Positioning and reality

Written By: - Date published: 7:31 am, June 10th, 2013 - 72 comments
Categories: election 2014, greens, labour, national, nz first - Tags:

There’s a lot of talk at the moment about whether Labour is too close to the Greens. National’s ridiculous spin is the Greens are leading Labour. Lately, we’ve seen spin coming out (presumably from Labour) that Labour might be able to govern without the Greens, favouring NZF instead. Meanwhile, the Greens seem happy to talk about a future Greens-Labour government. National’s leaking to Peters. And Peters is playing the race card. What’s going on?

In substantive terms, not a hell of a lot. No one’s moving their policies left or right. This is about shaping the public’s notion of the options for the next government.

National:
Key has no mates and, after 5 years of promising a brighter future and not delivering, no credible vision. National’s support is falling into the mid-40s; he can’t hope to govern alone. ACT’s dead. Dunne may be gone too now – he has no party and no credibility. At best, Key can hope that New Zealand First will get back in and go his way.

So, Key desperately needs to wedge NZF from Labour and he needs to scare soft-National voters from going Labour.

The answer to that is go negative and portray Labour as tied to the Greens, and the Greens as wacky. National’s spin could easily backfire. Lets look a scenario where Labour is on 38% ish, National is, say 42%, and the Greens are on 13%. It’s clear that the election is going to go to Labour and that they’ll need the Greens. Meanwhile, National’s screaming ‘vote Shearer, get Norman’. What do you do if you’re a soft Nat in that scenario? Well, maybe, you vote Labour to moderate the Greens’ influence on them. That kind of strategic voting has happened before.

At the same time, Key needs to cuddle up to NZF, that’s why National gave Peters the inside word on Dunne’s leaking of the GSCB report – Dunne was going down anyway, this way it gave Peters the satisfaction of claiming his scalp. National will be hoping he remembers the favour. I wouldn’t bank on it. And it’s risky, right? Will Peters even get back in? Last time it was only lefties desperate to avoid a large wasted vote that got him over the line – Key would have to give a similar signal to his (diminishing) support base to send some votes Peters’ way. All of this means Key having to tie himself closer and closer to a man he has said is unsuitable for government.

Labour:
Now, Labour’s not actually going to swing Right. They can’t. The caucus wouldn’t sign off on anything rightwing, the spokespeople wouldn’t be able to make the case for anything rightwing, and if they lose any more faith with the activists they’ll have no party machine left. Look at the facts. Yes, Shearer has made rhetorical overtures to the Right but Labour’s big policies – KiwiBuild, NZ Power, universal child payment – are distinctly of the Left.

But Labour doesn’t want to be seen as stuck with the Greens if the Right is going to concentrate on branding the Greens as nutty. Also, Labour wants to show Peters that he can get a better deal with them. To that end, they’re signalling that they could refuse to offer the Greens ministerial portfolios in favour of giving Peters real power in a Labour-led government.

Of course, that assumes that Peters gets back and, even more unlikely, assumes that Labour + NZF will make a majority or that the Greens will happily offer supply and confidence despite the Beehive doors being closed to them…. how likely are the Greens to accept that kind of outcome and would Labour really risk not being able to govern on some crazy scheme to get the much less reliable and less politically compatible NZF instead? Of course not, but this isn’t about reality, it’s about voters’ perceptions. Labour wants to make people think that they might govern without necessarily having the Greens in government with them, but they would.

Greens:
Well, any faint belief that the Greens could make a deal with National after the next election is gone now, eh? Russel Norman didn’t go and make that big attack on John Key’s fitness to be a Prime Minister of New Zealand by accident. It was a strategic move that says: we’re the real opposition to National.

It’s a clear positioning move on the Greens’ part. They know that they’re in a weak bargaining position – to Labour’s Left with no real possibility of working with National even before Norman’s speech. So, they’re going to bill themselves as the real alternative to National and attempt to suck up as much of the Left vote as possible from a weak and ambivalent Labour. That will, then, give them more bargaining power when it comes to dealing with Labour. Do they have the nasty bargaining power to cut a hard deal with Labour after the election? Maybe not, but they’re sending the signal that they’re going to make sure that Labour needs them.

