Claire Trevett: Little's diplomatic skills set to be sorely tested

Labour leader Andrew Little. Photo / Jason Oxenham

After weeks of things moving slowly in Labour, things are now moving very quickly indeed. So quickly that Parliament's telephone service couldn't keep up: when Andrew Little started making calls to media after his win, David Cunliffe's name and number still flashed up on Parliament's phones.

The length of that process has highlighted another problem with the party's leadership contest. The month-long process provides a lot of time for people to invest their loyalty in one candidate - and that exacerbates the anguish when their chosen one loses.

The fun of coming up with puns on Little's name could only cheer them up so much.

Little's impressive and almost impeccable performance since then has not assuaged them yet either, despite all the banging on by the respective candidates and party supporters about unity and the need for a one-way waka heading into 2017.

Much attention has been paid to the close result and the question of whether Little has a mandate. David Cormack, one of the left's more good-natured bloggers on the Ruminator site, decided the low caucus vote was actually a very good thing because it (a) proved Little was not part of a faction; and (b) meant he did not owe anyone anything so could afford to be brutal. Other bonuses were that Little had a cat and his name was not David.

Cormack's first argument has some validity. Little's support is not as weak as it first appears - although he was first choice for only four other MPs, on the final cut 14 of the 32 MPs still preferred Little over Grant Robertson. What will be critical for Little now is winning over the others. He has already proved he is no pushover and refuses to be in anybody's pocket.

After former leader Cunliffe endorsed Little, Little made it clear it was unsolicited and publicly mused it could do him more harm than good. If Cunliffe believed it would earn him a contra deal, he is about to be sorely disappointed. Little has deeply held Labour and union values, but he is also strongly pragmatic and focused, as John Key was in 2008, on doing what is needed to get into Government, even if that means sacrifices.

Little knows is it more important to placate Robertson's supporters than Cunliffe's. To do that he will have to prove the suspicion he is aligned with Cunliffe is ill-founded. He is likely to do that through his front bench.

He could find that a bit harder than it may seem - it will pit him against the vagaries of human nature. After weeks of campaigning on the need for caucus unity and pledging to back whoever won for the sake of the greater good, some of the other candidates are playing remarkably hard to get. Little has indicated he is eyeing a Robertson supporter for his deputy, saying he will appoint someone with respect across caucus, and take into account how others voted in the leadership contest. He is also aware of the need for strong Auckland representation.

But David Parker in particular has presented Little with a challenge. Parker is the one Little needs the most. Yet Parker uncharacteristically hit the wall and declared he did not want the deputy or finance role. His ego will be bruised - Parker is held in a lot of respect within Labour and is one of the party's main assets. That wasn't reflected to the extent he had expected in the leadership vote. MPs are generally required to agree to do whatever the leader wants them to do. Parker will be given some time to lick his wounds.

But Little and Labour will be hoping he'll come to his senses, perhaps with the realisation that the possibility of being Finance Minister in three years is not a bad consolation prize.

Robertson, meanwhile, was clearly devastated but handled his defeat with grace, saying almost straight away that he had now had two runs at the leadership and did not intend to try again. That was in stark contrast to his response when Cunliffe beat him last year, and Robertson simply replied, "I'm only 41." He is now only 42 but has done Little the favour of sending a nod to his supporters not to bother trying to agitate for him.

Meanwhile, some in Labour have searched the annals of history for a time when a leadership election was so close. And they discovered that Henry Holland, also a unionist and the first leader of the modern Labour Party, had an even closer run-off. That was after the 1919 election, the first one the modern Labour Party contested. Holland was up against James McCombs. Labour legend has it that the caucus vote was tied and Holland won by the toss of a coin. Those in Labour who take some solace from that story might not like its ending, however. Holland never became Prime Minister, instead leading Labour in Opposition for five long terms until his death in 1933.