Scott at Imperator Fish has kindly given us permission to syndicate posts from his blog – the original of this post is here
David Farrar applies some wonky logic in order to blame everything bad the Nats do on the left.
If all the lefties had not tactically voted NZ First to get them over 5%, then National would have 63 seats and not need ACT and United Future to govern, and hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools. When the main party *needs* you, you will get far more wins than when they simply *want* you.
What’s wrong with this analysis?
- “All the lefties”. NZ First got 6.8% of the vote. How many of those people were “lefties?” I’d be guessing, but maybe half at most. So that’s maybe 5-10% of those “lefties” who voted. Most “lefties” have little time for Peters.
- “hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools.” That assumes National reluctantly conceded to ACT’s demands and was not in fact a willing participant.
- If John Key and his proxies had not spent the fortnight before the election shrilly denouncing Winston Peters and all his evils, we might have had a majority National government. Even if we assume National is being forced to concede anything it doesn’t really want, it’s an own-goal. Farrar can’t really blame the left for the horrendous tactical blunder he and others made in giving Peters publicity.
- If charter schools really were unpalatable to National they could have said “no deal” and just given John Banks a win with something else. It’s not as if ACT campaigned on charter schools, so I’m guessing it was never going to be a deal-breaker.
If any group of voters is to blame for the National/ACT deal, it’s those voters who gave National their party vote and/or John Banks their electorate vote.