Why Labour may form the next Government

Written By: - Date published: 8:39 am, October 8th, 2017 - 173 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, jacinda ardern, journalism, labour, national, newspapers, nz first, same old national, winston peters - Tags:

I must admit thinking on election night that it was all over.  Despite a tremendous surge thanks to an outstanding campaign by Jacinda Ardern it seemed that Labour ended up short of the necessary votes.

Basic math shows that Labour and the Greens were then on 52 seats and National was on 58.  So a L-G-NZF coalition could make it to the magical figure of 61 but only just and with no wriggle room.  But there were the specials to count and they could cause a dramatic change.

And they have.  A comfortable buffer for the right is now wafer thin.  And a Labour-Green-NZ First Government is a viable prospect.

The distribution of the special votes is interesting. Overall Labour performed much better than National, evidence that Jacindamania was a real thing.  Young people were enrolling late and voting.  And in large numbers for Labour.

The change was disproportionate in the upper North Island.

Following is my table setting out the size of the swing (change in the proportion of the vote in percentage points) in different geographical areas on election night and after special votes had been counted.  Nationwide the vote changed by 11.8% points.

In Auckland South and West the change was most pronounced although overall the swing was still low.  Labour needs to have a good think about what happened here although thankfully in New Lynn and Te Atatu Labour won the party vote for the first time in a long time.

Election night Final Result Change
Auckland South 3.7% 5.8% 2.10%
Auckland West 7.4% 9.0% 1.60%
Waikato 9.5% 10.8% 1.30%
Auckland Istmus 9.9% 10.9% 1.00%
Auckland North 10.3% 11.0% 0.70%
Central North Island 10.5% 11.4% 0.90%
Wellington 11.3% 12.4% 1.10%
Canterbury rural 11.8% 12.0% 0.20%
Northland 12.2% 13.5% 1.30%
South Island rural 12.3% 12.6% 0.30%
Christchurch 13.7% 14.1% 0.40%
Dunedin 15.2% 15.4% 0.20%
Maori 18.5% 18.6% 0.10%

Some of the commentary on the regional results has been interesting.  Right wing pundit Jenna Raeburn thought that in the provinces National’s support was solid.  If you look at the table however the provinces were where significant change was achieved.

And now the coalition negotiations can start in earnest.  Some on the right are complaining that it is taking too long.  But the importance of Government means that this decision should take as long as is required.

There are four reasons why a change of Government is looking more and more likely.

First up the policy overlap between Labour and New Zealand First is significant.  In policy terms the parties are way closer than National and New Zealand First is.

Secondly most New Zealand First voters and supporters prefer a coalition with Labour.

Thirdly the National-New Zealand First relationship has so much baggage.  Winston has been subject to a decade of attacks by National, the release of his superannuation details being but the latest example.  It does not matter how many people National throw under the bus this will contaminate any good will that New Zealand First may have for National.

Finally if Winston is looking for his place in history backing up a last term National Government is not the way to achieve this.

The media is coming around.  Audrey Young thinks that Labour is the more likely choice for Peters because of “greater policy overlap, a more equal partnership with both being new parties of government, inherently less cause for conflict and inherently less cause for the public to tire of you”.  Barry Soper has realised that the so called “moral mandate” does not exist in an MMP system.

Some media voices are not so convinced.  Stacey Kirk in Stuff thinks that the specials result changes nothing.  Ok …

Rodney Hide thinks (if that is the correct word) that we have somehow lost our democracy and it is a travesty that we did not know who won on election.  All I can say is “what the”.  It is apparently Rodney’s last column for the Herald.  Hopefully they will do something radical and get a progressive voice to replace him.

The next week will be fascinating.  And at the end of the negotiations we may have a new progressive Government leading our country.

173 comments on “Why Labour may form the next Government”

  1. Sparky 1

    Yes Labour may win out but it depends in a big way on their willingness to compromise with NZF. All this takes me back to the first or was it second MMP election?

    • CoroDale 1.1

      For labour it’s easy, with little policy detail, they can adopt most of what NZF suggest. Perfect, as Greens rubber stamp, and NZF offer sens-able green visions, job makers for transition.
      “Hide thinks (if that is the correct word)”, haha, yes and Cullen (among twilight vampires) will have to man-up and study some Keens on macro-economics, as modern monetary theory will fit all three parties.

