Today is a win-win with Winston

Written By: - Date published: 8:48 am, October 19th, 2017 - 103 comments
Categories: accountability, act, election 2017, electoral systems, First Past the Post, greens, jacinda ardern, labour, MMP, national, nz first, political parties, Politics, same old national, united future, winston peters - Tags:

It appears that Winston is about to announce the decision of the NZ First party about their coalition partner today. There was a brief press release last night from Winston Peters office last night at 1720.

New Zealand First will be in a position tomorrow afternoon to make an announcement on the result of negotiations following the 2017 General Election.

New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters said he had spoken to the leaders of the National Party and the Labour Party today and, amongst other matters, advised them of that.

There have been a number of responses last night and this morning.

Barry Soper: NZ First to announce partner tomorrow
Vernon Small: If Peters wants a legacy then the playing field is tilting to the left
Claire Trevett: English suffers consequences of Middle Man Paranoia
Tracy Watkins: Winston Peters and the waiting game

But I’d like to point my viewpoint on it.

For the political dimwits and romantic adherents of the “strong leader” who seem to think that coalitions should be formed with rapidity, they simply shouldn’t. That is the path to making stupid decisions, and I am yet to hear a single good reason to do it.

Some of our spray and walk away media spitting their uninformed and ill thought through opinions out seem to think that. But they operate without the significiant feedback that hasn’t been filtered to guard their delicate egos. Yes – I am thinking of Mike Hoskings. But there are a lot of similar talking heads. Try radio talkback some time. Around here I get to have my opinions challenged daily by smart informed people with ‘interesting’ opinions, usually divergent to my own, on a political blogsite with limited filters. It keeps the hubris down.

But I still haven’t seen a credible reason why the current coalition process is a bad one. What I have seen is what I see in the media. A lot of spluttering of vague and unformed incoherence that seem to amount to “we don’t like Winston”. That isn’t a reason. That is just being a simple minded bigot unencumbered with thought.

Just look at Germany, the spiritual home of MMP, the recently concluded election on the 24th of September won’t even start realistic coalition agreements to form a government until the 18th of October. It isn’t expected that a government will actually form until December. In an extreme example of a more proportional system – in 2011, the Belgium government formed after 541 days.

That makes us having a government formed in well less than a month from the election a masterpiece of speed.

We have rational caretaker governments these days who unlike the born to rule stupidity of the National caretaker government of 1984, actually operate in the nation’s interest. That is, in my opinion, because they always have had to operate in cooperation with other political organisations to even form a government. That is what the voters keep voting for – politicians are servants of the public, not their autocratic masters.

There hasn’t been a single party majority under MMP and I don’t think that it ever that likely to happen. Who in their right mind would want that? It is bad enough having to have politicians. We really don’t need to give them that much political room to put their crazed ego maniacal ideas into action.

Sure, governments under first past the post have parties that are internal coalitions. But that is where the living arrangements were established well before the elections. It does mean that they can form governments fast. The problem was that voters didn’t get to decide anything apart from which pack of a limited set of lying self-interested fools we got to choose.

Voters then couldn’t do what I did earlier this year and decide that I didn’t particularly trust whatever was happening in Labour. I decided that my vote could be better used to vote for the Greens and under MMP that would still mean something – see “Ok, I’m pissed off with the Labour caucus again. Time to switch”.

My choices under FPP would have been to not vote at all, or to vote for a local candidate that had absolutely no chance of getting in.  As it was I voted Green and for Jacinda Arden for Mt Albert, a choice that fortunately exactly mapped on to my preferences.

Back when MMP was decided I voted against MMP because I thought that it was likely cause unstable governments unable to make forward looking decisions that reached over the decades required – which is one of the major roles of a government. I was wrong and voted for MMP in the followup referendum.

MMP doesn’t mean that politicians or political parties are any better. They just have more limited room with which to cause damage. If you look at National you can often see that they have a clear abdication of a basic responsibility of government. They often appear to operate at timescales that are even lower than most private businesses manage to achieve*.

You don’t have to look far beyond their timing decisions over the last decade on housing, infrastructural spending and immigration to see a pretty good example of piss poor future planning and management. The effects in Auckland, where most of the nett migration winds up are pretty damn obvious. But this kind of short-term thinking damage is showing up all over our society at present. From poisoned rivers and low aquifers , to the armies of homeless beggars on the streets that remind you of the great depression.

