What kind of government would National lead?

Written By: - Date published: 12:45 pm, September 8th, 2014 - 112 comments
Categories: act, colin craig, conservative party, election 2014, john key, maori party, MMP, national, nz first, peter dunne, united future - Tags: , , , , , ,

The choice for NZ voters is becoming clearer in the last days of the 2014 election. The irony is that after John Key’s persistent scaremongering about the “five-headed monster” of the centre-left, the two most likely options we have are a three-headed coalition of natural allies versus a five-or-six headed hydra of extremists and sworn enemies.

David Cunliffe has signalled today that he only sees three parties around the Cabinet table in his government: Labour, the Greens, and NZ First. All three parties have a good number of policies set out, with obvious overlaps – there are clear differences of opinion, but coming to a mature compromise is a key part of how MMP is meant to work.

Meanwhile, John Key has been forced into opening the door to Colin Craig’s Conservative Party thanks to the abysmal polling of his preferred ally, ACT.

Colin Craig is talking a softer game as he sees his poll results edge closer and closer to the magical 5% threshold. But neither he nor Jamie Whyte are men built to compromise their passionately-held extremist beliefs. So what will each of them demand?

Is Colin going to get binding referenda? Or the abolition of parole? Or a curfew for the “most promiscuous” young women in the world?

Is Jamie going to get his wish of scrapping the RMA and OIO so overseas investors can buy up our land and poison our rivers, or abolishing all school zones except the one around Auckland Boys’ Grammar (and all building regulations except the ones that keep Epsom leafy)?

And how can any of this possibly be workable with middle-of-the-road Peter Dunne (if he wins Ōhāriu, and that’s not guaranteed), with “not crazy”-conservative Winston Peters (who can’t stand Whyte or Craig) and with the Māori Party (who may have a thing or two to say about ACT and Craig’s anti-Treaty ways)?

If NZ First and the Conservatives both get over 5%, it’s going to be impossible for National to get its long-dreamed-of governing-alone 50%. They’d have to pull together four or five coalition partners who hate each other, and their closest ideological friends are frankly bizarre.

As that becomes clearer it’s got to be a huge turn-off for the moderate voters who have bulked out National’s support for the past six years – and a Labour-Green-Winston coalition is looking rock-solid-stable in comparison.

112 comments on “What kind of government would National lead? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    8 September 2014 at 1:00 pm

    “Is Jamie going to get his wish of scrapping the RMA and OIO so overseas investors can buy up our land and poison our rivers, or abolishing all school zones except the one around Auckland Boys’ Grammar (and all building regulations except the ones that keep Epsom leafy)?”

    This morning on the radio, Jamie said his number one policy was to drop the corporate tax rate from 28% to 12.5% and that’s what he’d push for.

    • Tracey 1.1
      8 September 2014 at 2:22 pm

      Which will amount to tax cuts for those current earners running companies, wont it? Cos currently people try to reduce company profit to avoid tax but this would meanmaximise profit, pay company tax and declare it out to shareholders/directors?

      I dont pretend to know the accuracy of my statement so please jump in.

      • jpwood 1.1.1
        9 September 2014 at 6:57 am

        Ironically lowering the corporate tax rate is one of those ‘perverse regulatory incentives’ so loathed by actual libertarians. A corporate tax rate at 12.5 per cent and with a top personal tax rate at 33 per cent means that it is more tax efficient to keep the revenue of the company as retained earnings rather than paying them out in dividends. Long term this means that more funds are locked away in companies doing not very much instead of being paid out and circulating than would have otherwise been.

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1
          9 September 2014 at 4:29 pm

          Except it is the shareholders who really decide this not the company and there are not many people who will be happy for their own money being locked up for years without returns.

    • aerobubble 1.2
      8 September 2014 at 2:23 pm

      Whyte will not get into parliament. Seymour is a novice, like Colin, Key will walk all over them. Be assured whatever right wing policy the unknowns invent (aka chater schools) it’ll be Key who wants them. I don’t know how National voters could wakeup to a Crusher less Key government with the Authoritarian Colins and the complete unknown without any history, each with a list of baubles. Banks and Dunne were both on the Intelligence committee, one is now going community service and the other may have leaked state secrets. Its just astonishing that’s Key’s next cabinet.

  2. Mark 2
    8 September 2014 at 1:04 pm

    Your scenario is fanciful at best.

    Labour Green and NZ First combined don’t get near to 50% based on the last ten polls. Labour mathematically cannot govern the country without at least 4 other parties (Grn, NZF, Internet, Mana).

    National is contrast would only require: NZF OR the Cons to get across the line.

    You’re article is seems flawed as it seems to state that National would need BOTH NZF and the Conservatives to govern.

    Yet the poll of polls average compile by Colin James has National on 50 percent. Even if they fall to 45%, they would only require one coalition partner, not 4.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 2.1
      8 September 2014 at 1:23 pm

      Colin James’ poll of polls only averages the last 4 published polls and makes no allowance for the documented over-estimation of National’s support.