      • Pat 1.1.1

        “MMT does point out, however, that debt denominated in a foreign currency certainly is a fiscal risk to governments, since the indebted government cannot create foreign currency. In this case the only way the government can sustainably repay its foreign debt is to ensure that its currency is continually and highly demanded by foreigners over the period that it wishes to repay the debt – an exchange rate collapse would potentially multiply the debt many times over asymptotically, making it impossible to repay. In that case, the government can default, or attempt to shift to an export-led strategy or raise interest rates to attract foreign investment in the currency. Either one has a negative effect on the economy.[21] Euro debt crises in the “PIIGS” countries that began in 2009 reflect this risk, since Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. have all issued debts in a quasi-“foreign currency” – the Euro, which they cannot create.”

        and…
        “NOTE: Some MMT economists view this distinction as misleading, regarding the currency area itself as a closed system, and do not differentiate between the external and domestic sectors. They view the world (closed system) split into several currency areas, not necessarily the size of a country.”

        In other words there is no mechanism within MMT to allow for inter currency trade…ipso facto, a closed economy. Thats fine if thats what you want but I doubt virtually anyone does when they start to consider the implications.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1

          My own thoughts on it:

          International Transfer
          NZ currency should never leave NZ. Same applies to every other currency.

          To then pay someone in another country you’d have to exchange some money for some of the other countries money and pay them with that. To do this you would get an account in the other countries banking system and the person that you’re buying from would get an account in your countries banking system. When you transfer local money into their account here then the computer transfers money from their account there to your account there. You’d then be able to transfer that money to the person you want to give money to.

          Done well this could actually be invisible to the person making the transfer.

          • Paul Campbell 1.1.1.1.1

            I think the problem is that when you borrow overseas someone has to take the currency risk – either the person loaning stuff of the person doing the borrowing, there’s no easy way to share the risk because you have to pick one currency to do the deal in

            It’s a scary thing to do – remember what happened to Muldoon, he secretly borrowed enormous amounts of money overseas to keep his government afloat … and when it became obvious he didn’t have a plan to pay it back the currency crashed meaning we owed more than twice as much making the whole situation far worse – our currency stayed in the toilet for almost 2 decades after that

            (I personally lost half my whole worldly goods thanks to that bastard as my savings were in NZ while I was starting to travel on my OE, by the time I got to the point where I could move my money I was screwed – I left NZ the day after Marilyn Waring crossed the floor and voted us nuclear free)

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Muldoon was idiot in how he funded stuff. The simple fact is that a government doesn’t need to borrow – it really can just create the money it needs.

              If that money created is for importation of stuff then the currency needs to adjust in relation to the trade weighting. If imports are greater than exports then the currency decreases against other currencies reducing the amount we can buy from offshore and likely to increase our exports. Vice versa applies as well.

              People either forget or have never known that the floating exchange rate is there to balance trade and actually prevent a country going too far into debt (and now you know why the Euro is waste of time).

            • KJT 1.1.1.1.1.2

              He did have a plan to pay it back. The next Government sold it at a fire sale, to their mates.

              Muldoon begged the incoming Government not to float the currency. He knew it would result in huge profits to speculators and loses to everyone else.

              Douglas and co, in their blind adherence to ideology, and perhaps the need to create a disaster, (Naomi Kline. Disaster Capitalism) to justify what they were going to do, went ahead anyway.

              • Paul Campbell

                You forget that the dollar crashed BEFORE the election had happened, Muldoon was still in power and had been caught lying to the NZ public when the head of the Reserve Bank went public with reality, I lost my money while travelling thru the islands to the US, by the time I voted in that election from San Francisco my money was already long gone, I got 50c on the dollar on what I’d worked hard to save

                • KJT

                  And guess which side the pundits who caused it to crash, were on.

                  I was no supporter of Muldoon, but he looks like a visionary for NZ, and an honest bloke, compared with our current bunch of thieves.

                  • Paul Campbell

                    To be fair I wasn’t here by then, and there was no internet back in those days, but as I understand it it was the head of the Reserve Bank coming out and telling the country that the Prime minister was telling porkies that did it – though it probably didn’t help that Muldoon had artificially fixed the exchange rate and no one wanted to buy NZ dollars at that price because to business people outside of NZ and Muldoon’s reality distortion envelope the dollar was too high because of all the borrowing

                    • KJT

                      In those days the exchange rate was fixed. the same as many other countries. Many of whom, were much more in debt than NZ.

                      The “markets” saw a coup coming, with the shameful complicity of NZ business people., if they could talk the dollar down, and change the Government..

