Sore loser National MP calls the Labour government a ‘coup’

Matt King's post

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.

Remember, most voters want Winston to support a Labour-led government

Back before the election 1 News/Colmar Brunton asked voters who they thought NZ First should support, from September 2nd to September 6th.

46% of respondants want NZ First to support a Labour-led government.

33% of respondants want NZ First to support a National-led government.

7% of respondants don’t want NZ First to even be in government, or for NZ First to support neither National or Labour.

14% of respondants didn’t know.

It’s clear most voters want NZ First to join a Labour government.

What do New Zealand First voters think?

Note, this has an ±11.6% margin of error

NZ First supporters overwelmingly prefer joining a Labour-led government, with 65% supporting such an arrangement. Only one quarter support NZ First joining a 4th term of National government.

If Winston chooses to go with National, that’s two thirds of his support he could quickly lose.

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.

(Emphasis mine).

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.

 

Julie Anne Genter explains why a CDU/Greens coalition can work in Germany, but near impossible here

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.

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?

A: National.

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.

Q: Why would Winston believe such a thing?

A: He wouldn’t.