web analytics

Stand by Your Man

Written By: - Date published: 8:48 am, February 19th, 2015 - 106 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, by-election, greens, labour, nz first, political alternatives, Politics, uncategorized, winston peters - Tags: , ,

Sometime in the next few days, Winston Peters will announce whether or not he will stand in the Northland by-election. If he does go for it Labour and the Greens should get in behind the New Zealand First leader by not putting up their own candidates, endorsing him for the seat and even actively campaigning for a Winston win.

I don’t underestimate the difficulty of winning a safe Tory seat, and regular TS commenter Tiger Mountain gives an excellent summary of the issues around that here, but the swirl of scandal around resigned MP Mike Sabin will certainly effect the outcome. Even more so if evidence comes out that the National Party leadership knowingly supported Sabin as a candidate while he was subject to a police investigation.

This doesn’t just affect John Key’s credibility. According to some on the right, the likely replacement is Northland Tory grandee Grant McCallum. McCallum is a dairy farmer and a member of National’s Board of Directors. It is possible that he was unaware of the rumours about Sabin, but if he did know, he was well placed to ask questions about Sabin’s suitability as a candidate and MP. If it comes out prior to the by-election that the local leadership knew of Sabin’s difficulties and chose to look the other way, that could have a significant effect on the result. Certainly, the local Nats still seem to be backing Sabin all the way.

Strategically, the Greens and Labour can send a strong message about a future Government if they not only stand aside for Winston, but stand behind him. Both parties should campaign for a Winston win. The immediate goal, reducing Key’s majority, can possibly be achieved with good multi-party organisation, Winston’s cheek and charm, and whatever we learn about the Sabin affair between now and polling day. But the bigger goal, showing the opposition is united and ready to govern, will definitely be in play from day one of the campaign.

Of course, that three party unity has been strained in the last couple of days, with the botching of the appointment of a opposition MP to the parliamentary spy oversight committee. While I seriously doubt it was a deliberate snub to NZ First and the Greens, it was handled poorly by Labour leader Andrew Little. And it’s not much compensation that John Key also failed to consult as the law requires.

Little needs a circuit breaker and a chance to strengthen the ties of the three party bloc that can replace National and their franchises as New Zealand’s Government. The Northland by-election can be an opportunity to show that Labour, the Greens and NZ First can cooperate, can build a strategic alliance, and can work together for positive change. Winston winning Northland would be a bonus. Proving that there is a credible alternative ready to win the next general election would be the real victory.

106 comments on “Stand by Your Man”

  1. Dorothy 1

    Yes that would be pragmatic teamwork and as a labour member and sometime Northland resident,
    I would support it .
    I remember Winston has received votes in the North frequently when he was not even a candidate in the area!

  2. Ad 2

    Crikey TRP that’s a scrotum-tightening bet that Winston would not lose and humiliate the whole of the opposition at once.

    Would be worth thinking about if National didn’t rule the polls supreme.
    But they do. Too high a risk for one roll of the dice this early in the term.

    • mac1 2.1

      It’s a gamble alright.

      If Winston won, it would be spun as the opposition ganging up on the Government. “Look, the only way that they can win is by………” sort of thing.

      If Winston lost, the spin would be “Even when they gang up on the government, they can’t win…… the opposition in its combined strength is not enough to…….. a loser Labour backs a loser Peters……”

      Who could trust the media to say “The government received a strong message today from New Zealand voters in the Northland by-election result when Winston Peters……….”?

      An opposition win in Northland might have tremendous feel good factor, but it wouldn’t change the government.

      I am sure that a straight two horse race between any opposition candidate and a National candidate would result in strange dynamics, anyway.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2

      Humiliate ?

      Its common for opposition partys NOT to stand in unwinnable by elections.!

      Labour could just say its payback for for national snaring away Shane Jones

    • yr argument does not stand..ad..

      ..the media-interest/sabin-scandal blowback/a chance for an upset result..

      ..this cd all well add up to that ‘upset result’..

      ..all the candidates splitting the vote will guarantee no chance of that..

