Ardern adds details to timeline of becoming leader

Jacinda Ardern has adjusted the timeline on when she knew about taking over the Labour party leadership from Andrew Little.

At the time it happened Ardern claimed it had been suddenly sprung on her, but she now has given details that Little had been trying to talk her into taking over for a week before he stepped down. During the election campaign she admitted she knew 6 days in advance that Little wanted to step down.

NZ Herald:  Jacinda Ardern rejected Labour leadership ‘seven times’

Jacinda Ardern has revealed she held out for a week – refusing daily – before finally agreeing to replace Andrew Little as Labour’s leader.

Ardern said she was at a Rotary meeting in the capital on her birthday, July 26.

“I’m going to remember that day for a long time,” she said.

“Rotary gave me a great big birthday cake – and it was on that day that Andrew (Little) said to me ‘I’m worried about the polls and wondering whether you should do this job instead’.

“It’s two months, almost to the day, since that happened, and a couple of days later he made the decision to stand down and he nominated me as leader of the Labour Party.

“And I can tell you that from the 26th of July to the 1st of August, every single day I was asked and I said ‘no, no, no’.

“There were lots of reasons for that, but the moment when Andrew made that decision, then there was a role I needed to step into and there was no doubt in my mind that that was what I needed to do.”

That’s quite a different slant to what we were told at the time.

RNZ:  As it happened: Jacinda Ardern takes charge as Labour leader

Mr Little tells RNZ’s Morning Report on Monday morning he is “absolutely determined” to be the Labour leader. However he concedes, “at 24 [percent], you don’t get to form a government”.

Stuff:  Jacinda Ardern new Labour leader as Andrew Little quits

Ardern laughed, saying that she had just accepted the “worst job in politics” at very short notice.

“This was not planned, but it has not weakened my or my team’s resolve.”

“I want to be absolutely clear, the decision that Andrew made was Andrew’s decision.”

Sounds like she was right about that.

NZH:  Andrew Little quits: Jacinda Ardern is new Labour leader, Kelvin Davis is deputy

Ardern said she only found out about his plans on her taxi ride to Parliament this morning. She hasn’t yet had time to tell her parents, who live in Niue, or her partner Clarke Gayford.

“Mum and Dad are going to get a surprise.”

However two weeks ago, during the campaign, Ardern reveals Little asked her to take over leadership six days before resigning

Jacinda Ardern has revealed former leader Andrew Little first asked her to take over the reins six days before he resigned but she told him to “stick it out”.

At the Blackball ‘Formerly Hilton Hotel’ – the birthplace of the Labour movement – Ardern was questioned by a local as to why she had ended up in the job.

For the first time Ardern spoke of Little approaching her on July 26 – her birthday – and saying he didn’t think he could turn things around for the party and she should take over as leader. She refused and told him to “stick it out”.

Ardern has now expanded on that, saying he asked and she refused every day for a week before he forced things by stepping down and nominating her to take over.

Ardern’s accomplished performance at her first media conference had hinted that she was a bit more prepared for her  promotion than having found out an hour earlier.

97 Comments

  1. I recall at the first One News Labour debate, Ms Ardern said she would never lie. It now emerges that she already had.

    • Whoops; that should be One News leaders’ debate 😦

    • robertguyton

       /  September 28, 2017

      OMG, Keeping Stock – that you could appear here, after all your experience with National and the lies they have built their world on (Sheepgate; just one as a taster) and your own involvement with Dirty Politics that resulted in your having to ditch your own blog at the height of its popularity, have the gall to pipe up here with accusations of lying against Labour! The hypocrisy is far dripping off you! How can you face yourself in the mirror, old chum, old paua, knowing what you know and having acted as you did? I’m flabbergasted.