But Nationals coalition partners have often forced required long term changes to be made. As examples:-

  • In my opinion, the Maori parties Whānau Ora wasn’t exactly well organised, But it was a far-reaching attempt to change the pattern of health care to deal with a systematic and nagging social problem in a structural manner. Their major problem in politics was that they felt that they had to be present to protect that gain. If they ever manage to rise again, they should cultivate the art of structural organisation. Having to be hands on is a damn stupid idea in business, but even more so in government.
  • Peter Dunne finally managed to push the move to get rid of that historical  piece of early 1970s computing junk at the Inland Revenue and force the slow change to something that won’t inhibit future use of the tax systems to help our society and economy. This was something that became quite apparent when Working for Families was brought in. I may not like the strange political contortions that have allowed Peter Dunne to survive for decades. But I salute him for getting that change underway.
  • Act – well I suppose there was the Auckland super-city. However they botched that by trying for political gain by their simple minded short-term fiddling of its structure. They structured it in such a way that it caused what will be a decade worth of lost time while it restructured, and that was over a period of its fastest growth. I think that their intent was to form a political base. However voters in Auckland nixed that idea and their proxies in local government here.

It means that while useful progress in the last 9 years has been really really slow on anything important, but it didn’t stop.

It is pretty clear that whoever NZ First goes with this afternoon, they will be trying to push for long-term policy gains.

In coalition with National’s habitual short-term and apparently unthinking focus on their organisational purpose of getting elected and into government, that focus on the larger issues will be welcome. Unfortunately I suspect that having to pull against all of that dead weight is likely to cause NZ First considerable backlash at the next election. So I’d expect a strong and decisive win for the left in 2020, and for many terms afterwards.

A coalition with Labour and the Greens is a more natural fit. NZ First will have a more natural role in acting more like the required brake required in all governance.

Move forward incrementally but don’t overreach is damn near the definition of a stable government.

Either way, as a separate party with it own internal structure and supporters, NZ First is fulfilling the required place of a political party in a coalition forming environment. What is really astonishing is how fast this coalition (whatever it is) has actually been formed.

 


* Before any religious advocate of the free enterprise gets too upset about that statement, please remember that I’ve worked in the private sector for all of my working life. I did a MBA at Otago when I was still interested in continuing to work as a manager. I’ve also been around politics for many decades and have a strong interest in history and legal principles. I know exactly what I am talking about and the limits on both kinds of systems. If you want to argue about my statement on the limits of private business (or government), then I’d suggest you establish your background first. I’m quite uninterested in arguing with ill-prepared fools or their ideological stupidities. I tend to treat them with contempt and humiliation as an educational experience. Be warned.

103 comments on “Today is a win-win with Winston”

  1. cleangreen 1

    “coalitions should be formed with rapidity, they simply shouldn’t.”

    Absolutely correct.

    Winston is laying the groundwork for the coalition and the Labour lead negociations that must now go forward for how the labour NZF/Greens coalition will then be formed.

    Common sense says, we need to make this agreement a very ‘durable’ settlement as we want a long serving coalition this time to survive the onslought of vicous backlash the MSM and the National propagandists will relentlessly throw at the labour lead coalition.

    I am very confident that the coalition leaders in place will whether that vicious right wing insult.

    Well said LPRENT.

  2. Agora 2

    It will be interesting how the long-term ecological, social, and cultural perspectives of Maoritanga mesh with Douglas/English/National(ist) neo-liberal theory

    • lprent 2.1

      When is the next budget due?

      • Agora 2.1.1

        June/July I believe .. before the next financial year.

        • lprent 2.1.1.1

          If it is a coalition with National, then I suspect that is when we will find out about the National support of Whānau Ora.

          For that matter we will find out then with a coalition with Labour as well.

          • veutoviper 2.1.1.1.1

            Changes to current financial year budget allocations wanted/necessary as a result of either a NZF/National coalition or a Labour/NZF/Greens coalition, such as withdrawal of support for Whanau Ora, can/will be made through the Supplementary Estimates process.

            This Supplementary Estimates process is used throughout the year to make changes to budgetary allocations etc after the formal Budget for the year has been finally passed by the House. (See Treasury Overview link in 2.1.2.1.)

            But it is also the normal process used to make changes to/replace the existing Budget where a change of government takes place during the course of the standard financial year, so there is no need to wait for the next Budget and financial year.

            • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Yeah. But we are talking large amounts of dosh here. I suspect that you can’t just deallocate that kind of budget from organisations who have been promised it easily. Usually it would have to budgeted and enabling legislation passed and then a period of time for everything to wind down.

              Usually easiest to do at budget time.

      • veutoviper 2.1.2

        The central govt financial year is 1 July to 30 June.

        The budget process begins in Oct/Nov with Ministries and Departments preparing their budget bids for monies, new projects etc for the following financial year and starting discussions with their Ministers. These preparations and discussions etc continue in the new calendar year, with things then moving into wider ‘sector’ budget bids/negotiations – eg justice , education, health sectors, etc. leading to finalisation of teh government’s overall budget drafts and decisions being completed in about April, and the final Budget being presented to the House in the second half of May.

        In other words, the timing of the general election – and this coalition negotiation and decision period – actually works in well the annual budgetary process. A few more weeks of coalition negotiation would not negatively affect the budgetary process IMHO (having worked through this process many times over the years).

        A lot of the types of policy and policy priorities negotiations being undertaken in the current coalition negotiations are very like the budgetary priority negotiations that go on each year in an established government environment – so in fact a good amount of the usual budgetary preparatory work may be well advanced.

        • veutoviper 2.1.2.1

          Further to the above, here is a link to a Treasury overview of the budgetary process.

          http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/process

          IMO the coalition negotiations are somewhat akin to the Executive phase of the process in the description and flow chart – in particular the Strategic phase.

          This overview provides further links at the bottom of the page to more detailed information on the process and timelines.

    • red-blooded 2.2

      “It will be interesting how the long-term ecological, social, and cultural perspectives of Maoritanga mesh with Douglas/English/National(ist) neo-liberal theory

      Surely the opportunity to see this was in the last 3 terms, with the Maori Party in government with the Nats? After all, while Winston and some other notable NZF MPs may be Maori, he’s never (to my knowledge, anyway) been a proponent of Maori kaupapa or Treaty rights.

  3. ianmac 3

    “Would’t it be loverly” if a Government was formed which could work with an Opposition to form long term solutions for long term problems. Water. Housing. Health. Education.

    • cleangreen 3.1

      Perfectly said ianmac. 100%

    • RedLogix 3.2

      The fact that our system is absolutely rooted in the idea that Government and Opposition and must forever been in conflict with each other, is the fundamental flaw in our democracy. A flaw the CCCP is exposing with ruthless efficiency. (Not that their one party state is without it’s shortcomings either.)

      What we lack is a global perspective on WHY we do governance, what it’s values and purpose should be. Once we understand that, then deciding how to achieve it, and what the structural details should be (quite different to the clapped out mess we have right now) … would all be a lot easier.

      Basically I’m saying that while politics has always interested me, it’s daily perturbations and meanderings actually don’t much of my attention. What I want to see is a massive and total transformation, one that places service to the people, the environment and long-term well-being of both at the immovable centre of it’s deliberations.

      It also explains why even the modest changes TOP were offering held an innate appeal for me. I was under no illusion Morgan was going to turn NZ into any kind of niravana, but at least he was trying something new.

      We’re so far away from what I dream I’m not sure which is more ridiculous, me or the clown show we call Parliament.

      • What we lack is a global perspective on WHY we do governance, what it’s values and purpose should be.

        Correct although I’m pretty sure that that’s an over generalisation. Some of us do understand why we need and do governance. Some of us see governance as a way to enrich themselves and their mates.

        What I want to see is a massive and total transformation, one that places service to the people, the environment and long-term well-being of both at the immovable centre of it’s deliberations.

        I’d like to see that but, while we have a top-down hierarchical system we won’t get it. Again, representative democracy was designed to actually prevent democracy and leave the real power in the hands of the few. It’s how our power assets got sold off against the wishes of the people.

    • To do that the we actually need to get rid of ‘government’ and just have parliament with each member then voting how their voters want.

      In fact, that was how representative democracy was envisioned. The problem being that, within a very short time, political parties arose and we ended up with adversarial system of bi-partisanship which we’re now need to correct

  4. Stuart Munro 4

    The ideal of a due process approach is sound in principle, but my feeling is that the insincerity the Gnats have shown over their last nine years of government is likely to make any extended process ineffectual. If there’s one lesson we learned from 1996 it is that time to form coalitions does not guarantee quality. That requires commitments to the future of NZ and personal qualities that increasingly many people feel that MPs lack.