      ..and if..worst case scenario..peters doesn’t win..

      ..what is the damage done..?

      ..none..as far as i can see.

  3. Colonial Rawshark 3

    Now that Mana – which easily had the potential to provide 2 or 3 MPs – has been knocked out of Parliament, Labour absolutely requires *both* the Greens and NZ First to have a chance of forming government (thanks Swordfish). That gives both those minor parties a hell of a lot of leverage. Labour is not acting as if it understands that, and that it gets that it takes a full 3 years to convince voters that Labour can work credibly with those other parties.

    • weka 3.1

      Not to mention a full 3 years to figure out how to wrangle a three way coalition between those 3 particular parties. Let’s not forget that for most of its history NZF has taken a staunch anti-GP stance. The real work is how to get past that, and whether NZF even wants to. I would guess NZF will remain in their historical position and only change if it looks at the next election like they have to change if they want to be part of govt. Would love to be wrong about that.

      • Chooky 3.1.1

        …actually Winston and the Greens have been getting along quite nicely in recent years…for a start they were both severely critical of John Key’s spying bills on New Zealanders….unlike the Labour Party they were the best Oppositon Parties to Nactional

        • weka 3.1.1.1

          That says nothing about their relationship, or how they would work together in coalition. Having common policy is important, but it doesn’t mean much if there is no intention to work together or to form a good relationship.

          • phillip ure 3.1.1.1.1

            @ weka..

            ..all of which means that the greens throwing their support behind a peters tilt..

            ..wd cement in that relationship..

            ..that is a powerful way of doing just that..at little/no cost to the greens..

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Wishful thinking for which there is zero evidence of it being true. The only thing to rely on is if Peters makes a clear statement of intent re the GP. His word can be trusted I think so long as he is specifically clear beforehand. But, hell freezing over and all that.

              • ..u can’t see this as a possible game-changer..?..

                ..really..?

                ..just more of the same/guaranteed-defeat’ll do you..eh..?

              • lprent

                His word can be trusted I think so long as he is specifically clear beforehand.

                And as he is a lawyer it needs very careful examination unless it is completely unambiguously stated. It isn’t that I completely distrust lawyers, it is just that they are like programmers. We always leave debugging back doors in what we write as well. We need them them when the system breaks.

      • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.2

        Indeed. And those bridges have to built now, in the minds of the electorate. NZF doesn’t have to profess undying admiration for the GP, just demonstrate the ability to work together with them professionally and effectively on specific issues.

        • weka 3.1.2.1

          I’d also like to see those relationships begin to develop now. I’d hope they would be done in an considered and careful way rather than being rushed for this by-election.

          “NZF doesn’t have to profess undying admiration for the GP, just demonstrate the ability to work together with them professionally and effectively on specific issues.”

          Yes. I don’t see much evidence of that unfortunately. In terms of coalitions, how would that work beyond specific issues? Have we had a coalition that was between 1 big and two medium sized parties before? It seems to me it needs to be done differently than the model so far of 1 very big party and some smaller support parties.

    • Chooky 3.2

      +100 CR

    • lprent 3.3

      How is needing manas mp votes be different from the Greens or NZFirst. All of them will demand flesh. Man’s would probably be the most demanding because they seem to think that 1 or 2% is worth 10 to 20% – they have that kind of inflatted view of their effect and value on everything else. I am sure that their nunrealism will extend to coalition talks as well.

  4. Skinny 4

    I was keen on a primary contest amongst the opposition party’s. It won’t happen they are all too selfish. Peters stands the best chance I agree, He should stand to smack National around over Sabin and who knew what, I am doubtful he will though.

    Besides Prime has her By-Election launch this Sunday, with Little there too. I may go have a beer with Matt & Andrew.

  5. weka 5

    TRP, I”m curious given your position on Mana has been that it was Mana’s responsibility to approach and court Labour pre-election if they wanted any kind of concession in TTT, whether you feel the same about Peters/NZF? Your post seems to indicate the move should come from L/GP.