The tricky part for the Greens is that they want credibility and they want to be the muscular opposition – but when they’re too muscular they get branded wacky by the forces of conservatism (the newspaper editorials etc) and National. If they play it smart, they’ll play safe in the run up to the election. They’ve laid out that they’re the alternative, so there’s no need for more QEs, no more ‘Key is Muldoon’, it’ll just be about building the cred.

NZF:
On the face of it, New Zealand First is in a great position, the kingmakers. They’re working with Labour and the Greens on the manufacturing inquiry (when’s that wrapping up?) and Peters is strongly critical of the government. Yet there’s clearly a wink and nod from Peters that he could work with National. In fact, he’s clearly working with National – he got the leak about Dunne’s leaking of the GCSB inquiry. Where from? From National, of course. And he got to get rid of a competitor for the centre vote – he and National now get to jointly feast on the carcass of United Future, albeit slim pickings.

But it’s not so easy. Peters has got to leave both options open while still providing a robust opposition. So, out comes the race-card. Both sides were going to reject Peters’ anti-China speech. It took the economic nationalism of the Left to a dark place that they will not go. And the modern Right is above overt racism, especially towards a huge trade partner. Peters skillful showed the racists that neither Left nor Right really represent them, he does.

However, if Peters goes too extreme in areas that neither National or Labour will touch, he makes it very hard for them to say that they can work with him post-election. If it gets too bad, then one of them will take the first mover advantage and rule out working with him – especially if it looks like he might not get over the 5% mark. And he’s more likely to not look like getting over the 5% mark if a) people considering voting for him don’t know who he would put into government and b) the media keeps on writing him off or treating him with disdain as they did after the China speech. You won’t have liberals voting for him to prevent National getting a majority as they did in 2011.

So, complex machinations. National trying to buddy up with the man Key has said is unfit for government. Labour trying to show that they prefer NZF too, while actually being closer to the Greens and knowing that they would have to work with them. The Greens trying to make themselves the first call for people looking for ‘a real opposition’ while trying not to give ammo for the Right to label to them wacky. The important thing (especially for Lefties who get worried when they see Labour trying to distance itself from the Greens) is that this is all about appearances to set up options post-election, there’s not actual policy moves going on here.

72 comments on “Positioning and reality ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    10 June 2013 at 7:51 am

    An interesting historical fact is that the only two times NZ First went into coalition Government (1996 and 2005) were the last terms of the respective Governments.

    Labour would be well advised to rule Winston out as an option. Otherwise the sixth Labour Government may be memorial for all the wrong reasons.

    PS Eddie date in second to last paragraph should be 2011.

    • Alanz 1.1
      10 June 2013 at 8:05 am

      “the only two times NZ First went into coalition Government (1996 and 2005) were the last terms of the respective Governments ….. Otherwise the sixth Labour Government may be memorial for all the wrong reasons”

      For the reason that a Shearer-led sixth Labour Government will be the one and last term for Labour perhaps 😈

  2. Follow-the-money 2
    10 June 2013 at 8:14 am

    Leaving out a bit:

    If the Dunne thing becomes a “Dunne Deal” (sorry, but it’s no worse a pun than others referring to a “Bye-election in Ohariu!), Key has either to rely on confidence/supply on a disgraced MP, with all the credibility impact that might imply, or to spend nearly 18 months giving concessions to the Maori Party, which might result in National being seen as weak and less than the bold strategists they imply to be – not palatable to some of the right-wing. Nothing to do with the Maori Party or its policies, but the difference in size (and longevity) between the two parties would make it look like the tail wagging the dog.

    Or, they could do nothing of any consequence until Election 2014, with all the credibility impact that would imply.

    If Peters is seen as centre-right by the time the election comes, he might even pull some votes from National itself. Karma, indeed, for Key & Defendant-Banks, who read about NZ First’s impending doom in their tea-leaves.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      10 June 2013 at 8:20 am

      “Key has either to rely on confidence/supply on a disgraced MP, with all the credibility impact that might imply”

      No big deal because as you suggest, Key has already been doing that with Act since, well, forever.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    10 June 2013 at 8:17 am

    According to this analysis Mana and Harawira are nowhere in Labours calculations. That seems about right.

