party vote margin in the electorate has more than doubled from 6,600 to 13,000 votes. After a 5.8 percent two-party swing from Labour to National in 2011, there was a further 6.3 percent swing in New Plymouth this year ? roughly three times worse than the nationwide average. As the electorate candidate, Little also attracted 6,500 fewer electorate votes than in 2008 when the previous Labour member, Harry Duynhoven, lost the seat. After three years of resources and profile as a list MP based partly in New Plymouth, Little managed a 7.8 percent swing against him on the electorate vote this year, to compound the 6.7 percent he suffered in 2011.? Read more »

Nashy bows out

I think Stuart Nash has made a wise decision not to participate in Labour’s leadership spill.

It promised to get messy and it is my belief that no good will come of this battle as the caucus seeks to rid themselves of David Cunliffe.

Napier MP Stuart Nash has ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest so he can turn his electorate into a “Labour fortress”.

Mr Nash had previously indicated his decision would be influenced by whether list MP Andrew Little was in a position to stand.

Mr Little’s place in Parliament was confirmed on Saturday following the counting of special votes.

Last night, Mr Nash confirmed his withdrawal from the contest and said he had decided against standing after a meeting with his team yesterday. Mr Little’s situation had had only a small bearing on his decision.

“We had a good look at everything and decided there’s a whole lot of work to do in Napier … to turn Napier into a Labour fortress.”

 

Meanwhile Andrew Little, a man so unlikeable he has been rejected comprehensively by the voters of New Plymouth twice and can’t win an electorate seat is probably going to have a tilt at the leadership. ? Read more »

Labour gives up on New Plymouth and Rotorua


It looks like Labour has given up on winning back New Plymouth and Rotorua, bypassing them on their taxpayer funded leader’s roadshow.

The Labour Party is bypassing Taranaki in a series of meetings to be held before electing its new leader.

Details of the 12 meetings, spread across New Zealand, were announced yesterday as the Labour leadership race entered its next phase.

New Plymouth had been a traditional stronghold for the party with Harry Duynhoven holding the seat from 1993 until 2008, when National MP Jonathan Young wrested it from him with the country’s smallest majority of just 105 votes.

Mr Young then went on to defeat Andrew Little in 2011.

Labour Party general secretary Tim Barnett said the tight timeframe and having to hold meetings in the six biggest population centres had dictated where meetings were held.? Read more »

Maurice could win – NBR

Niko Kloeten reckons that Maurice Williamson could bury Len Brown in the mayoral race in October.

There are a number of reasons.

Less baggage:

A number of political figures on the right believe Mr Williamson would have a better chance of success than fellow MP and ACT Party leader John Banks did when he ran for Auckland mayor three years ago and was thumped by 65,000 votes (234,459 to 169,862).

Councillor Dick Quax, who represents the Howick ward which largely overlaps with the Pakuranga electorate, says Mr Williamson has a very good reputation in the area, with one of the largest majorities of any MP (almost 14,000 votes).

He says Mr Williamson doesn’t carry as much “baggage” as Mr Banks in the eyes of voters, particularly those in area outside the old Auckland City Council.

“The reason why John Banks didn’t do very well was for many people the amalgamation of Auckland was seen as a takeover by Auckland City,” he says.

“They saw John Banks as part of that takeover by Auckland City of the rest of the region and when a credible candidate from outside of the area put his hand up a lot of the votes automatically went to Len Brown.

“A lot of voters in Pakuranga and Howick voted for him because he wasn’t John Banks. ?That won’t be the case this time.”

Mr Quax says Mr Williamson will also benefit from not being associated with the unitary plan, which many Aucklanders are not happy with.? Read more »

Two-Hats to become Three-Hats

Pedro Gower (I do the nicknames, no-one else) has posted that Andrew “Two-Hats” Little is about to stand for selection in New Plymouth as a carpet-bagger candidate.

Andrew "Three Hats" LittleLabour 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.

Of course there is a selection process to follow, but Little is the Labour Party President. Make no mistake: he will win the candidacy.

I’m not sure sure that Three Hats can win the selection. Labour MPs I have spoken to don’t seem too enamoured with Three Hats. Certainly Annette King and Trevor Mallard aren’t big fans as they have refused to relinquish their seats to enable Three Hats to get into parliament. The talk around Labour too, is that Three Hats hasn’t delivered in the fund-raising stakes either, something both main parties seem to have a problem with.

It seems that companies that were previously scared into giving cash to Labour through Mike Williams bully-boy tactics aren’t that scared of Three hats though confusion does reign juast as to what he is seeing them about. Is it about his union pals as leader of the nations biggest union or fundraising for Labour.

It does beg the question, and something likely to be tested in a court next election, are the EPMU really a third party of the industrial wing of the Labour Party? If the EPMU boss is also the boss of Labour and a Labour candidate there does seem to be a real credibility issue on the separation of third parties, particularly those affiliated to and voting for candidates inside Labour

Even if Andrew Little does manage to get selected he will still need a high list placing to get into parliament because he has no chance of winning New Plymouth. That electorate was only Labour through Harry Duynhoven, who was a hard working and popular MP, though when the tide went out and with boundary changes that still couldn’t save him. Jonathan Young has been working diligently to cement his place as local MP and a carpet-bagger from Wellington will struggle even if he is the Labour Party president.

More on Scampi

Well, my site has taken a hammering since posting the infamous secret scampi video. Now by way of a backrounder here is some filler information that tells you why this video is so explosive. It is from Hansard and the debate on Scampi. When you read this you can see why Winston Raymond peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode is going to be squirmingthat the video has now seen the light of day. You would also do well to read Question 5 from the other day as well.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate-this very debate we are having now-Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course-and a lot of people do not realise this-Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.

 

Tuesday Night Guns

I present for you the Glock 18. These guys have the coolest job. I wonder if they want a NZ stringer?