    • Good point, weka. I suspect that the parties are talking, at least indirectly. I’ve tried to find out from NZF where they are at without success. Labour launch their campaign on Sunday, so there are only a couple of days for any joint approach to be agreed.

      The difference between this situation and Te Tai Tokerau is that only mana or Labour could win there, so it was a two way discussion that impacted directly on the result, and the survival of mana. mana had an enormous incentive to make the first move.

      In Northland, none of the 3 parties is particularly likely to win, so who asks first is less of an issue. But it would be good if all 3 sat around the table and talked it through.

  6. weka 6

    “Strategically, the Greens and Labour can send a strong message about a future Government if they not only stand aside for Winston, but stand behind him.”

    What message would that be? That L and the GP want Peters to be king maker again?

    Has Peters indicated when he would or wouldn’t support National if he won the by-election? Isn’t this a huge risk for Labour and the GP for the times that Peters ends up supporting National over the next 2.5 years? Not to mention going into the next election.

    • Pascals bookie 6.1

      This.
      A vote for NZF isn;t a vote to change the govt. It’s a vote for Winston to get to decide.

      • thechangeling 6.1.1

        Whilst Pascal’s comment is probably true, if the aggregate of the 3 or 4 opposition party’s adds up to a win against National, it would seem entirely logical to do this as it makes the Governments majority in parliament a little more tenuous than it already is.
        Labour, if they choose to go alone will not win and not be able to change the potential make up in parliament so Te Reo Putake’s argument is rock solid and has my full support.

        • weka 6.1.1.1

          That doesn’t make sense. No one is going to change govt. From Labours pov getting 1 less Nat MP probably isn’t worth sacrificing their own candidate. See micky’s post on this.

          • phillip ure 6.1.1.1.1

            all that mickey says is that willow jean is a good candidate..

            ..i agree..(so put her high enough on the list to get into parliament..clear out some of the labour list deadwood..

            ..deadwood so past its use-by date the punters just walk by..

            ..with a curled look of contempt..

            ..and the unspoken:..’r u still here..?’..)

            ..but that is pretty much the bulk of mickeys’ arguments..

  7. freedom 7

    My 2c.
    Sometimes the core of the issue is hidden by the tendrils of who what why where when?
    Any multi-opponent campaign involving two or more political parties contesting the National candidate in Northland will [most likely] end in failure.

    The core of the issue is as simple as simple gets. Does the opposition want to take the seat from National? That is the only question that is relevant. Which opposition Party wins that seat is not as important as National not winning that seat.

    The only way to realistically remove National from the seat is to have one single opponent to the National candidate, supported, campaigned for and endorsed by Greens Labour and NZ First, moving forward with the single and clearly stated goal of removing National from the Northland seat.

    The Greens Labour and NZ First need to sit in a room, put those three names into a hat, make the draw and get to work over the next six weeks. Supporting each other, sharing resources and showing NZ how the opposition, as a body of elected representatives, believe the people of New Zealand, not the objectives of individual political Parties, are the priority.

    I am fully aware it is a ridiculously simplistic way to approach the complex scenario, but the people of New Zealand need that seat taken from National. Does the opposition want to take the seat from National or not?

  8. Sacha 8

    We’ve already had this discussion. In some marginal seats this approach may work. Not in a safe blue one like Northland.

  9. Sanctuary 9

    The gigantic reason for stepping aside for Peters is that if he won, National’s +1 majority disappears, and along with it much of the most radical right agenda they want to promote this term. Anything less than clear polling an unopposed Wintson Peters would win the electorate requires Labour to run a candidate.

  10. AUDNZD 10

    Mr Peters will not run. He is proven lazy enough to undertake serious work, other than lifting a bottle of whisky.

    • Colonial Rawshark 10.1

      Going to rely on smears and innuendo today, mate?

      • AUDNZD 10.1.1

        Innuendo? Most of the House and half of Wellington know W. Peters is on the turps often enough. On several occasion of late he has slurred his words during question time. Innuendo?