    I would count on Labour achieving circa 34%. Which will be enough to form a government. Meeting or crossing over 38%? I give that a one in twenty chance. Crossing over 40%? That’s somewhere between 3 and 4 sigma.

    • weka 3.1
      10 June 2013 at 8:44 am

      Good to see this analysis Eddie. I was wondering about the Maori vote as well – not just Mana, but what happens with the vote between Mana, the MP and Labour, including issues of vote splitting.

      Which brings up the issue of concessions. Should the Greens and Labour be playing smarter on this?

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 10:08 pm

        The Greens should definitely be trying to pull Mana into the coalition with them. It’s at least an extra seat, and they have very similar perspectives and a lot of cross-appeal.

        The MP can make up its own mind. They were pretty good during the last Labour government, but you can understand why they’re dying out after they did their deal with the devil.

  4. Te Reo Putake 4
    10 June 2013 at 8:22 am

    “They’re working with Labour and the Greens on the manufacturing inquiry (when’s that wrapping up?) ”

    I beleive it’s in the next week or two, which will allow for an interesting photo op of the 3 leaders together.

  5. Curwen Rolinson 5
    10 June 2013 at 8:36 am

    Can I just reiterate that New Zealand First has laid out a number of iron-clad coalition bottom lines.

    These include the re-nationalization of those assets which Key is presently flogging off.

    With this in mind, I can’t really see the Nats re-nationalizing those assets in order to cling to power for another term, therefore a post-election deal between Winston and Key strikes me as exceptionally unlikely.

    Of course, at this stage Labour isn’t exactly committed to a re-nationalization either … but at least they’re refusing to rule it out.

    • weka 5.1
      10 June 2013 at 8:46 am

      Winston Peters doesn’t have bottom lines. Even if he says he does, we know that he will change his mind after the election if he wants to. Anyone voting NZF needs to understand that.

      • Nick K 5.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 9:00 am

        ^ +1

      • Populuxe1 5.1.2
        10 June 2013 at 6:03 pm

        Oh we all know that, do we? You are Madame Zelda, psychic medium extraordinaire? I would also point out that Key has made it conditional that Peters would have to come clean on the Owen Glenn business – both sides have conditions that are unlikely to be met.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1
          10 June 2013 at 6:19 pm

          Oh we all know that, do we? You are Madame Zelda, psychic medium extraordinaire?

          Someone’s past behaviour is the best predictor of their future behaviour.

          • Populuxe1 5.1.2.1.1
            10 June 2013 at 6:38 pm

            Winston never said he wouldn’t go into coalition with National, that was Tau Henare, who got whacked over the knuckles for saying it, and in any caze NZF did it to form a stable coalition majority (you may remember the wee seven week long panic in 1996). Otherwise you are just internalising gossip from Michael Laws, and what sane person is going to do that?

            In 2005 Winston did not indicate a preference for coalition with either of the major parties, but promised to either give support in confidence and supply to the party with the most seats, or to abstain from no-confidence votes against it, and that he would not deal with any coalition that included the Greens. Hence the situation that resulted, where among other things he actually got the Americans to defrost.

            • weka 5.1.2.1.1.1
              12 June 2013 at 10:53 pm

              “Winston never said he wouldn’t go into coalition with National, that was Tau Henare, who got whacked over the knuckles for saying it, and in any caze NZF did it to form a stable coalition majority (you may remember the wee seven week long panic in 1996).”

              Ah, the 1996 election. That would be the one where before the election Peters led many of his intending voters to believe that he would form a coalition with Labour. After the election he dragged out coalition negotiations for weeks and then went with National instead. He betrayed his left leaning voters (who punished him at the next election), and he imprinted NZ’s newly fledged MMP coalition processes with his own ego-maniacal version of power and control bullshit, setting us back decades in terms of moving towards co-operative politics. I get that there are many voters that need someone in the middle, and it’s not like Peters hasn’t done NZ any good at all, but IMO we will be better off as a country when he retires.

              So, I stand by my assertion that he cannot be trusted and that NZF voters should be mindful of this.