      • robertguyton

         /  September 28, 2017

        meant “fair’ but that’s a word you’ll be entirely unfamiliar with, Keeping Stock.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  September 28, 2017

        “There was no suggestion of any wrongdoing on Keeping Stock’s behalf and Mr Stuart said he didn’t engage with politicians to get information for his blog.” – NZ Herald

        He made a couple of fairly innocuous comments under a Cam Slater blog post…
        The inhumanity of it all! String him up!

      • Even from deepest, darkest Africa I smell the Dirty Politics of which you speak and as it is so often, it’s not the right but it’s the left.

        This response to KS is ad hominem, vindictive, deeply personal and endeavours to intimidate and bully by exposure beyond a pseudonym.

        I guess a lack of a retort sees one resort to the gutter. Did Ms Ardern lie to NZ? Yes. It was pretty well the first thing out of her mouth and how she chose to frame and misrepresent her ascension to the throne of glory. Reluctant, but willing and able with the background of months of Women’s Magazine covers and DIY stories in polka dot dresses. With all the glittering aplomb she could rustle up she was the anointed, the sainted, the smiling, measured Kardashian cutout. I am convinced her ascension was planned for months to thwart the Party hierachal leadership voting rules. Install a populist figurehead – a Trumpian/ Corbynist ra-ra rally the troops, a woman of little substance in designer dresses over the dull Little was always the plan.

        • Blazer

           /  September 28, 2017

          don’t know what you’ve got against polka dots,-a leopard skin fan,I take it!Deepest ,darkest Africa must be fun.Posting this lightweight ,rambling ,conspiracy theory while on holiday is quite amusing.

  2. High Flying Duck

     /  September 28, 2017

    But didn’t she say she never lies when asked in the debates?

  3. Corky

     /  September 28, 2017

    Bottom line: another lying politician. For some strange reason they seem to be a dime a dozen.

  4. Trevors_elbow

     /  September 28, 2017

    C’mon.. .. this was far more planned than a week before….

    Thus was in the works for months. The leaking if damaging pills before Little resign was the final push before the putsch was executed..

    Tell’em they’re dreaming

  5. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  September 28, 2017

    Ms Ardern said at the first One News leaders’ debate
    I actually believe that it is possible to exist in politics without lying and by telling the truth. Yes, politicians make mistakes, but a true mark of leadership is whether you front those mistakes.

    Ms Ardern is reported in the 16th September Listener as saying
    Up to the moment he made his decision, I actually thought he would stick with the role. I had an hour and a half’s notice of him quitting.”

    http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/profiles/jacinda-ardern-running-on-instinct/

  6. Patzcuaro

     /  September 28, 2017

    Politics reflects life people lie therefore politicians lie, in the general scheme of things this appears pretty tribal.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  September 28, 2017

      Tribal = trivial

      • High Flying Duck

         /  September 28, 2017

        There was much made of Jacinda being pure as snow vs “lying Bill”, so given this is about the first thing she said on becoming leader being false it is, while not exactly crime of the century, a reasonable point to bring up.
        Bill was being a realist in answering the question. Jacinda…lied.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  September 28, 2017

          You mean that is ok for National to tell whoopers & half truths but a little white lie from Labour is a hanging offence.

          I think that the parties are entitled to some behind the scenes privacy. The media are always looking for any snippet of info. Maybe Ardern could have said we have been talking about it for a week or so. In the scheme of things very trivial.

          The National Party basically throw mud, the more you throw the more chance of a hit. They don’t care if it is true or not.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  September 28, 2017

            No, I’m saying all politicians lie. Jacinda lied about that fact.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 28, 2017

              People lie, politicians are people, therefore politicians lie some more and bigger than others.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  September 28, 2017

            A very misleading comment. National and Labour both pushed the boundaries – Labour regarding health especially.
            This was purely about the pretty much very first statement made by Jacinda as leader being a lie, and her then saying she never lies in the first leaders debate.
            If you correlate “not crime of the century” with “…is a hanging offence” i think you may need to recalibrate somewhat.
            I thought it was minor but noteworthy, especially given the smears on Bill English around honesty.