        [The same has been said of John Key. It doesn’t contribute to the debate, so please don’t go down this line. TRP]

    • greywarshark 10.2

      The bloggger whose pseudo is actually Money/Money is obviously not working hard himself or he wouldn’t have time to semi-write his thoughtless word groupings. No doubt he spends most of his time in a complaceent haze on his rear slagging off other people attempting to formulate rational and responsible policy and systems.

    • Tom Jackson 10.3

      The two aren’t mutually exclusive. I’d never vote for the guy, but Peters is a canny politician and when it comes to the crunch is generally on the right side of things.

  11. Atiawa 11

    Labour would never step aside to allow another opposition party the chance to win a by-election, and nor should it. They have history on their side.

    I am happy that we live in an MMP environment that allows a more generous cross section of our society to be heard and represented in our parliament via the party vote.
    If your party was unsuccessful in gaining an electoral seat in the last general election you should maybe heed the wishes of the people and allow those who did, that opportunity again.

    In other words stop fucking dreaming, win an electoral seat somewhere, anywhere and then present your credentials to the good people of Northland. Just as David S of Epson should.

    • greywarshark 11.1

      @ Atiawa
      We don’t live in past history. What we do now, in the present, is making history. What that Darwinian thing of survival of the fittest means is – those who could take the actions required to enable them to prosper despite changing conditions, that differed from what they were used to. That is why Labour must do something different. The quote being heard more and more is that Madness is doing the same thing over and over and failing, yet continuing without rejigging and blithely expecting a different outcome.”

      And everyone wanting to see a graphic of this behaviour by Labour should look at Google today where they have co-opted Schrek apparently, to show us the effect of butting your head against a brickwall (tree) repeatedly. Couldn’t be more apt.

  12. aerobubble 12

    Theres this bias. When Key does something unlawful little mention of it in headline news, no al zazera every day mentioning how eqypt etc. Instead when Little makes replaces Norman with Shearer there is not one mention of how it could be that minor parties have view intelligence committee appointment as baubles and its blown back on Key, i.e Banks and Dunne. So why wasnt Little saying as much, he’d like to keep the position in house as the blow back is on him.

    Its more of the same we got from the media, the different standards for the opposition, higher, take Norman suppose QE easing argument is pasted as printing money, yet KEys deficit amassing tax cuts for the wealthiest and skewing of the tax system to favor the wealthy at the expense of lower and middle income earners is called enlighted despite obvious poverty detriments.

    This matters, if a middle class person is caught at the checkout without paying for an item, because their kid dropped it in their bag, then they dont lose all the goods they just brought and fail to get the money back. But MSD think its quite alright for a solo mum, whose parter keeps turning up, should payback every cent of benefit, though obviously it sexist since women overwhelming are burden by stupid partners and kids who shoplift.

    NZ is class ridden, its press, it shock jocks, all think they have a say on top of the news. Its any wonder that sooner or later a late night auckland radio show will hijack the free helpline to get interviewees they can exploit for entertainment, because why would it matter to the general welfare. Media without a social conscience, what next, ubiquitous collection of private info from smart meters to smart devices, where its illegal to reverse engineer said devices, or turn them off physically, where the media right even tell us we should get used to the brave new world.

    Why are there no faraday pouches for our devices, why is their no alternative mete next to the smart one you can switch to when you are on an energy saving drive, why would anyone intheir right mind pay for microphones and video placed in their own home, having software added tht specially uses their power to immediately and concisely collects high quality speach or movement, and then deliver it free to big corporates. Its astonishing that Moro would accept this new era of big brother when his show emphasus how matey and trustworthy he and his panel are.

    Vigilance when the media bows out? Eternally lost?

  13. cricko 13

    Could you please explain what ‘Tory” means.

    [lprent: Lazy short term self-entitled idiot denying history. However you could use your fingers and use wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory ]

    • It has been a alternative name for conservative political parties for over three centuries. Originally it applied only in the UK, but is recognised in most commonwealth countries.

      I’m told that it’s an Anglicised version of the Gaelic word for outlaw, which would be ironic, I suppose.