          • Craig Glen viper 5.1.2.1.2
            10 June 2013 at 9:29 pm

            “Someone’s past behaviour is the best predictor of their future behaviour.”

            Beck 101. CV

      • jackp 5.1.3
        12 June 2013 at 9:52 pm

        I disagree. I don’t think Winston is going to make the same mistake he did in ’96. The comentary above said that National leaked the emails to Winston. How do you know that? This sounds like a conspiracy theory between Key and NZfirst to annoy NZfirst voters. I truly doubt he will go with John Key and National. He has more power to just stay neutral either between Labour and National. I voted for him because I don’t see Labour doing much and National is a complete nightmare and Winston is on their tail like a bulldog. He’s not afraid of the press. He has guts.

        • weka 5.1.3.1
          12 June 2013 at 10:56 pm

          Does that mean you don’t mind if we have a left or right govt? Because irrespective of you believing that he won’t go with National, he still might, esp if it’s a choice between NACT or being in coalition with the GP. He could of course signal his intentions before the election, but it serves him better to not.

  6. Wayne 6
    10 June 2013 at 8:57 am

    Where is your evidence (even rumor) that the Nats leaked to NZF. The evidence actually points to Andrea Vance. Winston Peters said he has seen the emails, which went from Peter Dunne to Andrea Vance. WP did not say he has them, ergo he was just shown them. How would the Nats have them?

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1
      10 June 2013 at 9:06 am

      You’re clutching at straws, Dr. Mapp. What’s her motive?

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 9:15 am

        She must want to torpedo her own career so that no source ever trusts her again, that must be it.

    • McFlock 6.2
      10 June 2013 at 11:59 am

      How would the Nats have them?

      Possible answers to your query:
      1: bluff by W1 – he hasn’t seen them
      2: accidental BCC/CC
      3: Dunne’s p.a. (or anyone else in the office) is looking for a new job
      4: Dunne routinely fails to log off his computer or leaves his smartphone unattended in the House (he has four nats sitting behind him)
      5: Nats have mates in the parliamentary IT office
      6: Dunne CC’d his leaking to his mate John because he believed it was part of a media-management plan with John’s endorsement, rather than assisting in his own hatchet-job
      7: (long shot, but who would discount it today?) GCSB

      emails are only slightly more confidential than screaming your message across a crowded street.

      • Colonial Viper 6.2.1
        12 June 2013 at 9:57 pm

        emails are only slightly more confidential than screaming your message across a crowded street.

        Ain’t that the truth

  7. Watching 7
    10 June 2013 at 9:04 am

    From Eddie “At the same time, Key needs to cuddle up to NZF, that’s why National gave Peters the inside word on Dunne’s leaking of the GSCB report ”

    This is either made up from rumours to fit the story or Eddie has some personal information to confirm that statement. I am just interested to know how Eddie came to that conclusion.

    There is an alternative version of where Peters got his information , and that would take the above analysis in another direction (still no good for Key).

    • Lanthanide 7.1
      10 June 2013 at 9:08 am

      Yip. Where’s your evidence for this, Eddie?

      First it was National deliberately leaking the Kitteridge report, and if they didn’t how come there’s no inquiry, so then we get an inquiry which more or less points the finger at Dunne. So now that that angle didn’t work, the next one to be fabricated is that National told Peters about the leaking – why? Remember Peters first brought this up a couple of weeks back, before any of this stuff with UF being de-registered hit the air, so I don’t think you can make the claim that “Dunne was going down anyway”.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 9:51 am

        from Key’s radio interview it seemed that he was genuinely vexed that Peters had those emails/materials. Maybe there is a reason that Key is being made to look bad.

        Given the Gilmore events, it’s quite possible that one faction of National isn’t acting in the others best interests.

        • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1
          10 June 2013 at 11:32 am

          Hmm, possible.

          On the other hand, wouldn’t Peters take great glee in saying that he received the emails from someone in National, and that National MPs are hiding things from Key?

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2013 at 12:05 pm

            Peters may not actually know who supplied him with the material.

            • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2013 at 12:11 pm

              Well Eddie seems to know for a fact that National did it, so how could Eddie know and Peters not?