    I wouldn’t mind being proved wrong, if Winston reformed the vile and self-serving wreck of a party that once was not utterly despicable. But I don’t expect it.

    • ianmac 4.1

      During Winston’s tenure as Treasurer with National, Shipley/English wanted to privatise Wellington Airport. Winston refused. He was sacked. Shipley lost the subsequent election.
      Don’t you think Stuart that Winston’s stand was with merit?

      • Stuart Munro 4.1.1

        Winston swore before the election that he would not go with National. Although your instance is positive the overall outcome was not positive for NZ (imho).

        • BM 4.1.1.1

          Link?

        • cleangreen 4.1.1.2

          I back you up there Stuart as we 230 at a public meeting in Gisborne in september and heard winston say NZF cannot go with a National Government as their policies conflict with NZF policies in almost every policy so the party is opposed.

          He was standing under his election poster saying “Had enough”?

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.3

          Winston swore before the election that he would not go with National.

          No he didn’t although he certainly gave that impression (at Michael Laws encouragement I believe (IIRC, he was NZ1st strategist for the 1996 election)). And it was on that impression that NZ1st got such a large part of the vote and why NZ1st lost so much in the 1999 election.

          And, no, Bob Jones is not a credible witness.

          • Stuart Munro 4.1.1.3.1

            Frank McSkasy quoted six instances awhile back – this is a truth Winston doesn’t get to edit. He lied his arse off.

            Not sure there’s much reason to prefer Michael Laws to Bob Jones frankly.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.3.1.1

              Frank McSkasy quoted six instances awhile back

              Link?

              IIRC, Michael Laws was Winston’s campaign manager during the 1996 election. So what the difference here is that what Laws was saying was Winston’s actual strategy. And I learned all this in pols101 at Otago Uni.

              • Stuart Munro

                Couldn’t find it – but I was in the Alliance in 1996 – we remember what Winston promised. And what he delivered.

                As for Michael Laws, I knew him. People don’t change, they just become more true to type. Laws is in ORC now, by a margin of about five votes. Very chummy with ACT for some reason.

    • National’s insincerity over the last nine years should have had all their MPs in jail. Then they may actually start learning that such corruption isn’t going to be tolerated.

      If we have a new government then I do hope that they’ll look at out pathetic anti-corruption laws and do something with them. An MP shouldn’t be able to keep on lying the way that Joyce and English did without consequences.

      • Stuart Munro 4.2.1

        Agreed – but there’s probably two parts of this – the restoration of real parliamentary questioning and protocols around it – such as ministerial resignations for non-performance or misleading the house. And long overdue audits of low quality public spending on Gnat cronies and consultants.

        Really quite different things, and I expect Labour’s focus will be more on things like building and regional development. Best they don’t let the sleaze wriggle away though – or it will be back.

  5. Agora 5

    Brexit plan “in paralysis” ..

    “Ministers are expected to confirm on Thursday that the government has been forced to delay bringing the EU withdrawal bill back to the House of Commons for a second time, as it seeks to persuade Tory rebels to drop their backing for hostile amendments.

    MPs on both sides of the house had expected debate on the next stage of the key Brexit bill to begin next week but with Theresa May at risk of suffering a string of defeats at the hands of Conservative rebels, the government has set aside more time to prepare its response.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/18/brexit-strategy-in-paralysis-as-eu-withdrawal-bill-delayed

  6. Obtrectator 6

    I ask – with some hesitancy, given the rebarbative tone of your asterisked footnote – whether in referring to National’s “adjudication” of the responsibility of government, you actually intended “abdication”. Seems a better fit with the context, that’s all. Just saying. Sorry.

    • Agora 6.1

      Right Honourable Obtrectator: you should refer this issue to the gentleman writing as ‘lprent’.

    • lprent 6.2

      Yeah you are right. The joys of writing before work, and publishing without a good review/edit.

      I noticed a number of other fractured sentences as well. So I cleaned those up too while I waited for a cross-compiles to finish.

  7. Xanthe 7

    One point. It is common practise to call what hoskins etc force on us “opinions”. They are NOT opinions. An opinion is something a person believes. Most of what we are presented with is that which is intended to influence our opinions or mislead us . This is not “opinion” as it is not founded on genuine views, rather it is that which will engender a particular response in its audience. The correct term to use for this is bullshit.