    • Colonial Rawshark 13.2

      Brit slang for the Conservative Party (UK) and their right wing/neoliberal/capitalist class of supporters.

      • weka 13.2.1

        Tory always strikes me as being quite British and related to the specific class system there. It sounds odd in a NZ context.

        • te reo putake 13.2.1.1

          It’s also changed in the UK, where it can be argued that Thatcher was not a Tory at all. Tory implies social and economic conservativism, whereas Thatcher and her successors are far more radical.

          Just as an aside, it’s how Canadian conservatives refer to themselves too and I’d be surprised if our local Nat MP’s didn’t recognise the term.

          • swordfish 13.2.1.1.1

            Tends to be employed in a more pejorative way in New Zealand. As in “Bloody Tories” – a term that emerged from my parents’ mouths on a frequent basis throughout my 70s childhood/early teens. Probably the same in Oz.

        • Naturesong 13.2.1.2

          To me also, I associate Tory to be the english word for the land owning class.

          I tend not to use it for New Zealanders. But I have no difficulty understanding when people describe the National / Business Roundtable economic hegemony in New Zealand as Tories.

    • cricko 13.3

      Thankyou for your explanation te reo putake, Colonel Rawshark, weka and others.

      I followed the link provided by Iprent but couldn’t see where it was defined as, “Lazy
      short term self-entitled idiot denying history.”

      • joe90 13.3.1

        How’s the cat to poisoning going?.

      • McFlock 13.3.2

        Wikipedia says po-tay-toe, Lprent says po-tah-toe.

        Scholars in the theory of language have some interesting ideas about the literal message vs the meta-message of any particular communication. For example, an expression of indifference in colloquial German literally translates into the sentence “I do not have a male goat“. Generally, the situational context in which an expression is used works alongside the literal meanings and syntax of the message to provide a strong indication of the meta-message that was intended by the hu-mon communicator.

        I hope this was of some assistance to you. Feel free to keep the golden plaques (a hint for the glyphs is to look at hyperfine transitions in hydrogen).

      • greywarshark 13.3.3

        cricko
        that’s the more colloquial version similar to what you might find in the urban dictionary.

        • cricko 13.3.3.1

          So thats just pejorative name calling then.

          Very classy.

          • In Vino 13.3.3.1.1

            For heaven’s sake. It was a stupid, disingenuous question, and got the response it thoroughly deserved. Eat it and smile. Or is the questioner really so illiterate?

            • cricko 13.3.3.1.1.1

              Fair enough, I ate it and smiled.
              And no, I’m not illiterate.
              Thing is, why the need to label, name call and disparage ?

              Now it has been explained to me what the term Tory does mean, seems some use it in a genuine historical context and for some its different.
              So how does the use of disparaging language and name calling advance any argument ?

              • greywarshark

                cricko
                Meld in and cope, or go back to the less lively and contentious blogs. There is a limit on the language but if you say something particularly unreasonable or what is thought ignorant you get called on it.

                If there is name calling it often is because someone is highly annoyed, or upset. We don’t sit around and watch politics as a spectator sport. We are really involved in discussion and thinking.

  14. swordfish 14

    I’m currently working on a detailed analysis of the post-96 electoral history of Northland (both in terms of the Party-Vote and Candidate-Vote) for my blog – post title: As Blue as a New Tattoo ?: Northland By-Election

    This little strategic debate between you and Mickey is really useful for teasing out the core issues. And I’ve gotta say I have quite mixed feelings on this but tend slightly towards TRP’s argument. But, I still need to get on top of the post-96 split-voting in Northland before I come to more decisive conclusions.