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 June 2013 at 12:31 pm

                Re: Peters – an old fashioned drop off, courier or intermediary could have been used. Text on a USB stick etc.

                Re: Eddie – I think Eddie is surmising by who makes the most sense as the transmitting party, as opposed to having any primary knowledge (but I wouldn’t know).

                • Lanthanide …
                  10 June 2013 at 1:08 pm

                  “Re: Eddie – I think Eddie is surmising by who makes the most sense as the transmitting party, as opposed to having any primary knowledge (but I wouldn’t know).”

                  I agree. But that’s not what Eddie said:

                  that’s why National gave Peters the inside word on Dunne’s leaking of the GSCB report

                  What he should have said was (something like):

                  that’s why I think National gave Peters the inside word on Dunne’s leaking of the GSCB report

                • Populuxe1 …
                  10 June 2013 at 6:06 pm

                  (1) Winston probably thinks USB stands for United Savings Bank and (2) what does National have to gain by having it’s majority undermined?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 June 2013 at 6:18 pm

                    (2) what does National have to gain by having it’s majority undermined?

                    I suggest an alternative question:

                    who gains by having John Key’s leadership undermined?

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      10 June 2013 at 6:30 pm

                      Not much fun being the new leader of the new opposition when you’re trying to dismantle the country, though.

  8. vto 8
    10 June 2013 at 9:19 am

    It would seem to me that Peters is a poisoned chalice. He is good in opposition and that is the extent of it.

    Push him away with a barge pole.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      10 June 2013 at 9:48 am

      Thing is that the chances of him getting over 5% in 2014 are better than 50/50. And National have too much riding on him to try and sink him this time around as they have no other floatation devices within reach.

      • vto 8.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 10:01 am

        Yes well desperation leads to desperate acts and desperate acts have a habit of flying apart and spinning nuts and bolts and shards all pver the whole place.

        Kind of highlights the MO of politicians and what is important to them…….

  9. ghostrider888 9
    10 June 2013 at 9:21 am

    just seen Matthew Hooten spinning for the Tories on Firstline; giving “patriotic” advice to Dunne “for the benefit of the economy”, “that he remain in Parliament and let the government finish its 18 months” (of rape).

    Running scared.

    • Alanz 9.1
      10 June 2013 at 9:49 am

      The RWNJs have been a bit quiet lately on The Standard.

      Hooton is not here to speak for himself (might be too busy trying to get his brilliant advice conveyed to Dunne perhaps and reminding Dunne to be immensely grateful to Key?).

      I will do him a favour and refer to a reported quote from him:

      .
      .
      ” ……. right-wing commentator Matthew Hooton says the best thing Dunne can do is “keep his head down, vote National, and avoid the parliamentary debating chamber”.

      Hooton said Dunne should do whatever Prime Minister John Key asks him to do. “He owes John Key a lot.”

      Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/national/8773382/Is-politician-is-done-and-dusted

      • ghostrider888 9.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 10:18 am

        I was thinking that about the absence of Gossie, Hoots, KK, et al; myself last night; despondently, the solution to Hangman did not come to me in those pre / post slumber moments. 😀

  10. Winston Smith 10
    10 June 2013 at 9:44 am

    Its interesting and exciting times

    • ghostrider888 10.1
      10 June 2013 at 10:15 am

      Yep, might even have to fore-go imbibing expenditure in-lieu of a week at the I-Cafe.

  11. Santi 11
    10 June 2013 at 10:27 am

    Who is leading? I suspect the Greens are ahead and Labour is trailing them.
    By the way, where is David Shearer, the party leader? Overseas? Timbuktu or Mongolia?

  12. Brett Dale 12
    10 June 2013 at 11:06 am

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Labour thinks that they can govern alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thanks I hate mondays, but that is going to last me the whole week.

    Is Labour the new bob dole.

    “I can win, I have family down in Hartford who’s going to vote for me”

  13. Michael 13
    10 June 2013 at 11:57 am

    No chance of Labour getting anywhere near 38% with its current leadership or policy vacuum. It’s caucus has abandoned the party’s base and seems to think it can do without its activists. Good luck to them.