      National has had a strategy of getting agreements with more parties than it needs to in order to not give any one coalition partner too much power – hence why they had the Maori Party at the table despite not needing their votes if UF and ACT were on side. That’s why they won’t just negotiate with either NZF or Conservatives.

      As for “Labour cannot mathematically govern”, you seem to have forgotten that we haven’t held an election yet. The polls aren’t brilliant but they also aren’t votes.

      • Mark 2.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 1:56 pm

        The poll’s historically get Labour’s support about right though, and currently Labour based on a consensus estimate of MANY polls is at circa 25%. To deny this is what the public level of support that Labour has, is akin to denying reality

        Also even if National pull in both the Cons and NZF, without needing their votes it would suggest a lack of leverage on one of those parties part. They won’t be in a position to start making lofty demands. The 5% of extra support National would need (assuming they get 45%) could come from a whole range of parties (2 seats from Maori, 2 from ACT/UF, 5 from the Cons, 7 from Winston etc.

        Given Labour can’t form a government on current polls (no path to 50%), the minor parties leverage vis-a-vis National is further eroded.

        We haven’t had an election, thats true but yet Labour is trending downwards in almost every statistical poll taken by different agencies. You aren’t seriously suggesting that all the polling companies are biased and trying to bring down Labour are you?

        You can’t govern the country with any sort of stability at that level. It doesn’t matter if it’s Labour or National who poll 25% – its just too low

        [Stephanie: Please don’t make up stuff nobody has written. Accusing authors of “suggesting all the polling companies are trying to bring down Labour” is trolling behaviour.]

        • You_Fool 2.1.1.1
          8 September 2014 at 2:25 pm

          Personally I like to temper the polls by looking at http://www.electionresults.co.nz/ which is based off ipredict, which shows what the rich political people think will happen – you know the group who are normally biased towards Nat/Act.

          http://www.electionresults.co.nz/ doesn’t have a path to a Nat lead government without Winston and at least a 2 seats from Conservatives/Act/UF/Maori. We know Winston hates Crazy Colin Craig, so we can assume he will ensure his demands will include the CCCP not being near the levers of power – but how much will this mean that CCC will throw a tantrum and refuse to give C&S to a Winston-First based government? Yes it will mean back to the polls and probably a hammering of CCCP but that would require CCC to be capable of rational thought. So 2 from ACT/Maori/UF – high likely of getting Maori/UF on board and assume ACT will be extra for National, as they can exclude them but pick up a policy or 2 for C&S and not have Jamie Whyte go insane – but you still have a 4 headed monster in Nat/NZF/UF/MP (+ACT for 5 heads if John Key continues his >50% governments)- and you can be dammed sure that Winston will be his most abrasive best in that relationship

          Or Winston First could form a minority government with Lab/Green with Mana providing C&S – You can assume that MP & UF will want in on the deal too, so a 3 headed monster with 3 others as tag alongs. Mana can probably be keep somewhat quiet by some commissions into poverty (a good thing to do anyway) and enact the recommendations

          There are more crazies in the rights corner, whilst the left can take the more level headed of the right bloc to shore up their government and keep the ‘crazier’ of the left parties away from the levers of power.

          • Foreign Waka 2.1.1.1.1
            8 September 2014 at 5:28 pm

            Mr Peters will either get into a coalition with National or be independent by vote of supply and confidence. He is not at the least left leaning. Mr Key on the other hand will rather have Mr Colin’s as his partner if the votes allow this as he could mold this party to his liking. Very simple, very transparent really. Unfortunately, Labors time has not yet come. There is not much of memory left in terms of an understanding of equality, fair income and decent living standard. An entire different population mix seems to assist with this due to cultural constrains. This in turn plays very well into the Nats hands. The younger generation, feeling more and more hard done by will see rescue in conservative values so that some “order” is maintained. Kids like that, with that I mean order food routine etc. And on the sidelines are the middle aged not knowing how to steer all of this into some humanitarian form of society. The next 10 years will be interesting indeed.

        • Tracey 2.1.1.2
          8 September 2014 at 2:25 pm

          I think historically l they under guess labours support by about 3% and overstate national by 3-5%. Overstate greens by about 1%.

        • Tracey 2.1.1.3
          8 September 2014 at 2:29 pm

          ACT has wagged the dog in relation to its voter catchment. To suggest otherwise is obtuse.

          ACT brings a history of a third of its MPs either convicted of deceit and fraud or otherwise tainted. The backers of ACT remain the same. Funny no one cares about that worrying trend

      • Skinny 2.1.2
        8 September 2014 at 2:58 pm

        Given the choice plenty of people would prefer a Labour/Greens/NZF coalition government.

        For National it looks very ugly the prospect of Whyte-Act and in particular having to now consider the conservatives. Peters if he hasn’t already will scuttle that notion by ruling out any coalition arrangement with Craig. In effect a much stronger & continued attack of a vote for the conservatives is a wasted vote!