    As the title of my up-coming blog post suggests, though, I do take issue with the idea that Northland is some sort of National “stronghold”. In terms of the Party-Vote, it’s currently a slightly below average seat for National and a slightly – only slightly, mind – above average seat for the broader Right Bloc (including the Cons). Nowhere near a “stronghold” at the moment. Northland does have a recent history of above-average support for National and the Right (during the Clark Government) but, even then, it never quite attained “stronghold” status.

    it would certainly be true to say that both Labour and the broader Left are unusually weak in Northland in terms of the Party-Vote (currently it’s Labour’s 16th weakest seat and the Left’s 22nd). But, from the point of view of the Opposition Bloc, that Left weakness is largely (though not entirely) compensated for by NZ First’s strength. From 1996 to 2008, Northland was NZ First’s 3rd strongest seat (with only “Greater Tauranga” – Tauranga + Bay of Plenty – stronger). Presently, it’s the 4th strongest NZ First seat.

    Having said that, Labour continue to receive a somewhat higher Party-Vote than NZF in Northland, albeit by only 4 points in 2014.

    Those who have argued that the seat has always been dyed-in the-wool Blue should understand that the Left+NZ First beat the Right Bloc in all of the first 4 Elections under MMP. It’s only because New Zealand as a whole has swung in the Blue team’s direction over recent elections that the Broad Right Bloc beat the Opposition Parties by 15 points in Northland in 2014.

    While it’s certainly true to say that the Candidate-Vote has been a little stronger for the Nats in Northland, to the extent that Northland’s John Carter proudly possessed National’s largest majority in 2002, over the last 3 Elections the seat can only be described as ‘Above Average’ for the Party in terms of the Candidate-Vote. Not a stronghold.

    To get a proper perspective on where Sabin’s 2014 Candidate-Vote sits in Northland relative to the rest of New Zealand – he received a 9300 majority, the median seat (out of the 64 general electorates) had a National majority of 7418, the median seat (of the 41 general electorates held by National) has a Nat maj of 11060. National’s strongest 2014 seat (Amy Adams in Selwyn) has a maj of 20561, its top 10 seats all have majorities of more than 15k. Sabin won 53% of the Candidate-Vote at the last Election. That was pretty much right on the median, 31 general electorates recording a higher % for the National candidate and 32 seats a lower %.

    But bear in mind that the Party-vote at the previous General Election is conventionally considered the most reliable benchmark at a By-Election.

    • Wow! You’ve put some solid time and effort into that analysis, swordfish. It’s nice to see some figures that back up my gut feeling about Winston’s chances and the strength of the opposition vote overall. I was aware that Winston claims a link with the area, but didn’t know that the NZF party vote was so high. That gives him a reasonable base to build on if he does stand.

      • Tiger Mountain 14.1.1

        Well done Swordfish.

        I went through the votes booth by booth the last two elections and it was interesting to compare that with what I knew personally about the some of the various areas and townships. Not that I am claiming major knowledge but you do get the general drift after 20 years in the Far North and some historical research.

        Like on the Karikari peninsula there was reasonable support for Labour and NZ First despite most people publicly acquiescing to Nats. Other small areas were strong Labour. Places that MP Sabin used to harass when he was with the bacon squadron as a D and later running “Methcon”.

        It is inevitably about turnout also and the fact that Te Tai Tokerau siphoned off 20,000 odd non Nat votes (National does not stand). The Far North is a ‘land that time forgot’ that just needs consistent application of left political work to get the vote to match the material needs of the geography and the populace.

        • greywarshark 14.1.1.1

          TM
          your interesting term – the bacon squadron. does that mean they would make an early morning visit or does it refer to a particularly unpopular division of the police.

    • McFlock 14.2

      Sabin’s 9k majority was about typical for the last few elections, with the nat candidate being normally within a coupleish thou of 10K majority.

      Even in 99 Carter had a majority of 5k.

      If the replacement candidate for the nats ends up with a majority less than 7k, I reckon that’ll be a worrying result for the tories, and knives will be honed (lol use of the term dedicated to John Carter, Sabin’s predecessor).

    • Ad 14.3

      The point you need to get to is whether Winston Peters would have a show if no one else from Greens or Labour sucked votes away from Winston, and had a straight run at a National fresh candidate. Run a proper counterfactual.

      And just to argue against myself above, Labour’s performance at 25% nationally only a few months ago suggests Labour has nothing to lose going TRP’s way, and being so early in the term, Little could probably recover from the ignimony of an all-Opposition loss after a year or so.