  14. Adrian 14
    10 June 2013 at 11:58 am

    Mike Williams on 9-noon said Parliamentary Services caches MPs emails every night so somebody has seen them all. Also he said Key is head of that department so has access to them.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      10 June 2013 at 12:03 pm

      lol John Key has access to Opposition MP’s email accounts. Who needs the freakin SIS.

    • xtasy 14.2
      10 June 2013 at 1:09 pm

      There must surely be safeguards in place, so Key and his staff will not be permitted to simply open and read emails going to and from MPs. Key may be head of the department, but like with GCSB or SIS, he will certainly not be given access to any information they gather, unless there is justification and certain processes followed.

      But apart from that, I find it a bit strange that all emails to and from MPs get archived. This now explains some other things to me, why MPs are rarely communicating with constituents via email.

      I presume this archiving is done for security and privacy reasons, so if something goes wrong, e.g. some illegal activities, breaches of national security issues or whatever occurs, there is a source to “discover” and look at for possible evidence.

    • weka 14.3
      10 June 2013 at 1:35 pm

      “Mike Williams on 9-noon said Parliamentary Services caches MPs emails every night so somebody has seen them all. Also he said Key is head of that department so has access to them.”

      Presumably caching the emails is automated and done by computers, not people. I didn’t hear Williams, but I find it hard to believe that anyone has access to all parlimentary emails. Privacy laws?

      • Adrian 14.3.1
        10 June 2013 at 3:04 pm

        Mike was obviously concerned about the security of the emails as he said he told all Labour MPs to consider that they ( the emails ) should be considered to be in the public domain, or words to that effect.

        • Jimnald 14.3.1.1
          10 June 2013 at 3:10 pm

          It is now a good opportunity to get to the bottom of this.
          Shine the light into this area and get some clarity for MPs, the Executive Government, spying agencies and the wider public.

          And the more specific question is what access has Key had through this channel? In relation to the Dunne emails and also more generally since he has been PM.

      • Watching 14.3.2
        10 June 2013 at 3:12 pm

        Who said Dunne used his parliamentary email account?. I assume at worse he used a UF account and not a web based one.

        ffs – who works in IT or consulting etc that has discussed a job or project with another organisation. You would have to be naive to send out or received emails discussing future employment opportunities. The same principle applies to political message – I am sure Joyce and Key discuss election strategy via parliamentary email.

        So hell does Mike Williams know this. He doesn’t come from an IT background, and as Weka implies above I thinks Williams is making this up. Every organisation does a nightly/hourly backup – that doesn’t mean that the data can be freely access.

        Also a small poll (if lprent allows)

        I generally allow my work email account/calendar to be accessed by someone else. It usually a support person working with or for me. Who else does the same?

        • lprent 14.3.2.1
          10 June 2013 at 5:20 pm

          Not me. That is what CC’s are for.

          Besides which, all of my e-mail always divert or forward to my personal e-mail because I have far too many email accounts. When I leave a job, I change the divert or forward to whoever is taking over the role.

          But I also have very little email going to work accounts because I design and write code. I seldom accept tasks outside that role unless I’m training up someone to do the non-programming tasks that I don’t want. I went from management into programming for a reason and it was not to deteriorate back into the unproductive time-fractured management role again.

        • Te Reo Putake 14.3.2.2
          10 June 2013 at 7:56 pm

          Dunne said it was the Parliamentary email address, as I recall. And they are on the Parliamentary server, hence the calls for the privileges committee to investigate.

        • Murray Olsen 14.3.2.3
          10 June 2013 at 11:40 pm

          I assume my work email can be accessed by the network administrator. I think that technically it’s property of the university.

  15. xtasy 15
    10 June 2013 at 1:01 pm

    Eddie, I think you are spending too much time speculating about scenarios, some of which are too bizarre to consider worthy of contemplation.

    If indeed someone from National would leak such information about the GCSB report and other stuff to Peters, this would not be the Prime Minister or anyone in his office. It could only come from someone that may work on an agenda like that ominous and secretive Simon Lusk – and a person he may wish to favour, like Collins, could in their wildest dream pursue.

