Labour cannot afford another leadership vote, the party needs to unify.

First thing's first.  I said it 3 years ago after former Prime Minister Helen Clark resigned from her leadership after the defeat in 2008 and I'll say it again.  Andrew Little should be the leader of the Labour Party.  I actually have nothing against Grant Robertson or David Cunliffe.  I think either would be fine leaders of the party BUT I think if one of them became the leader it would create too much division.

The good thing about Andrew Little is he's been quietly in the background but because of his union background he could take Labour back to their grassroots which is what National had to do after Bill English's defeat, which saw National plummet on election night 2002 to 20.79%.  When you look at that fact, National have actually been down lower than Labour.

My big point I'm trying to make is that although Labour is a mess right now, they need to pick a leader who can unify the party, but if Cunliffe or Robertson become the leader then there will be a #teamcunliffe and a #teamrobertson and that is the last thing that Labour needs.

Little isn't tarnished and he has a strong Labour and union background which could easily appeal to voters.

So why is Labour insisting on having this leadership vote.  They can't afford any more division.  They need to unify and get behind ONE leader  to rebuild the party.