The words "future leader" have been the kiss of death for many a politician. Not so in Andrew Little's case. That tag did him no harm through the years. To the contrary, his ascendancy to the leadership of the Labour Party - he is the fifth MP to hold the job in the past six years - had almost seemed preordained.
What could cause Little real and lasting harm is the uncomfortable truth that when the big moment arrived, it was the bulk votes of the handful of trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party which were the difference between him being leader and being an also-ran.
National will relentlessly push the notion that the trade unions installed one of their own as leader, both to try and marginalise Little as an unreformed, old-school leftie, and also to claim the unions choose Labour prime ministers, not the voters.
Little's win by the narrowest of margins - he secured 50.52 per cent against Grant Robertson's 49.48 per cent in the preference vote-style ballot - immediately raised questions at his post-victory press conference about whether he has a mandate for change, more so given Robertson was the preferred choice of both the caucus and the wider party membership.
Little's reply to that charge was refreshingly direct. He simply brushed that notion aside.The rules were the rules. He had won. He had a mandate.