    Yet I find that too far fetched.

    Key at least defended Dunne to the last day, which was Friday, and which was when the full report came out, making it impossible to stick with Dunne. I remember Key still defending Dunne on Thursday last week, I think it was.

    I doubt that anyone in National, even Collins or some of the few supporters she may have to one day lead that party, would back stab Key and the present National Party leadership like that.

    As for the Greens and Labour there has been some quite understandable co-operation, but also competition on policy matters at the same time. That is normal, as both parties will of course go into an election trying to win as many votes for their parties, before sitting down and discussing any coalition or support deals after the votes are cast.

    Peters will play his cards both ways, as he always has. But he will never work with Key, I am sure, there is deep-seated distrust, contempt and rivalry amongst the two.

    So I feel Peters is just wanting to make sure he gets profile for himself and his party, to ensure he will get the votes he needs when an election comes. There will always be (under present demographics) be five or just a bit over that in a percentage of voters, who respect and cheer on such a “fighter for honesty and integrity”, as he likes to be seen as.

    The only main worries for me are:
    a) Labours present leader(ship) leaving too much to desire;
    b) Labour not delivering a bit more in clearer, smarter, convinging policies (particularly economic development, social welfare and sustainability);
    c) an over-reliance by both Labour and Greens to simply win by default.

  16. Yes 16
    10 June 2013 at 6:58 pm

    I think Winnie leaked them. Will hasn’t he go the 86 emails as well..

    Anyway Eddie I agree except national can do it alone now. Greens and Russell seriously tainted with his idiotic comparisons and some extremely flawed economic policy. Only labour can grow centre left now. Nzf will fall Below 5%. interesting mana maybe kingmaker. By the way the general public don’t like the idea of nzf and Winnie being kingmaker.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      10 June 2013 at 7:05 pm

      By the way the general public don’t like the idea of nzf and Winnie being kingmaker.

      Only 6% of them need to like the idea

      • Wayne 16.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 7:41 pm

        Very good point – in fact 5% is enough.

        • Te Reo Putake 16.1.1.1
          10 June 2013 at 8:03 pm

          Depending on how far Dunnokeyo drags National’s vote down. There must be a dozen list and electorate MP’s updating their Linkedin profiles as we speak.

  17. QoT 17
    10 June 2013 at 7:59 pm

    Labour’s big policies – KiwiBuild, NZ Power, universal child payment

    I’m sorry, this was announced when? Can’t find hide nor hair of it on their website, nor Google.

    • McFlock 17.1
      10 June 2013 at 8:03 pm

      either someone’s projecting, or it should have been flagged *spoiler alert*

      Maybe it’s a rebranding/rejigging of the “extend WFF to beneficiaries” idea.

      • QoT 17.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 11:13 pm

        Maybe it’s a rebranding/rejigging of the “extend WFF to beneficiaries” idea.

        See, I keep coming under the impression that anything on the platform in 2011 is to be ignored until re-confirmed by our current overlords. Like how capital gains tax keeps being on the table, then off the table, and so on and so forth.

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1
          10 June 2013 at 11:18 pm

          depends on what each months focus group reports

        • Bunji 17.1.1.2
          11 June 2013 at 9:50 am

          CGT is definitely in, has never been off the table – an important plank of econ policy.
          universal child payment should probably be flagged *spoiler alert*… I don’t think the changing “extend WFF to beneficiaries” to something that achieves same end but is saleable has been finalised yet…

          The 2011 platform is current until the 2014 platform is published unless something is explicitly contradicted (eg “extend WFF to beneficiaires” won’t be in, but something else will be… but we await what “something else” is…)

    • JK 17.2
      11 June 2013 at 8:34 am

      Eddie must have confused “universal child payment” with something else – capital gains tax maybe ? Labour hasn’t announced its social welfare policy yet.

  18. Rich 18
    11 June 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Peters’ elderly voters die at around 4% each election and need to be replaced. The Greens on the other hand do well amongst new voters and gain a few percent every election cycle.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      12 June 2013 at 10:26 pm

      He replaced them quite nicely in 2011

      And I know a few NZF activists…all of them under 50