    Calling it “opinion” dignifies it undeservingly

    • Agora 7.1

      “bullshit” is too strong. I think the legal term is “leading question” or “misdirection”, perhaps ‘subliminal advertising’ .. but yes it is intended to influence opinion. It has been going on since Vance Packard wrote ‘Hidden Persuaders” some time ago. Ethics ? What ethics ? It is a market economy .. but there are also countervailing forces.

    • AB 7.2

      The unadorned term is “propaganda”

      • boggis the cat 7.2.1

        Correct.

        ‘Propaganda’ has a negative connotation, though, so it is usually termed ‘journalism’ now. 😉

        (And what used to be called journalism is now ‘treason’.)

    • David Mac 7.3

      It’s all about money. If Hosking could whistle Beatles tunes for 30 minutes and raise his audience size/lifestyle profile he would.

      Campbell’s TV3 audience size wasn’t too bad. They didn’t support his primary sponsor, they weren’t buying new Mazdas.

      A commercial show that leans to the left is immediately up against it. Their primary audiences don’t have lots of weekends at Matakana or ease their muscles in new spa pools.

      We’ve had hit topical shows that lean to the left and draw audience from all over the political spectrum in the past. The successes generally seem to revolve around humour, satire etc.

  8. Aaron 8

    All this talk of stable government is nonsense – it’s as if people have forgotten about the existence of the entire public service and all the government departments. If they were to fall over we really would be in trouble but otherwise the only people who suffer when the “government” is unstable are the people in power at the time – which would explain why they are always banging on about it.

    • It’s not got anything to do with stability as you say. What it is is a preference for a particular type of government, one that allows the psychopaths to keep screwing over the nation.

      Businesses like ‘stable’ government because the laws don’t get changed on them in ways that they don’t like. So, they tend to prefer National governments which will make laws that they like and term them ‘stable’ while Labour led governments tend to make laws they don’t like and so they get termed ‘unstable’.

  9. eco maori 9

    Well you all no that I have my hope’s pined on a NZ First Labour Green’s new Government but C`est la vie life goes on be proud of whom you are your culture and your people .
    As for Brit exit well we don’t want Great Britain in the claps of those idiot neo liberal’s
    That would be a disaster for all of us . The big picture is that Labour and the Greens should be targeting the low hanging fruit of our political system and front candidates for all our local elections as they have a Major influence on our environment and lives local councils Kia Kaha

  10. eco maori 10

    PS please make a donation to the Standard to help Ipernt maintain this web site Thanks Ka Pai

  11. Ad 11

    Winston would make a pretty interesting Minister of Economic Development.

    Would be good to see MBIE do something practical beyond handing out little grants and regulating little bits of the economy.

    Whichever kind of government Winston goes in for, he would be well set to push prosperity into the forgotten regions again.

  12. esoteric pineapples 12

    I would like to see the day that people stop bemoaning the loss of FPP. Then we would be able to improve MMP or even change it for another form of proportional representation. But at the moment, those would would like further improvements are humstrung by any debate having to be about MMP versus FPP. I think in another 20 years after a lot of baby boomers and older have died off, there will be less support for FPP.

    • cathy 12.1

      proportional representation is essential but i don’t believe we have the best form.

      stv is better and it works even if the electorate doesn’t understand it in detail

      • DSpare 12.1.1

        We have STV in Dunedin local elections and the sheer number of votes does dissuade some from voting (unless you give them a preranked list and a pen and stand over them while they fill the form in – which doesn’t feel entirely democratic). The way I look at it is; MMP produces a more proportional result than FPP, if the electoral commission’s 2012 recommendations were to be enacted by an incoming government (lowering the threshold to 4% & removing coat-tailing), then it would be expected to do even better. “Best” means different things to different people.

        • greywarshark 12.1.1.1

          I like your idea DSpare.
          4% and removing coat tailing. Just ease off is the idea – down from 5 to 4%, don’t need to cut more, treat our politics as a fragile plant, not to be savagely pruned or over fertilised.

  13. Well ,we are all on tenterhooks,… and if we were camping outdoors ? , … we could say ‘the excitement is in tents ‘ ….

  14. Sparky 14

    I’d agree with most of this although I personally think the Maori party made a very bad blunder in teaming up with National. Most Maori I know to their credit are socialist and left leaning. If they rise again in their current form I’d be very surprised.