      Something has to force the idea of a functioning coalition.

      • McFlock 14.3.1

        What happened in the Southland party vote is irrelevant to a Northland candidate election, or at the very most has a tenuous connection based on other common factors.

        Anyone who isn’t a nat wants an attainable goal that would brush more glitter off the shitball that is this government.

        Attainable, because if expectations are too high then even a good performance is touted by the tory media as a failure – think about kdc’s “moment of truth”. By itself it wan’t too bad, but expectations were higher than was actually achieved.

        The reason to consolidate candidates is to reduce the majority, but that will also be the tory excuse. If the same turnout happened as in the 2014 northlad electorate, where sabin got 18k out of 35k against 8 other candidates, then that’s a total majority of only 1k. But anything less than winston victory would be touted loudly as a failure for all the opposition, and even then there’s the “ganging up” argument (even if all the 2014 runner-up support goes to the sole non-nat candidate).

        But a seriously reduced majority against a full spread of candidates lowers the excuses the tories can make.

      • Skinny 14.3.2

        They have all missed an opportunity to work together, a primary amongst themselves with the winner put forward as the sole opposition challenger to the National candidate.

        Instead they will stick with the same old same old failed strategy of vote splitting. National sit back and collect a soft win and deliver fuck all to the electorate in return. No pressure, no positive result all round. Is it really any wonder Northland has been left behind with high unemployment, crime, poverty, health and a swag of other related issues. I will vote for an opposition party who puts their hand up and says our party gets it and we truly are going to work together and this is how.

        Winston Peters needs to stop his crap about after the votes are in, Labour need to stop treating the Greens like second class citizens, the pair of them need to have a handful of policies as a single platform to campaign on. And lastly be left with policies that attract the disengaged, a universal income and others like free dental care. Fuck chasing the middle Tory vote that doesn’t work.

    • swordfish 14.4

      NZ First failed to stand a Candidate in Northland in 2011 and 2014.

      Here’s the way NZ First Party-Voters cast their Candidate-Vote (Northland relative to 64 general electorates as a whole – 2011 and 2014):

      (figures = %)

      2011

      General Electorates……….Northland

      Green…………6……………..13
      Labour………43…………….36
      National…….18…………….27

      2014

      Green………..6………………11
      Labour………37……………..37
      National…….21……………..27

      There are one or two complexities (which I won’t go into here) but, in general, NZ First supporters in Northland were a little more likely to go Nat and Green in their Candidate-Vote than NZ First voters nationally.

  15. James Thrace 15

    My recollection of MMP, after all the by elections of recent years:

    – If Winston stood, and won, he comes “off the list” and NZF gain one more MP on the list
    – If Labour wins with Prime, they get no more MPs.
    – If Green win, they get no MPs (unless an existing list member in Parliament stood, and won.)

    If my recall isn’t as bad as it might be, if Winsome Winston Won, National would pretty much be a terminal government with 2 seats fewer (as NZF would gain an extra MP at the expense of National)

  16. Murray Rawshark 16

    I’d like to see the parties get behind a single candidate. Given Little’s performance on the squirrel committee, I can’t see it happening.

  17. saveNZ 17

    Sounds good to me. Thinks of the positive message that would bring to all three parties working together to achieve a common goal.(Get National out).

    Winston is charming and experienced and has a ‘feel’ for the middle NZ popular issues that Labour and Greens don’t seem to be able to grasp as easily. He likes to win. He is not a crony. He is a whistleblower. He does not seem like Wellington.

    I hope he brings up the PSA virus that the poor Kiwifruit farmers are suing the government over and the lack of help in the Northland floods and droughts.

    I hope Labour and Greens actually be able to form an alliance with NZ First for the common good of the country.

    • saveNZ 17.1

      In addition Winston has a proven history of getting things done and not reneging on deals. How many oldies love Winston’s Gold card? My Mum just got one, it is the most efficient thing in government. She was notified 6 months prior to her birthday to ‘apply for her gold card’ so that ‘she won’t miss any use of it, and can use it immediately upon turning 65’. Winston should take over the Novapay debacle.

