So, the Labour Party now has its fifth leader since Helen Clark's resignation after the 2008 election. Why has this latest change happened? Three opinion polls in the past week have placed Labour under 25 per cent. In other words, the Labour Party is heading for an iceberg and a change of course is desperately needed.
The worst-case scenario is that Labour suffers its worst election defeat ever - worse even than the 25 per cent it got at the 2014 election. Andrew Little, as a list-only candidate, may not make it back into Parliament if Labour's election result really dives and its seat allocation is taken up entirely by electorate members. As the party's leader must be a Member of Parliament, Labour could have been left temporarily leaderless after the election. And no one in the Labour Party caucus would have had a legitimate claim to the post of prime minister in any post-electoral negotiations.
Winston Peters could potentially have claimed the mantle as leader of a new government. That's the worst that could have happened. At the least, it was clear that Little's profile was not working for the Labour Party. A couple of years ago, Labour was passing the 30 per cent level. They should have grown from there in the polls as voters became tired and disillusioned with the incumbent government.
Instead, Labour's polling was going down, and something needed to be done before the polls dived even lower. If Little had remained in place, reporters would have questioned his leadership anyway, making that a distraction right up until the election. So, Little has done the risky but honourable thing by standing down. It is characteristic of him to be honest and direct with us in announcing his decision.
It is clearly undesirable, though, to have a change of leader so close to an election. It not only looks desperate; it is desperate. With the change of leadership to Jacinda Ardern, then, how will Labour fare?