    • aerobubble 2.2
      8 September 2014 at 2:32 pm

      That’s just nonsense. Labour voters just don’t want to win. National come out and tell Epsom voters to not waste their vote, split their affiliations. Get an extra MP says Key, an ACT MP. Now everyone knows this goes on, Labour voters do. Should Labour voters party vote Green they’d immediately do what ACT does but over every seat in the country! That means an 130+ parliament, or more. Yet for some unfathomable reason Labour voters don’t want Key to be assigned to history. And no its not because they want National to use the same method, because it can only be done once, National will have to have separate list and constituent parties. The fall out will be that every single seat MP Dunne, Seymour, wont have the CLOUT they have now, as the fuel driving them will have been spent.

      Labour had Anderson/Progressive yet then they let Robinson run the back office and nobody told Shearer to find a Progressive replacement party. Worse. Having Dunne, ACT makes it very easy for big money to make new players that sit high up at them table. Colin, Seymour replacing Banks, with Dunne still there.

      So not only is it for the best to finally Party Vote Green its also will shift the politics back to the center and away from the far right of ACT, an Authoritarians like Dunne and Colins.

      Party Vote Green and watch Key thrown out. PArty vote Labour and listen to the ridicule of Cunliffe and Labour. Why would Labour voters want the hurt?

      • the pigman 2.2.1
        9 September 2014 at 2:05 am

        I’m sorry, you’re suggesting every Labour voter party vote Green and only electorate vote labour, and it’s the fault of Labour voters that Key is still in power?

        Hold on, let me compose myself, must-be-polite-to-a-fellow-lefty-and-all-that, now fuck off.

        If parties truly wanted to game the system as you suggest, they could register “electorate vote” and “party vote” wings (Electorate Party branches posting only electorate candidates and Party Party candidates not standing any electorate candidates).. it would invite huge criticism, create a huge overhang but ultimately I imagine all parties would do it.

        But aerobubble.. your logic is just so fuxxed!!!

        • aerobubble 2.2.1.1
          9 September 2014 at 1:41 pm

          I agree that if you want to vte Lab-Lab that you can. I find it hilarious that you would consider that I would come down the poll booth and force you to do otherwise. You language suggests you are that stupid, that a consideration of maximizing the efficiency of a system to push Key out…

          ..oh. wait, you are a troll. Nice try.

          • the pigman 2.2.1.1.1
            9 September 2014 at 3:12 pm

            “I find it hilarious that you would consider that I would come down the poll booth and force you to do otherwise.”

            [citation needed]

            Why not skip the patronising straw men and just apologise for your dumb-fuck arrogant “logic”?

            Telling labour party members/voters that they should party vote Green and that it’s because they haven’t that Key is still in power is a breathtakingly arrogant and inflammatory thing to say.

            • aerobubble 2.2.1.1.1.1
              10 September 2014 at 3:46 pm

              You get two votes. One seat, one Party. Now you know the parliament is 121? seats, where did the one come from? ACT. National told Epsom voters to payback double, vote differently in the seat and the party vote. And they then had an extra seat, one seat and Goff would have won.

              So its clear that telling people to vote Labour in both party and list isn’t efficient. Before Labour had the progressives, this countered the effect of ACT. But for some stupid reason the Labour party dropped the progressive party support. Hell how is it now arrogant and dirty to tell Labour voters to vote Anderton? Didn’t seem to mind before.

              So of course Labour won’t get any list MPs, but on current polling they won’t anyway. Why waste the party vote on Labour when it could cause Labour to gain government when they party vote Green. If you believe that’s arrogant, I counter, that its you who is being arrogant in choosing Key over the Greens because that’s what it looks like shaping up as the outcome.

              Who do want as PM, Key or Cunliffe? Party Vote Green adds Labour seats on top of the party distribution of seats. Voting Labour on the party means likely no list MPs on current polls.

              Why do you hate Labour so much?

  3. Pete Kane 3
    8 September 2014 at 1:09 pm

    And this is what could happen if we can’t short circuit the CP ( and as an aside if Winston is Key’s deputy he will have to defend – through collective responsibility – the indefensible).
    As I’ve already said it would be interesting to watch Peter Dunne serve as a Minister along side Ms Rankin (and Collin) when he inferred in several DomPost articles (not a partisan blog – and these were news stories not commentaries) that she was morally unfit to serve on the Families Commission (given the policies of the CP there is the H word after all ).
    Maybe not too pleasant but interested to see MSM comment, since in the past, they have.

    Interesting column,
    Pete
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2418008/Rankin-denies-affair
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2402725/Families-appointment-Rankin-surprised-by-reaction
    (Several others at Stuff) 4.5% for the conservatives = 40/50000 cheap votes for labour/Green block!

    • minarch 3.1
      8 September 2014 at 4:36 pm

      McAuley on prescription drugs

      By MICHAEL FOX – The Dominion Post | 3:27PM – Monday, 27 September 2010

      MARGO McAULEY was found dead by her former husband Kim McIntyre at their Miramar home on October 29, 2008. — ROSS GIBLIN/The Dominion Post.
      MARGO McAULEY was found dead by her former husband Kim McIntyre at their Miramar home on October 29, 2008.
      — ROSS GIBLIN/The Dominion Post.

