National rules itself out of coalitions with cynical BillShit.

From weka:-

National do a last ditch dirty politics effort. A few hours before it becomes impossible for anyone to refute this, Tracey Watkins publishes an opinion piece,

“It has been assumed NZ First will hold the balance of power if neither National or Labour and the Greens have the numbers to govern. But senior Nats have told Stuff – don’t rule out an approach to the Greens instead.”

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/97161362/National-says-don-t-rule-out-an-approach-to-Greens-on-election-night

National know that no such deal is possible, so the only thing I can read from this is that National want to scare voters away from the Greens. Pathetic, but useful to see Watkins willing to be part of it.

“Greens co-leader James Shaw is seen as being more of a pragmatist by National.”

Yep, but not in that way. Here’s a post from 2015 that gives several references for Shaw saying no way to a deal with National. It also shows how it’s not Shaw’s decision but has to go through the members (who would say no).

https://thestandard.org.nz/green-politics/

This is a classic conservative move. Try to get the last word and make it a cynical lie. Just like the mysterious ‘leak’ of  Winston Peter’s superannuation details.

Of course this is exactly why all parties with any kind of moral backbone have problems dealing with National. And of course to be involved in National tends to cause the life to be sucked out of them.

Well tomorrow is a new day one where we get an idea about the next government. Hopefully one that has a few more morals and an awareness of ethics than this one ever displayed.

Weka also comments

National appear to have just done a last ditch dirty politics effort. A few hours before it becomes impossible for anyone to refute this i.e. on election day, Tracey Watkins publishes an opinion piece under the headline National says don’t rule out an approach to Greens on election night,

It has been assumed NZ First will hold the balance of power if neither National or Labour and the Greens have the numbers to govern. But senior Nats have told Stuff – don’t rule out an approach to the Greens instead.

National know that no such deal is possible, so the only thing I can read from this is that National want to scare voters away from the Greens by imply that a deal is possible. Pathetic, but useful to see Watkins willing to be part of it.

Greens co-leader James Shaw is seen as being more of a pragmatist by National.

Yep, but not in that way. Here’s a post from 2015 that gives several references for Shaw saying no way to a deal with National. It also shows how it’s not Shaw’s decision but has to go through the members (who would say no).

Finally, for those that think this is James Shaw selling out the GP for power, here he is on record (starts at 11mins) with his own personal feelings,

What I said is that, if it was up to me, I would rule out a coalition with National at the next election, and I think that we should go into the next election presenting an credible alternative government to National.

(if it was up to me means that he doesn’t get to decide, the members do).

And here is Shaw on the Green Party view on what would need to change in order for the GP to support a National-led government

“Look, I cannot see, certainly in 2017, how that could possibly function. It will be coming to the end of a third term National Government, we are miles apart (especially on the environment). The underlying economic system that produces the kind of environmental and social costs and consequences that we go on about is core to National’s way of governing. If we wanted to be in a coalition with them we would have to have a conversation with them about the nature of the economy and I can’t see them giving up on the model they’ve had for the last 30 years.“

(emphasis added).

Also of note in Watkins’ piece is that there is no response from the Greens. Did Stuff not ask them for comment before publishing?