You’d think the man tasked with (successfully) unseating Winston Peters would have a better idea of how MMP works, but evidently not.
This bitterness is in stark contrast to Bill English’s gracious concession speech. There is nothing more bitter than a sore loser claiming this is some kind of constitutional coup.
National and ACT got 44.95%. Labour, NZ First, and the Greens got 50.36%. This is how proportional representation works. It’s not mob rule. The majority of the country are represented in this government.
If we have another term of this kind of bitterness, it’ll be a long 3 years.
In his latest blog post, former United Future leader Peter Dunne explains why a National/Greens coalition is just nonsensical.
Negotiating government formation arrangements is a serious business. It is not an occasion for settling old scores, satisfying particular fantasies, or tails wagging dogs. The starting point has to be a broad agreement that the parties in the negotiation have a similar view about the direction of travel. They may well disagree about priorities, or particular policies, but for the outcome to be sustainable, they have to at least agree they want to travel in the same direction. Governing arrangements thrown together on the convenience of numbers, but an absence of commitment on direction, are doomed to fail.
Peter’s point is clear: a coalition only of numbers just doesn’t work, and a coalition should agree on the general direction they think the country should go.
This is why a National/Greens coalition could never work. Both have railed against each other’s visions for the last decade. Both want to see radically different ways of running the country. There is no common vision, nor any common vision.
Yet, Peter Dunne raises the prospect of such a marriage all the same.
If they played their cards right our Greens could be in this position: most important party in the coalition negotiations, but they won't https://t.co/pftDE2R3kT
It’s clear that it’s foolish to simply assume the parties are exactly the same and are in the same kind of economic and social environment. You can’t just make total equivalences between parties across the world in different economies.
Julie Anne also argues that National needs to make their own blue-green efforts before the two have any common ground to work with.
Suddenly, every corner of the opinion media landscape seems to be pushing the idea that the Greens should consider propping up a fourth term National government, regardless of the fact it would be political suicide and a crappier option for them anyway.
Yup, I was told this by someone who is doing exactly that.
Jane Clifton, an NZ Listener columnist, and David Cormack, a communications guy or a poltical pundit, both have stated that these writers are simply being paid to share this narrative around.
So, who would have any reason to invest in spreading such a narrative?
Q: Why would they do this?
A: Firstly, to somehow ‘convince’ Winston Peters that they have other coalition options, but also to discredit the Greens as unreasonable radicals, and to increase misunderstanding of the Green Party’s platform by casting them as just enviomental.
In this hypothetical scenario, the Labour/Greens bloc is 1 seat short of a majority, with ACT’s 1 seat and National & NZ First making up the rest.
Now the ACT party awaits their fate, hitched to the post that is National largely because of their belief they are and will always be part of a ‘centre-right government’. Whatever National does, the ACT party simply chases after like a dog.
See in reality, ACT should act like a swing party. They have the opportunity to provide a better coalition option than the prickly New Zealand First. Less volatile, more reliable, and generally safer all round.
Once again, the public questions: why isn’t there an advocate for charter schools all over the political spectrum. Even some of Labour’s strongest members, such as Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis, have indicated full support behind them. There is real support for cross-spectrum charter school advocacy.
For a start, David Seymour should drop his euthanasia bill. ACT doesn’t have to be all things to all people. They should stick to what they’re great at: charter schools. We already have a large party advocating for smarter spending and centre-right government, and that’s National.
Just campaign on one or two core policies, and take those into coaltion negotiations with either the left or right. Work with either.
Just get into government and force that change to the education system. That’s a far better option then having a million bottom lines on ‘three strikes’ and ‘euthanasia’. If they maintain that approach, they’ll only ever make change half the time.
We see that Labour and the Greens are in the best position to make a government, and that means ACT will be left on the curbside once again. They’ll achieve little, and that’s what you get when you’re not at the table.
It’s a total shame. Seymour’s a smart guy. Truly.
He’s worked in public policy. He knows his stuff.
David’s the best person to reposition ACT to a real advocate for school choice, and if he does it right, ACT would become the kingmaker of elections to come.
Finally New Zealand First would be rid from that position, and New Zealand would be free from his outdated ideas that favour those climbing into their graves, and would bring such joy to all the unnuanced voters supporting a Labour or National government, but not at the expense of school choice.
This is quite contrary to Marama Fox’s quite public position of leaning towards a Labour/Greens government, but obviously nobody else got the memo.
“I’m ticking Todd, that’s me,” she said.
It’s really little surprise, having worked in the National government for the last 9 years- I guess they’re pretty comfortable, regardless of what the voters want.
“We know we’re in the sights of Labour, we’re not even in the conversation. They want to eliminate us.” she said, ignoring the fact they’ve comfortably supported the National government for a decade.
It’s pretty clear that a vote for the Māori Party is a slight gamble on change. Yes, the decision does go back to the membership, but the party appears to be either against or agnostic to change. If you’re fine with another term of National government, feel free to vote for the Māori Party, but if you want definite change, whilst still voting for excellent advocacy for Māori rights, then you ought to consider voting Greens.