      FORMER HIGH-PROFILE real estate agent Margo McAuley was stressed over the break up of her marriage and under the influence of prescription medication when she took her own life, a coroner has found.

      Ms McCauley, 43, was found dead by her former husband Kim McIntyre at their Nevay Road home in Miramar, Wellington on October 29 in 2008.

      Mr McIntyre had recently told Ms McCauley he was leaving her for someone else.

      The other woman was later publicly identified as former Work and Income boss and current Families Commissioner Christine Rankin.

      The publication of Ms Rankin’s name has previously been prohibited.

      In a report released today, Wellington regional coroner Ian Smith said Ms McCauley was under the influence of prescription medication Zopliclone and had a “dangerous level” of the drug in her system.

      The court was also given a series of eight notes written by Ms McCauley on a memo pad.

      She was also “very much under stress” from the breakdown of her marriage and from the belief her husband was leaving her to be with someone else.

      He also recommended that the Health Ministry and the Medicines Adverse Reaction Committee review the prescription of hypnotic medicines.

  4. infused 4
    8 September 2014 at 1:11 pm

    National would only have 3 as well.

    So stupid of Cunliffe to rule the Maori party out.

    • mickysavage 4.1
      8 September 2014 at 1:31 pm

      Why? Maori Party have never gone with Labour. It is best that voters appreciate that a party vote for the Maori Party is a party vote for National.

      • Mark 4.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 1:59 pm

        Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 redux for Labour.

        Why is Labour against an independent voice for Maori?

        The Maori Party has voted against National more often that for it. There’s more agreement with Labour than there is with National.

        It’s like Labour is being spiteful about the fact that the Maori party wants to ensure that the Maori voice is ALWAYS heard around the cabinet table – despite who is in govt

        • karol 4.1.1.1
          8 September 2014 at 2:02 pm

          Is debatable whether the Maori Party is an independent voice.

          Edit: See Patrick Gower’s twitter feed today.

        • Tracey 4.1.1.2
          8 September 2014 at 2:32 pm

          ACT wants to abolish maori seats, and colins crazis want to basically get rid of the treaty. Really stable govt that will give us if the MP are with them…

        • Tracey 4.1.1.3
          8 September 2014 at 2:34 pm

          “.The Maori Party has voted against National more often that for it. T.. ”

          Source please. You should be able to see total times they voted with nats and against from onlone available stats

        • weka 4.1.1.4
          8 September 2014 at 3:27 pm

          “It’s like Labour is being spiteful about the fact that the Maori party wants to ensure that the Maori voice is ALWAYS heard around the cabinet table – despite who is in govt”

          I wouldn’t call it spite, it’s just politics and the left wing perspective. Cunliffe has just sent a clear signal to both Māori seat voters and Māori party voters across the country, that if they want to get rid of National, voting for the Mp won’t do it. Smart IMO, although my preference is for all left wing parties to start working cooperatively rather than in the old FPP frame.

          I do agree that the non-Māori left don’t really get why the Mp have positioned themselves to work with whoever is in power. However, there is always MANA for an independent Māori voice.

          • Lanthanide 4.1.1.4.1
            8 September 2014 at 4:46 pm

            “always MANA for an independent Māori voice.”

            The whole “independent Maori voice” talking-point is cropping up now precisely because of the Mana-Internet alliance.

          • Tracey 4.1.1.4.2
            8 September 2014 at 5:36 pm

            And hasnt ruled out them being outside cabinet as they are now BUT MP presidents retort has been pretty damning

        • millsy 4.1.1.5
          8 September 2014 at 8:15 pm

          If the Foreshore and Seabed law had not been passed, the Kiwi tradition of a day at the beach would have been snuffed out by lunchtime, and every beach and river in this great nation of ours would have been locked up.

          And Cunliffe is right to snub the Maori Party. They are in the business of shafting their own people and creating a tribal aristocracy.

          They want to privatise health, education and welfare and kick their OWN people out of state housing.

          They get fucked for all I care.

        • Sebastian 4.1.1.6
          11 September 2014 at 4:01 pm

          Cunliffe just doesn’t want to lose Labour votes to the Maori party who might go wit National again so he’s asking Maori to give their votes to Labour if they want a change of govt.

      • Enough is Enough 4.1.2
        8 September 2014 at 2:48 pm

        But the Maori Party has said they will go with Labour.

        Why are we ruling a party out that has demonstrated they can be a reliable source of support for the governing party?

        Especially considering the difficulties we are going to have getting to 61 votes in the first place.

        Does Cunliffe have any advisers?

        • karol 4.1.2.1
          8 September 2014 at 2:53 pm

          Labour must be pretty certain, either that the Maori Party would not go with Labour, or that they won’t need the Maori Party to govern.

          • Enough is Enough 4.1.2.1.1
            8 September 2014 at 3:35 pm

            The Maori Party wants to be at the table. That is their position. They won’t pick sides, they will simply try and get concessions for their people from whichever side is in government.

            On just about every analysis Labour is struggling to find the numbers to lead a government. The likelihood is they will need confidence and supply from more than just two parties. Confidence and supply does not come for free.

            • word 4.1.2.1.1.1
              9 September 2014 at 1:48 am

              @Enough. The Maori Party will pick sides and it will be national.
              I’m extremely pleased with David Cunliffe’s stance, he is right, a vote for the Maori Party, is a vote for national.

          • Sebastian 4.1.2.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 4:03 pm

            Because NZfirst will have a much higher percentage and Cunliffe is trying to appeal to Winston.

        • Puckish Rogue 4.1.2.2
          8 September 2014 at 4:20 pm

          Winstonfirst said he didn’t want to deal with any race-based parties, mind you hes also not keen on the Greens either

      • Foreign Waka 4.1.3
        8 September 2014 at 5:32 pm

        Always have and always will. Tribal policies work best with Nats.

      • word 4.1.4
        9 September 2014 at 1:44 am

        +1 MS.

    • Skinny 4.2
      9 September 2014 at 7:05 am

      No in effect he is choking their support. I think the Tory Maori supporters are the only ones sticking with them.

  5. Ad 5
    8 September 2014 at 1:18 pm

    Good work Stephanie.
    Exactly the right kind of messaging for right now.

  6. Puckish Rogue 6
    8 September 2014 at 1:23 pm

    The curia poll of polls has Labour/Greens/NZFirst on 45% whereas the same poll has National/NZFirst on 54%

  7. aerobubble 7
    8 September 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Maori party will not work with Conservatives. Binding referendum means a return of the death penalty, an end to Maori seats, and even an official violence to kids day, every day. No Maori MP would want to see innocent Maori going to the gallows, which is what happens in America, innocent Black fitted up…

    • Foreign Waka 7.1
      8 September 2014 at 5:34 pm

      Binding referendum says it all. Do you belief that the majority of NZlanders want what you suggest?

      • aerobubble 7.1.1
        9 September 2014 at 1:42 pm

        I’m not suggesting binding referendum.

        • Foreign Waka 7.1.1.1
          10 September 2014 at 5:04 pm

          What I referred to was your assertion that “binding referendum means a returns of death penalty etc..” and my comment implied that I trust the average NZlander to have enough common sense. The Swiss have a similar system and it needs a high proportion of votes to validate. They call it direct democracy. Two things that have not entered the discussion as yet: 1/ Multiple choice, people do need be reminded that there are choices. 2/ These referendums are only held with elections, general or local. This means no money is wasted. It may even increase voter turnout.

  8. Halcyon 8
    8 September 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Surely the question should be “what kind of government will Labour lead?” In one statement David Cunliffe made it clear that he would not consider Mana-Internet as a partner. The latest news article suggests he will not rule out Mana-Internet. This is a concern. Are the media just string strife? Or is David becoming anxious? He needs to clearly spell out his bottom line or he will lose votes.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 8.1
      8 September 2014 at 3:06 pm

      Rubbish. David Cunliffe’s statements on Internet-Mana have always been that he would consider a confidence and supply arrangement with them but would not have them at the Cabinet table.

    • aerobubble 8.2
      8 September 2014 at 3:15 pm

      John Key worked in Australia, UK, US, where they have a CGT. So when Key debated with Cunliffe over a CGT, that it didn’t work, that it would be a mess, Cunliffe could easy have expose Key as lying, by saying how quickly he forgot paying a CGT and it wasn’t that hard was it currency broker Mr Key. Or Culliffe could have quipped that it works itn Australia, what has Key got against matching our tax system to Australia.
      But no Cunliffe quickly when back to form, as an accomplish politician he kept on measure and tripped up. As he has been since the start. And he means to continue, because low expectations are essential, Cunliffe knows the housing bubble has got to crash, if he wins he knows he needs a lot of leeway should he become PM. Secondly the fact that wealth can buy easily a Dunne, Seymour, Colins one seat MP, that will drive the government to the right, harming Labour voters, there is a very real chance, to turn off Labour voters so much that they still win constituent seats but their voters party vote Green, as the Greens have all the same policies and Norman is much more reliable. Now when you do the maths, that National gets one extra seat when ACT, or Dunne, gets over the line, for free. Then its not hard to realize that every extra Green party vote gets immediately translated to an MP, but not every Labour party vote that must first get every constituency MP first before the list gets activated.

      This could easily see the parliament getting 130+ seats, and Labour+Green government. But this would only happen if Labour voters desperately wanted Key gone and are willing to party vote Green in numbers.

      So Cunliffe wins which ever way, if he wins he wins, if he loses he wins since the economy is going south and Key is accident prone, injured and has many open wounds.

      Cunliffe did not accidentally let Key get a knock out on CGT, it what knocked Goff out and lead to Goff nearly getting elected, only 10,000 votes in it. Why, because Green voters vote Labour in the constituent seats, and Labour voters are being to wakeup to the fact too. Party vote Green and win, and also undermine the bonus that Dunne and Seymour get as single MPs, the benefit will disappear once Labour voters use their vote efficiently.

      Ask why Labour voters dont want to win government, Epsom voters want to, they vote ACT. All Labour voters need do is PARTY VOTE GREEN in numbers.

      • Foreign Waka 8.2.1
        8 September 2014 at 5:38 pm

        I belief it is simpler that that- its the land/farm owners who veto this and most likely make a strong stance with their funds to the election coffers. Another point for doing away with bribes, oops election funding outside government funds. Don’t forget 80:20 rule is king in NZ.

      • wocktu 8.2.2
        8 September 2014 at 8:57 pm

        Fuck off with your party vote green. The more party votes Labour gets the more list members we get into Parliament. You lot can skive on the fringes because you are too lazy arsed to do the mahi. We work all year long doing deliveries, fundraisers and door knocking in our electorates. The last thing I want to hear is some prick come along and undermine all our work. So fuck off and put in the time like the rest of us sorry arses who actually care about our party……..

        • Colonial Viper 8.2.2.1
          8 September 2014 at 9:01 pm

          Your comment indicates that no level of Labour operative understands that Labour is now in an MMP environment. The weaker, more middle of the road and more disconnected that Labour get to ordinary Kiwi attitudes, the less popular it will become. Don’t blame the Greens or anyone else for capitalising on the opening.

        • mickysavage 8.2.2.2
          8 September 2014 at 9:41 pm

          wocktu is not speaking for the Labour Party and is not speaking like any Labour activist that I know.

        • karol 8.2.2.3
          8 September 2014 at 9:53 pm

          You don’t think Green Party people have been working their arses off for the party vote and for the party?

          What planet are you living on?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3
      8 September 2014 at 10:49 pm

      You’re *concerned*, Halcyon? As well as presenting as an authoritarian dimbulb? Please accept my sympathy.

      I live in hope that one day medical science will find a cure for distended amygdala syndrome.

    • Sebastian 8.4
      11 September 2014 at 4:04 pm

      Cunliffe is counting on Internet Mana for confidence and supply but won’t go into government with them. He’s saying that to get his more conservative voters to go with him because they are scared of IMP.

  9. Tom Jackson 9
    8 September 2014 at 3:08 pm

    ooohhh oohhh Miss, I know… pick me…

    A shitty one.

  10. aerobubble 10
    8 September 2014 at 3:21 pm

    Murder rate jumped under neo-liberalism

    In the last month it jumped by two.

    Under National, over a hundred died in poorly regulated offices, mines and forests.

    What will another three years of National bring?

    Why is McVicar silent, do the victims of bad government policies mean nothing to him?

    • Halcyon 10.1
      8 September 2014 at 4:04 pm

      This raises an interesting point aero. Current Health and Safety legislation holds companies liable for the actions of their employees. If Labour forms a government with the Greens and Mana-Internet it is highly likely cannabis will become legalised. If a worker is under the influence of dak, and has an accident that causes injury to another worker, will the company still be held responsible?

      Will companies still be able to ask for drug tests?

      • Molly 10.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 4:24 pm

        Alcohol is legal – and companies can test for alcohol if their policies or work practices indicate it.

        It is standard procedure in my partner’s workplace to test for drug and alcohol after any workplace incidents. (They work with heavy machinery and plant, and usually have a 99% pass rate, but it puts in place a good expectation for employees and employer, and keeps a comprehensive record for OSH to view if any audits need to be done.)

      • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2
        8 September 2014 at 4:25 pm

        “…highly likely…”

        Sorry to burst your bubble, Labour are opposed and it’s approximately nowhere on the Greens’ list of priorities.

        Hide your disappointment in a cloud of smoke.

        • Halcyon 10.1.2.1
          8 September 2014 at 5:21 pm

          Thanks One, that is good to hear. Actually I am not disappointed. If it is not on the Green’s list of priorities then it won’t happen. David has stated that Mana-Internet won’t be past of any government he forms. And I trust David.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2.1.1
            8 September 2014 at 5:31 pm

            Mind you, if National are returned and ratify the TPP, we’ll all get sued by Colorado weed vendors.

            PS: “I trust David” – be careful you don’t get mistaken for an authoritarian follower: with an attitude like that I think you’d be happier voting National. Funny, that would also involve you commenting in bad faith.

      • Tracey 10.1.3
        8 September 2014 at 5:27 pm

        Surely there has already been such an accident. Do a search of dol site

      • millsy 10.1.4
        8 September 2014 at 8:55 pm

        Personally I think drug tests are a big intrusion into workers lives, and all it does is have workers fear for their jobs..

        • aerobubble 10.1.4.1
          9 September 2014 at 1:50 pm

          Workers fear for there job and that’s wrong. Good employers don’t want the cost of finding replacement staff, and no good manager would want criminals to dose their staff to get them sacked. So please, remember why we have a legal system of checks and balances, where both sides get to argue. Its would be completely dumb for a company to sack workers because they had been found with drugs or alcohol in their blood, as it would reward people to drug others. We do have a problem with drugs in drinks, rape. Now sure there are dumb managers, and even dumber National party MPs, and totally looney SST, but realistically it will all work out in the wash.

          • aerobubble 10.1.4.1.1
            9 September 2014 at 1:52 pm

            Anyway, if the worker is stupid enough to admit the drugs, drinking, etc, or have to actually have done the crime so to speak, are you arguing that you kids bus driver shouldn’t be sacked?

          • Halcyon 10.1.4.1.2
            9 September 2014 at 10:14 pm

            There is good medical evidence that drugs can interfere with cognitive processing. If I am working around heavy machinery I would hate to know the guy driving it was on the dam the night before. It is a matter of health and safety.

            Large strides have been made is improving workplace health and safety. Companies and managers can be prosecuted if the actions of an employee harms another person. All, the more reason to keep work places free of drugs.

  11. The Real Matthew 11
    8 September 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Nice Try

    Would be a National/Conservative or National/NZ First coalition with the hangers on not required to get a majority

    • Stephanie Rodgers 11.1
      8 September 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Except that’s not how National have behaved in the past, as I commented above. They won’t want to be beholden to just one coalition partner.

      • The Real Matthew 11.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 6:15 pm

        Correct.

        Policy would be advanced as parliament allows. For instance a National/Conservative confidence and supply coalition may also see National/NZ First/United Future work together on a superannuation issue they all agree with.

    • Tracey 11.2
      8 September 2014 at 5:35 pm

      Makes you wonder why they have told epsom to vote for seymour, and ohariu to vote for dunne. Cant have got your memo

  12. Reddelusion 12
    8 September 2014 at 6:15 pm

    The crux is that national will dominate any coalition, thus you can safely assume what you will get, irrespective if this is not every bodies cup of tea. labour unfortunately for the left will not dominate any coalition to any such degree.

    This to the voting public means uncertainty and risk. As with investment risk the voting public will only accept more risk for a higher return. labour policies while large in number are not seen by the voting public as compensation for the increased uncertainty of the make up and balance of power of any left coalition.

    The above is the reason for Cunliffs desperate ditching of the Maori party, to increase certainty. This will not work, the Maori party are not the problem, the Greens and IMP are and will continue to be until labour can get to 40pc or the greens focus on green policy and let labour control the message on social and economic policy. labour at the same time needs to move away from identity politic ( man bans, rainbow coalitions, etc) Free advice for 2017!

    • Hanswurst 12.1
      8 September 2014 at 7:26 pm

      “Identity politics” is a beat-up. Labour’s flagship policies are on CGT, building houses, raising the minimum wage, education, child welfare, regional development, public transport — issues like that.

      Point to an “identity politics” issue that has received the same emphasis from Labour (as opposed to the media) as even one of the issues in my first sentence. Then try to find seven of them. Labour rightly takes issues of fairness and equal opportunity for different social and cultural groups seriously, but not to the exclusion of other issues.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2
      8 September 2014 at 7:40 pm

      Gosh, a right wing smear-merchant who’s all ‘concerned’ about the NZLP.

      I wonder if these tossers realise how transparent they are, or whether they’re too stupid right wing to notice.

    • Halcyon 12.3
      8 September 2014 at 8:53 pm

      I agree, it is the “mana-add on” that will be the undoing of Labour. I would rather see Labour go with NZ First than rely on the Schmitt funded party.

      • Colonial Viper 12.3.1
        8 September 2014 at 8:57 pm

        You prefer the Talley’s, BMW and Westpac funded party then?

        • tricledrown 12.3.1.1
          9 September 2014 at 12:37 am

          CV you forgot tobacco alcohol sugar and transfat lobby funders of National!

          • Halcyon 12.3.1.1.1
            9 September 2014 at 8:08 am

            As I stated before, I would rather see Labour go with NZ First and not Mana et. al. But yes, I believe that even National would do less damage to the future of our country than the Schmitt funded party. I can see it now – NZ a republic with President Kim Schmitt at the helm.

  13. Reddelusion 13
    8 September 2014 at 8:05 pm

    Not trying to hide one anonymous bloke, your response is testament to when reality challenges belief

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      8 September 2014 at 8:10 pm

      Yeah yeah, you want the Labour Party to change to suit the values you pay lip service to, yada yada. You and the other right wing concern tr*lls all blend into one after a while.

      Rote-learned smears. Pathetic.

      • Halcyon 13.1.1
        9 September 2014 at 10:22 pm

        It is not a matter of wanting Labour to change to suit my values. It is a case of working out who should get my votes. Rather than just vote Labour because I have always voted Labour some of us actually explore the policies of the Parties and vote for the party we think will do the best job for the country.

        Therefore my comments about the direction Labour is going gives Labour an idea of what I am looking for in a government. They have the choice to accept or reject my vote. Just like they will be negotiating with the Greens and/or NZ First when it comes to forming a government.

        • McFlock 13.1.1.1
          9 September 2014 at 10:40 pm

          lol
          but you’re not exploring party policies.

          At best you ask a contrived question that anyone genuinely interested would answer by searching the respective party’s website for ten seconds, or merely engaging a fully armed and operational brain.

          FFS, look at your idiotic comment about stoned workers – the issue is already covered regardless of the legal status of marijuana. And the bullshit query you had about the capgains tax – a topic which I have no knowledge on or even particular give a shit about, yet still found it via the revolutionary path of reading the fucking policy.

          Meanwhile, what concerns do you have about national’s maybe-$10-maybe-in-a-few-years-maybe-tax-cut? Have you made the tiniest peep about that piece of bumfodder?
          FFS

  14. Reddelusion 14
    8 September 2014 at 8:18 pm

    I do agree identity politics is not the major issue but it is fertile ground for labours opponents

    I will however stand by the rest of my argument in respect that a left coalition is seen as much more uncertain and therefore riskier than a right coalition by the voting public. This is the reason dirty politics, labours policy etc is not getting purchase This is why national can get away with simply the status quo. the weakness of labour is the underlying issue. national is not labours problem, the fragmentation of the left is

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1
      8 September 2014 at 8:22 pm

      Yeah, uncertainty comes from knowing that if you fall foul of a narrow coterie within the National Party they’ll do their best to ruin your life, business interests, whatever they can get their filthy hands on, and the best thing is: they don’t even stay bought!

      You’re delusional if you think there’s any certainty in vice and corruption.

  15. deWithiel 15
    8 September 2014 at 8:27 pm

    I recall an assembly at Auckland Grammar in, I think, 1972 where Henry Cooper, the then headmaster, declared ‘There is no such thing as Auckland Boys’ Grammar School; it’s the Auckland Grammar School’. Pedant’s corner and for all that he was an horrible man, he was right but, being an out of zone former pupil, I’d probably say that, wouldn’t I?

  16. Reddelusion 16
    8 September 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Over exaggeration and slogans are not debate A government that spends 10s of billions on healthcare, welfare, education every year, borrowed during the GFC to protect the vulnerable and support Christchurch while also ensuring the liquidity of financial system hardly lines up with your extreme view.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      8 September 2014 at 8:53 pm

      What’s extreme about the view? You’ve simply become well adjusted to hunger, poverty, unemployment and desperation amongst Kiwis.

  17. Reddelusion 17
    8 September 2014 at 9:29 pm

    More slogans, the tired old attack line “you disagree therefore you don’t care” Last time I looked nz was hardly the bastion of right wing economics with no welfare net. I agree there is poverty in nz, its reasons are however very complex. The solution is not simply throwing good money after bad. Likewise where is the point of personal responsibility and state responsibility. There are alway going to be relative poor it is simply a mathematical truth. I think Churchill said the trouble with capitalism is it’ gives you rich people and income inequality however it is lesser evil of socialism that simply makes every one poor

    • millsy 17.1
      8 September 2014 at 9:49 pm

      Do you want to scrap state housing
      Do you think wages are too high
      Do you think workers should be stripped of smoko breaks
      Do you admire the US health system
      Do you think unions should be banned
      Do you think homosexuality should be recriminalised?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2
      8 September 2014 at 10:39 pm

      I note your failure to address the substantive issue that corruption – in this specific case the National Party’s corruption – destroys wealth, and that’s before we even get to the fact that wage growth rates and per capita gdp fall on their watch, every single time they sleaze their corrupt way into government.

  18. Reddelusion 18
    8 September 2014 at 10:21 pm

    Answers to Milsy questions

    State housing, no but competing models side by side would make it more efficient

    minimum wage is reasonable,unfortunately you can’t artificially set wages, eventually there is a tipping point

    Smoko breaks, no, but workers should have flexibility and be compensated if they don’t take their break in dollars or in kind

    US health system delivers the best healthcare but ineffiiciently and unfairly, I am for comprehensive social Heath insurance model side by side with competing private models, this drives competition, innovation and efficiency

    unions have their place, no issue with them, albeit I sometimes believe they operate in their self interests over their members interests

    Homosexuality, live and let live

    This is where it all gets a bit silly when irrationality triumphs reason and those of more extreme persuasion try to portray national or all those of right persuasion wanting as such outlined by Milsy,

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1
      8 September 2014 at 10:53 pm

      Multiple citations needed for faith-based assertions. Polly wanna cracker?

    • Colonial Viper 18.2
      8 September 2014 at 11:23 pm

      minimum wage is reasonable,unfortunately you can’t artificially set wages, eventually there is a tipping point

      Of course you can artificially set wages, what are you talking about? NZ has done it for a century.

      US health system delivers the best healthcare but ineffiiciently and unfairly, I am for comprehensive social Heath insurance model side by side with competing private models, this drives competition, innovation and efficiency

      The health insurance model is a total and utter failure. Competition is inherently a poorer and much more wasteful model than co-operation. It never beats the full public health model. Please name three countries in the world where the bullshit USA-styled health insurance model has yielded better health results than NZ already has.