            • Blazer

               /  September 28, 2017

              surely someone,somewhere on the right can come up with something other than…’Labour…did it…too’!

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              Pointless statement Blazer.

  7. Blazer

     /  September 28, 2017

    Non story.As for the Natz leadership ‘contest’…Coleman,yeah…right..pre done deal=charade.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  September 28, 2017

      National leadership is an internal matter so I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up.
      Nats don’t parade around the countryside with leadership debates before ignoring their membership and doing what the unions want.
      They still had to vote in a leader, and from what I understand Bill was not a shoo-in for understandable reasons.

      • Blazer

         /  September 28, 2017

        Labour leadership is an internal matter too.When the Natz leadership ‘contest’ is made public,complete with detail about those vying for positions it is valid to critique the subsequent…charade.,

        • High Flying Duck

           /  September 28, 2017

          Labour leadership is determined by the “membership” with weightings given to some. So external.
          National Leader is determined by caucus, so internal. It was public because the new leader became Prime Minister.
          Add to that the fact it wasn’t a charade and you have managed to cram more wrong into one post than most manage in a lifetime. Kudos!

          • Blazer

             /  September 28, 2017

            seeing as you know so much…what was the procedure for Adern becoming leader?

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              Now you’re being silly Blazer after getting owned by HFD. There is an emergency loop-hole which Ardern exploited that allows a Labour leadership change prior to a general election where there is no time to do a full-on membership election campaign. That doesn’t change the standard procedure of choosing the Labour leader which IS external, not internal as you wrongly claim.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 28, 2017

              The Labour leadership is chosen internally they just have a different method to National. Personally I think National’s method is more practical and Labour is bogged down with being politically correct.

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              I think you’re right about the leadership selection process being a handicap to getting the right talent. That’s farkin obvious when you look at the three previous ones. I think she’ll get it changed. If were her I’d tell them change it or I’ll step down.

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              There’s a few other things she can probably get tightened up as well as to the way they do things. At the moment her clout would be pretty damned powerful I would imagine. And she hasn’t even had to lower her voice an octave to get them & the media in line & in behind her, like someone else whose name I won’t mention in case she finds out where I live.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  September 28, 2017

        @HFD so National’s leadership is an internal matter but Labour’s isn’t?

        • High Flying Duck

           /  September 28, 2017

          Correct. Internal as in decided by the MP’s in parliament.
          Labour external as in decided by the wider party membership.

          • Blazer

             /  September 28, 2017

            apart from PDB’s so called…’loophole’ you mean.I noticed it took what…5 days from Key’s surprise announcement to the ordaining of English as new P.M.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              You say that like it is a bad thing – continuity, cohesion, unity.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 28, 2017

            No internal includes within the Labour Party. I think that it threw up the wrong outcome but that is a consequence the Labour Party has to accept if they us that method.

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              Are all union members/delegates paid-up members of the Labour party? If not they vote on the Labour leadership.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 28, 2017

              At the end of the day each party is entitled to chose their leader by whichever means they want. It is splitting hairs as to whether it is internal or external.

              I thought you would be happy that the Labour Party goes to the extended membership if it is more likely to chose the wrong candidate.

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              Again answer my question above – do the union members/delegates voting on the Labour leadership have to be Labour party members? If not then the vote isn’t ‘internal’ at all.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 28, 2017

              @PDB I’m not sure how the Labour Party organises its membership maybe the unions are members obviously the individuals probably are not all members, some maybe. But that is how unions work they represent people who individually have no power.

              But aren’t you happy that they are using a flawed model?

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              I think you’ll find union members can vote for the Labour leadership and not be a labour party member – hence the Labour leadership vote is not just ‘internal’.

              Their system is so silly that if you are a signed-up labour member and are also voting on behalf of a union affiliated with Labour you are allowed to vote twice.