  18. James Thrace 18

    if a sitting member on a list (i.e. Winston) wins, they need to resign from the list seat, thereby giving NZF one extra MP

    Right now, National have 61 seats in a 120 seat parliament and 2 C&S with MP.

    If they lose Northland to Winston, then NZF will gain an extra MP – making Parliament 121 seats as it was prior to Sabin resigning.

    National = 61 seats (59 + UF + ACT) + MP C&S = 63 seats total (down 1)
    L/G/NZF = 58 seats (up 1)

    Either way, it still means National govern, but a couple more byelection wins for ABN (Anyone but National) will probably mean dissolution of Parliament.

    @ghost – I think we’re talking at cross purposes about the same thing.

  19. Puckish Rogue 19

    Do you really think Winston would go into coilition with the Greens because I’d suggest they would be his last cab off the rank

    • Chooky 19.1

      ..no John Key Nactional would be

    • Too right he would. Not his first preference, that would be minority Lab/NZF with C&S from the Greens. But if the price of being deputy PM was having the Greens on board he wouldn’t hold a sign up saying NO.

      • Puckish Rogue 19.2.1

        Not if the choice was only National/NZFirst it wouldn’t

        • te reo putake 19.2.1.1

          Yeah, nah. To repeat a comment I made last year, Winston wants to be the one to bring Key down. He had three years in the wilderness thanks to National and he hasn’t forgotten. Or forgiven.

          • Pascals bookie 19.2.1.1.1

            That motivation could just as easily justify him having Key over a barrel to him.

            It’s not like this exact same thing hasn’t happened before.

            He really hates ACT, and could tell National to dump them in return for a safe majority. The NZF haters in national would be forced to eat their bile while he watches them, sipping a malt and grinning his mug off.

            • weka 19.2.1.1.1.1

              Yep. Anyone who thinks they know what Peters will do is engaging in wishful thinking. The only consistent thing he’s done is refuse to be clear ahead of time about which govt he would support.

              • felix

                ” Anyone who thinks they know what Peters will do is engaging in wishful thinking.”

                First fact in the thread.

    • saveNZ 19.3

      They could start with a coffee in private – it doesn’t need to be a reality TV show – where every detail and rumour of their meetings are hyped out of control.

  20. I think labour would lose credibility if it backed another candidate from another party whoever it was – the gnats would spin it as weakness and if the candidate didn’t win the spin will go turbo.

    • @ marty mars..

      ..i disagree..

      ..a worst-case scenario of lab/grns supporting peters and the tories still winning..

      .. is meh..!

      ..and would be soon forgotten..

      • marty mars 20.1.1

        the right want to, and will, use anything they can to discredit little – if it can be spun as weakness it will be

        • phillip ure 20.1.1.1

          i think you are seeing a problem where there is none..

          (..that ‘spin’ already happens every day that ends in a ‘y’..doesn’t it..?)

          ..and certainly not one powerful enough to discount a strategic-voting bye-election campaign..

          ..and the/a chance to serve the tories what wd be a humiliating-defeat..

  21. of course a comprimise-solution if lab/grns do run..

    ..is to clearly campaign for the party vote only..

    ..and to urge their supporters to tactical-vote..

    ..with their candidate-choice..

    ..(this wd have that same bonding/credit in the bank outcome..)

  22. RedBaronCV 22

    Perhaps any party not standing could sign one of those memorandums of understanding on one or two polices that are generally popular to bring their voters in?
    And any candidiate that wants to win up there should tell it like it is
    ” if you want your roads sealed vote for anyone but the NAct candidate other wise they are just going to take you lot for granted again”

  23. nadis 23

    This is taking the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to ridiculous extremes.

    On what planet do Peter’s principles (sorry, unintended humour) line up with either Labour or the Greens.

    Winston’s principles are decided entirely on what is good for Winston.

    The left should actually be encouraging a situation where National is dependent on Winston – that will blow up a National government inside 1 term.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts