Labour has been plagued by political mismanagement under its last three leaders and it hasn’t got any better under this one.
Strike one for Andrew Little came with the very tardy payment of a contractor. Bad enough in itself from a former union head and at least of bad a reflection on his office:
. . . Any small business owner will tell you that the one thing they really hate is people who don’t pay their bills.
But one of the worst aspects of this is the shocking political management. Someone, anyone on Little’s team should have paid this bill. It was obvious that Cohen would go feral.
Even when Cohen wrote about it in the National Business Review, Labour still didn’t pay, allowing Steven Joyce to expose and embarrass Little in Parliament.
Why didn’t chief of staff Matt McCarten step in and clean up the mess?
All for the sake of $950 and a bit of internet banking.
First strike on the hypocrisy front for Andrew Little.
And strike one for mismanagement.
Strike two was Little’s failure to consult other parties on the membership of the Intelligence and Security committee:
Climate change targets, deep sea oil drilling, the Trans Pacific Partnership … there are many thorny issues that could divide Labour and Greens.
In fact, all it took was membership of a parliamentary committee and some clumsy manners from Andrew Little.
The Labour leader raised the hackles of out-going co-leader Russel Norman by excluding his party from Parliament’s Intelligence and Security committee, instead choosing David Shearer.
The Green party learned of the decision through the media – Little had not even informed his own chief of staff Matt McCarten.
To further rub salt into the wound, Little then slighted co-leader Metiria Turei by suggesting she could not compete with Shearer’s knowledge, skills or understanding of security issues.
He appeared to under-estimate the Green Party’s anger, quipping “ask them [if they are upset] tomorrow” when pressed on how he would smooth ruffled feathers.
Little’s first mistake was in seemingly breaking the law by not consulting with the other opposition parties. Refusing to take Norman seriously was his second – and the Greens retaliated with fury. . .
Little is right about Shearer being better qualified than Turei or, as David Farrar points out, any member of the Green Party:
The Greens are effectively opposed to the very existence of the intelligence agencies. Hence appointing them to an oversight committee means that their interest is just to find ways to discredit the agencies, not to play a constructive role in oversight. . .
However, that doesn’t excuse Little’s failure to follow the law in consulting other Opposition parties.
Political leaders don’t get a very long honeymoon, these two strikes signal Little’s is over and that he’s dogged by the problems of mismanagement which dogged the last three Labour leaders.
P.S. the column in which David Cohen raised the issue of the non-payment is here.
. . . What I was being asked to provide was not media advice or training, after all, but to take out a few hours to talk with Mr Little and then independently distill his views as they might sound to an outsider. Mr Matthews seemed to think his man could do with a bit more clarity.
As assignments go, it sounded offbeat but I’ve taken far odder ones in my time. . .
As a nosey-parker, too, I was interested to know more about the opposition’s calamitous recent history and perhaps even some of its current internal tensions.
Happily on that last point, this was something Mr Matthews immediately hinted at with a number of less-than-enthusiastic references to Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern, along with a slightly baffling digression on how the party’s fortunes will yet be reversed by installing the MP for Kelston, Carmel Sepuloni, as deputy party leader ahead of the next general election.
Scrolling back through a number of more recent clips of his television interviews, though, I could see why Mr Little’s friends might feel he needed a touch more clarity.
Like many trained lawyers, and indeed working journalists, I think he tries to parse tumbling thoughts into cogent words as he speaks. Sometimes this serves him better than others. There were occasions when I couldn’t make head or tail of what he was saying. . .
The atmosphere was congenial if a touch odd. Nobody had thought to turn the lights on, which lent a slightly film noir-ish air to the next couple of hours.
But the conversation was illuminating enough. We talked about Mr Little’s view of his own personal attributes – a lifetime of private sector engagement, an intimate knowledge of the organisation and a track record for bringing people together – and how these may or may not rejuvenate his party.
We chatted about his time representing journalists as a union leader. He spoke about his general engagement with the media.
From there, the conversation moved on to last year’s ghastly election campaign, Labour’s perceived image problems and what seems to me to be the piquant irony of a party claiming the mantle of diversity and yet almost consistently refusing to welcome businesspeople into its ranks.
Interesting stuff. I wrote up my notes as best I could, and sent them off along with an invoice for the time spent. Both were received with thanks.
Then came the silence.
Four months, many inquiring telephone calls and gazillions of emails on – as of the time of this writing – I’m still none the financially richer for having taken this oddball assignment. Not by a bean. I’ve been left feeling rather like a one-man nocturnal performer in a Christchurch insurance office.
Oh well. Isn’t that how things so often are for we self-employed and small business types grinding away in the engine room of the economy?
This supports my theory that Labour and unions want to be tough on employers because of their own poor record with employees.
There are bad employers and bad employees but they are the minority. Employment law should not be designed as if all employers and sinners and all employees saints.