  8. Gezza

     /  September 28, 2017

    Who gives a toss? She’s up & running & so’s Labour. They needed someone to step up out of the sad bloody morass it had become & kick the party in the pants, & boy, has she ever!

    • PDB

       /  September 28, 2017

      “Who gives a toss?”

      I don’t, but a bunch of lefties obviously do as it challenges the narrative of Ardern always being ‘honest’ (as she said herself) when in actual fact one of the first things she did in her very first speech to public as Labour leader was lie.

      These two statements obviously don’t match;

      “Ardern said she only found out about his plans on her taxi ride to Parliament this morning.”

      “Jacinda Ardern has revealed former leader Andrew Little first asked her to take over the reins six days before he resigned”

      Having roughly a week to prepare for being leader (as she must’ve done if Little was on her case every day about giving up) is a bit different than just finding out 1.5 hours before fronting the MSM who then all praised her for being so organised at short notice.

      • Blazer

         /  September 28, 2017

        no lie there at all.Little asks her to takeover…she declines.Little states he is standing down as leader…as deputy she accepts the leadership.Like the intern ‘scandal’ the fanbois try to stoke a non existent ‘revelation.’

        • PDB

           /  September 28, 2017

          Flapping a bit there Blazer. She knew about ‘his plans’ 6 days out from his eventual resignation and according to her he asked her daily for 6 days to take over. She was well prepared at her first press conference because she had days to prepare for it, not 1.5 hours as believed at the time.

          Talking about the ‘intern’ scandal – that was a very similar scenario to Labour’s tax policy by doing something through a third-party whilst denying they were doing anything;

          *Labour wasn’t running an intern scheme, Matt McCarten was doing it on his own accord.
          *Labour wasn’t pushing for a CGT/land tax etc, a *cough* ‘independent’ working group would instead push for those taxes & Labour would simply do as they suggested.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  September 28, 2017

        Well the National Party and it’s minions obviously do, they keep harking on about it. They are probably trying to defect the narrative from the whopper.

        • PDB

           /  September 28, 2017

          What whopper? The widely believed Labour lie that National has cut the health budget?

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 28, 2017

            National didn’t maintain the health budget at a sufficient level to meet demand. Why are they not cutting the number of DHBs and redirecting the savings to the front line.

            • Health spending increased every year between 2008 and 2017 in dollars, adjusted for inflation and adjusted for population growth.

              Labour’s lie was based on the funding DHB’s said they wanted. I may want a salary double what I am earning now, but that does not mean my salary has been cut!

            • Blazer

               /  September 28, 2017

              @KS…talk about irony!Now apply that rationale to Nationals other big lie…i.e..that Labour would increase income tax,by not implementing a..tax cut.Can’t have it both ways.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              On health:

              National health spending has increased by 41% in nominal terms, 22% in real terms and 11% in real per capita terms.

              Where is the cut?

              On Tax:

              If no-one does anything how much tax will you pay next year Blazer?

              Tax rates are already set and in legislation.

              Unless the new government passes legislation to increase tax rates that is…

            • Conspiratoor

               /  September 28, 2017

              @KeepingStock – “Health spending increased every year between 2008 and 2017 in dollars, adjusted for inflation and adjusted for population growth”

              Putting the quality of the spending to one side if I may, I feel compelled to point out that spending on health adjusted for population growth has actually flatlined since 2008, when compared to the previous administration…

              All spending per capita looks pretty shabby too

              Source NZ Institute of Economic Research

        • High Flying Duck

           /  September 28, 2017

          There was no whopper from National.
          They asked pertinent questions of Labour’s tax policies, and also wondered how on earth they could afford their financial plan – both things Grant & Jacinda vacillated on and couldn’t answer.
          The media may have peddled frantically to help Labour out, but if it had been so obviously a lie, the public would have seen straight through it.
          It only became an issue & affected the polls when Labour couldn’t defend their policies.