    And yes its good to see the talks progressing and NZF not rushed by the endless right leaning bleating from the MSM who seem to live in FPP fantasy land for the most part.

    Whateever eventuates I hope Peters holds to the key tenants of focusing on the needs of New Zealanders and ensures the vile TPPA business stays dead.

  15. DSpare 15

    The Guardian has opened a livethread on the NZF decision, and it is always interesting to see how Aotearoa is percieved overseas (most recently in the casual reference to; “Panamanian companies owned by New Zealand trusts”, in an article on Maltese blogger Galizia’s murder). Claire Phipps summation seems on point:

    There are, ostensibly, two options. Peters could side with National, which has been in government since 2008… Or Peters could sign up with Labour, which has 46 seats but also a pre-arranged alliance with the Greens… Or he could do something else entirely. Quite what is difficult to say, but Winston Peters is not a man who likes to do what is expected.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/oct/19/new-zealand-election-winston-peters-prime-minister-bill-english-jacinda-ardern-live

  16. cleangreen 16

    One pm thursday still no announcement yet, so;——-

    So I look at this excellent stuff LPRENT said about other Counties with MMP.

    it seems that the sky does not fall in if we have no government yet, so in this window of “twylight zone” maybe we all need to give all these ‘negociators’ time to thrash out the best result for their’clients’ who are us as the public who pay these “high priced” public servants” to look after our interests firstly.

    “We have rational caretaker governments these days who unlike the born to rule stupidity of the National caretaker government of 1984, actually operate in the nation’s interest. That is, in my opinion, because they always have had to operate in cooperation with other political organisations to even form a government. That is what the voters keep voting for – politicians are servants of the public, not their autocratic masters.”

  17. Michelle 17

    almost 2pm and still no announcement yet

    • In Vino 17.1

      Tut tut… Don’t forget the artifice of Daylight Saving. We have falsified the clock, and afternoon in natural terms now lasts till well after 7pm.

  18. Ffloyd 18

    How come he doesn’t have any idea which way he’s going? No idea? After all this time and effort. Is he playing ‘who blinks first’ with one of them? I know this all takes time, but at what stage does it turn into farce? Grrrr!!!

    • cleangreen 18.1

      But it is a waiting game; -just like bidding on property or placing a proposition in a EOI (expression of interest) .

      And the process has been pushed with exreme pressure from the MSM side which was unhelpful here.

      I for one wouuld not care to have another autocratic national Government if it means we need to give these three coalition potential parties need more time to make serious conclussion agreements that will last at least three terms as it will take this long to get the country straightened up from nine years of the National wrecking ball.

    • greywarshark 18.2

      Farce or Force? I know which one I would rather have.

    • mauī 18.3

      Winnie will be playing the role of hostage taker in the next blockbuster movie.

      • red-blooded 18.3.1

        And he’ll have some fiendish Bond-esque nickname (The Puppet Master? The Gargoyle? The Renegade? Monsieur Bauble?..)

        • mauī 18.3.1.1

          lol yeah, and I know the media will be great at playing the role of the ineffectual police squad.

    • Anne 18.4

      How come he doesn’t have any idea which way he’s going.

      Don’t believe it. He knows exactly where he’s going. He’s doing some last minute bargaining in order to up the stakes and leverage more out of the chosen party.

  19. lurgee 19

    I wonder if he will come to a decision “Just in time” for the 6pm news?

    Coincidentally, of course.

  20. Mickey Boyle 20

    I dont consider it a win – win, if he chooses L+G the backlash from the media and the other side will be unbelievable, we think Meteria had it bad. To me whoever receives his blessing is actually receiving a poisoned chalice, this will not end well in my opinion.

    • RedLogix 20.1

      Here’s my take.

      Winston’s head says he can make more policy gains with L/G than with National. But he knows if he goes down that path that the establishment will crucify him.

      He’s also said that NZ1 identified 9 different coalition options. One of them is to force a grand coalition, Nat/Lab/NZ1 … with himself as PM. I can think of a zillion conventional reasons why not, but this is a moment with possibilities. And the last one Winston will ever get.

  21. ianmac 21

    NBR ✔@TheNBR
    BREAKING: Coalition announcement delayed, as NZ First demanding more ministers in govt talks, writes @robhosking 🔒 https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-first-demanding-more-ministers-government-talks-rh-p-208991
    4:39 PM – Oct 19, 2017

    • ianmac 21.1

      Though I wonder how Rob Hosking knows?