          • Blazer

             /  September 28, 2017

            So if there is no ‘whopper’-how would you define Joyce’s categorical and very definite statement that there was an $11.7 billion hole in Labour’s budget,bearing in mind not one economist would concur with those figures?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              They were talking at cross purposes – which was Joyce’s fault to be fair because he put it out in a clumsy way.
              The economists all agreed the financial plan “added up” on the numbers given. Which was correct.
              Joyce argued it only added up if Labour ran zero budgets for 2 years, and if normal inflation was included on the expense side there was a $10b plus shortfall.
              Can’t be bothered getting into it again, but Labour’s plan was misleading at best.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 28, 2017

            Well maybe it wasn’t a whopper just a dead cat.

        • PDB

           /  September 28, 2017

          You’ve been had by the MSM ‘spin’ Patz – let’s go right back to what Joyce actually said in his original statement that kicked off the whole story;

          Joyce: “They’ve either made a huge mistake or have no plans for expenditure outside of what they’ve announced for the next two budgets, he says.”

          The MSM totally concentrated from that point on the ‘huge mistake’ bit and not the ‘no plans for expenditure outside of what they’ve announced for the next two budgets’ bit.

          The financial ‘hole’ was not in one area (the one the MSM concentrated on & attacked Joyce/National over) but was definitely in the other (the one the MSM largely ignored as it didn’t fit the narrative).

          • Blazer

             /  September 28, 2017

            ‘There was no whopper from National’


            -how would you define Joyce’s categorical and very definite statement that there was an $11.7 billion hole in Labour’s budget’

            not hard to see who’s got it…wrong…is it!

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              The fact Labour had no answers aside from spluttering about Joyce daring to challenge their figures is answer enough.

            • Blazer

               /  September 28, 2017

              Labour’s answer was clear and unequivocal…our policies have all been costed.Joyce stonewalled when challenged to back up his figure as you a non politically affiliated National fan,know…full well.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              Labour’s answer was clear and unequivocal sophistry and evasion.
              If they had answered concisely and clearly there would have been no issue and the polls would not have moved.

            • Blazer

               /  September 28, 2017

              Natural justice would suggest the accuser,in this case Joyce ,should be able to substantiate his case,as he couldn’t ,why would Labour bother responding in detail?The big distraction is a classic C/T manoeuvre ,as I’m sure you are aware.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              We’re not talking “natural justice” we are talking an election campaign where Labour was trying to sell itself to the electorate with smoke, mirrors and weasel words.
              They should have been able to back up their policies with something better than “it’s costed” or “we’re leaving that to a committee”.
              Their policy-free “let’s do it” campaign may still pay off though.
              If Winston turns left we’ll find out whether the policies are affordable or not reasonably quickly I’m sure.

            • Blazer

               /  September 28, 2017

              @HFD-commonsense would suggest the accuser,in this case Joyce ,should be able to substantiate his case,as he couldn’t ,why would Labour bother responding in detail?The big distraction is a classic C/T manoeuvre ,as I’m sure you are aware.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 28, 2017

              No one. No taxi driver even! Joycefail.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 28, 2017

            Are you and HFD based out of National Party HQ?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              I have no political affiliations at all.

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              No – but I know you can’t have a large hole in the on-going year-to-year funding of govt depts. (outside health & education) without there being a problem.

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              It’s not actually that critical PDB. You do a budget every year to fix up fukups & adapt to changed conditions. You just get Treasury & Departments to work out what’s got to happen.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 28, 2017

              The difference Gezz is that the fukups were built in to their plan to make health and education look good. They couldn’t answer questions about other spending and kept saying it was costed without explaining where the money would come from.
              If they had been able to answer, the issue would have died very quickly.

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              Well of course they did! It was a bit of an oversight.
              Fuxake.
              At least they weren’t running around going: “They’re going to raise yaw income tax: they’re going to raise yaw income tax: the sky will fall, believe me I’ve got an honest face! And Steven’s right to about that 11.7 billion hole too. Those economists – what do they know! Steven would know. He doesn’t just make shit up. A judge hasn’t said it wasn’t pretty legal.”

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              They did say where it was coming from it was comin from operating expenses & economists backed them up – they said it was tight but it could be done. Stop all this petty nonsense, PDB, it’s getting embarrassing to read it. Winston may not even go with them. Just calm down. Have you got a stream nearby? If you have go to it, it might help you relax. Just a suggestion.

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              If Labour make considerable cost cuts to the public services it ‘could be done’ but when have Labour ever had less govt?

              Considering I’m in the camp wanting Winston to go with Labour I’m perfectly relaxed whichever way Winston goes.

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              I’ve given you an uptick to keep yaw spirits up becoz I reckon that’s bravado & yaw actually anxious n depressed.

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              You’re just upset I haven’t guzzled on the Jacinda Juice like you have.

              Just remember that with Winston pulling the strings the real ‘winner’ will be the party he doesn’t prop up.

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              Aw bugga it I’m goin out to the stream wiv me guitar gonna rock the pukekos’ sox off for a while at least they appreciate me efforts.

            • Gezza

               /  September 28, 2017

              The difference Gezz is that the fukups were built in to their plan to make health and education look good. They couldn’t answer questions about other spending and kept saying…
              Bollox. Just a cockup.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 28, 2017

            @PDB you mean MSM spin as opposed to National spin

            • PDB

               /  September 28, 2017

              You could be right Patz considering MSM spin & Labour spin is exactly the same thing.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  September 28, 2017

              Is your Party getting picked on.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  September 28, 2017

          Here’s Grant being asked about how he will fund all Government departments outside health and education:

      • Gezza

         /  September 28, 2017

        She told him to carry on. He announced he intended not to. The billboards all had to come down. She started off not quite ready with everything & picked up speed quickly. Like I say who cares? All be forgotten soon anyway. Ya can’t pick at Labourites for sweating the small stuff with National & then do the same. It’s petty nonsense. I expect better of you. Lift yaw game!

  9. Ray

     /  September 28, 2017

    Well considering how much “The Standard” like to go on and on about John Key’s “lies” * I think we should keep an eye on such things.
    * some of thesel lies” were based on genuine slips of the tongue and miss understandings as to make the whole concept laughable.

    • Blazer

       /  September 28, 2017

      over 400 of these ‘slips’ and misunderstandings’ Ray.Lost count of how many…’hats’ he..had.

  10. Gezza

     /  September 28, 2017

    One for National Voters & Corks

  11. High Flying Duck

     /  September 28, 2017

    One for Labour voters and Gezza

  12. robertguyton

     /  September 28, 2017

    This is trite crap. Is that all you’ve got?
    Desperate times, righties!

  13. Conspiratoor

     /  September 28, 2017

    Who cares. The only story here is the frailty of the human condition. Expecting honesty from a politician and then expending effort in exposing and analysing the inevitable lie is …just plain daft

    • Gezza

       /  September 28, 2017

      Good man. Let’s stay out of it. They’re goin hysterical. 👍🏼

  14. Mefrostate

     /  September 28, 2017

    Hang on, isn’t there a pretty obvious difference between knowing Little wanted to step down and talking him out of it, and getting confirmation that he was stepping down?

    • Gezza

       /  September 28, 2017

      Course there is. I reckon just ignore it all Mefro. They’re just embarrassing themselves.

      • Mefrostate

         /  September 28, 2017

        Pete’s usually pretty discerning and unbiased in his judgement so this one surprised me.

        • Gezza

           /  September 28, 2017

          Well, it’s all gonna be a bit boring until Winston wows the world with his BIG ANNOUNCEMENT isn’t it?

          He might just be filling space & stirring it up a bit knowing some dorks will get all wound up over nothing. Hard to say.