      • Mickey Boyle 21.1.1

        Stuff are reporting that National and NZ first are at odds over ministerial positions, maybe the gnats wont do anything for power after all.

  22. Anne 22

    The latest to come out of stuff’s live blog:

    Newshub are reporting that Winston Peters has been spotted sneaking into the Labour Party offices through a long route to avoid media. They cite two unnamed sources. Stuff has not confirmed this, but if he did come in he definitely snuck in, as we have eyes on all the main paths between his office and theirs.

    God, it must be funny around parliament buildings at the moment. Spies everywhere. Standing round corners, blocking all entrances and exits, hiding in cupboards, suspended from ceilings…

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98031482/live-dday-for-new-zealand-winston-peters-to-announce-who-hell-help-govern

    • ianmac 22.1

      Mirrors round corners? Secret codes.

      • Anne 22.1.1

        Latest on stuff link:

        And this confirmation from a senior Greens source – the party has called their special general meeting formally for tonight.
        150 delegates representing the wider party will meet, as far as we understand to vote on the agreement between themselves and Labour.
        Does this mean Labour have been given the nod? It’s understood they weren’t planning to meet if there was no need to.

        Won’t believe it unless it actually happens. 😯

    • Cinny 22.2

      By crikey it’s soooo dramatic 😀

      Miss Twelve has asked that I go and tell her immediately when Winston starts speaking so she can tune in.

  23. piper 23

    Say not six yet,who said three,who said Thursday the next week,how many weeks ago was that. max it till then to tell,six.

  24. Cinny 24

    Update via TVNZ…. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/live-winston-peters-getting-close-his-big-reveal?auto=5616671306001

    4:55pm The NBR is reporting there is a hold up due to the number of ministerial positions Mr Peters has requested from National.

    4:50pm There are reports the Green Party will be holding a teleconference with their delegates tonight. They would need 75 per cent of all the delegates to agree in order to sign off on any deal.

    4:45pm We may have a decision tonight, just waiting on Winston Peters to reveal the exact time he will be fronting media to make his much anticipated announcement. He is expected to address the nation from a podium in the Beehive Theatrette.

  25. piper 25

    as humiliated beings,Winston,should say, your farm fence has been a ridicule of me.

  26. Anne 26

    Stuff is reporting (link above):

    … NBR understands that NZ First asked National for five ministerial spots including four in Cabinet, with Winston Peters, Tracey Martin, Shane Jones, and Ron Mark vying for the Cabinet spots.

    No surprise there. Labour is in a better position to respond positively because they have no current cabinet ministers to oust. Makes it difficult for the Greens but… patience is a virtue Greens. You’ve had plenty of practice so a slightly longer wait will be worth it.

    • cleangreen 26.1

      1000% Anne exactly the point.

      Most other countries with MMP take many months longer tocomplete the process as germany will do, as their completion is due around xmas or later.

      So these msm chills and others who want things sped up should chillout.

  27. lurgee 27

    NBR understands that NZ First asked National for five ministerial spots including four in Cabinet, with Winston Peters, Tracey Martin, Shane Jones, and Ron Mark vying for the Cabinet spots.
    But according to NBR National MPs have balked at this – particularly the junior ministers and senior backbenchers who would have to miss out in this scenario.
    NBR understand Peters is asking for the same from Labour.

    Sneaking respect for National if they told the chiseller to get lost.

    All our baubles are belong to us!

    EDIT – If Labour offered him even less, even better! The old git must been choking on spleen and disappointment.

    • BM 27.1

      7% and he wants 5 ministers, fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

      Looks like Peters legacy is baubles and the destruction of MMP.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 27.1.1

        If such malignant resentment also exemplifies the view of National party supporters towards Winston / NZ 1st…

  28. piper 28

    Now is the time to say,New Zealand First,knows it.

  29. piper 29

    Getting close to Labour saying,Winston,make your mind up,people are suffering.

  30. cleangreen 30

    We need to also ask what are the greens doing here?

    Aren’t they also finishing their bag of goodies too?

    If you National trolls want to bag NZF how about the other left wing parties to please as you are showing your strong Anti labour coalition bias.

  31. Cinny 31

    Here we go………

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    3 weeks ago