                    • Paul Campbell

                      Having a fixed exchange rate where no one will buy your currency because they think it’s worth less than you do makes it useless, it means that imports into NZ dry up, worse than that because no one will sell you dollars or pounds at the rate at which you borrowed them when the time comes to pay them back whatever exchange rate you nominate is meaningless, you’re stuck

                    • Thinkerr

                      I might be rong, but hadn’t Douglas written a book or pamphlet outlining his vision if Labour won and it could be construed tthat a devaluation was on the cards?

                    • Pat

                      yep an anticipated 20% devaluation was ‘leaked’….but Muldoon was being pressured already to devalue by RBNZ due to borrowing in excess of ability to service which he refused to do….and so began the neolib experiment…would be interesting to know whether Muldoon would have been vindicated or whether we would have defaulted….well never know.

                • and remember his infamous words “There is nothing left I’ve
                  spent the lot”.

            • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.1.1.3

              The default risk is introduced as when a government borrows overseas it borrows in a currency issued by a central bank it doesn’t control. This introduces the possibility it will not be able to repay the debt. This highlights that a government which has borrowed in the currency of its own central bank carries no default risk (it will always be capable of repaying its debt). It has been said that governments borrow at the ‘risk free rate of return’ for this reason (though this term comes from an era when basics like currency sovereignty were well understood by economists).

          • Pat 1.1.1.1.2

            “To then pay someone in another country you’d have to exchange some money for some of the other countries money”

            Assume you mean from the NZ Gov (who controls all currency in your model and assuming they have it)…who then determine the validity of your import and determine whether the valuable foreign exchange is best used for this purchase and/or try to predict future requirements for said currency and award or not on that basis….sounds like a slow moving bureaucratic train wreck…even before we get to fluctuating exchange rates and variable export demand.
            It is in effect a return to foreign exchange controls and the reintroduction of import/ export licences…somewhat problematic in the age of the internet….tell me, will private web and app use be considered an appropriate use of valuable foreign exchange or will it only be available for business purposes?…or whats more important, that new turbine for the hydro station or 10 thousand new widescreen TVs….how about that new MRI machine?…bugger we need a shipment of tractor parts…and all decided by MBIE(or the like)?????

            https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/external-debt

            https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/balance-of-trade

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2.1

              (who controls all currency in your model and assuming they have it)

              It creates the currency and sets the exchange rate in relation to actual trade.

              who then determine the validity of your import and determine whether the valuable foreign exchange is best used for this purchase and/or try to predict future requirements for said currency and award or not on that basis

              That would be a lie.

              You see what you want to buy, you see the exchange rate, you purchase the currency you need and you purchase it. The government wouldn’t be involved at all as it would all be done on computers.

              It is in effect a return to foreign exchange controls and the reintroduction of import/ export licences…somewhat problematic in the age of the internet….tell me, will private web and app use be considered an appropriate use of valuable foreign exchange or will it only be available for business purposes?

              And there you go lying again.

              At no point have I described anything like that.

              • Pat

                no lies from me, they are questions…and no explanation from you as to how its determined what our foreign currency is used for….unless you wish to print that as well?

                • No, they weren’t questions – they were statements of ill intent.

                  It’s used for whatever people choose to use it for. That was fairly obvious from what I said.

                  • Pat

                    given that we have averaged an over 3 billion p/a negative trade balance since the 1970s you are seriously proposing we allow anyone to import anything at anytime until those funds are used ? so Audis ahead of Herceptin if someone so chooses

                    your statement…”To then pay someone in another country you’d have to exchange some money for some of the other countries money and pay them with that.”

                    From whom does one exchange some others currency with if not the NZ Government then?…Fonterra perhaps, or maybe Xero (though they are unlikely to want many NZD given their operation is largely offshore)

                    i also note that tourism is our largest foreign currency earner….and your model states the NZ gov controls all NZ currency….who is going to have the bulk of our Foreign currency?

                    • given that we have averaged an over 3 billion p/a negative trade balance since the 1970s you are seriously proposing we allow anyone to import anything at anytime until those funds are used ?

                      With such a trade imbalance our dollar should be so low that nobody could afford to import anything. That’s why the government doesn’t need to step in.

                      Of course, the flip side is that our dollar would be so low that our exports would be going really well and thus paying off those debts.

                      As I point out, the exchange rate is there to balance trade. Done properly a floating exchange rate would do that. But we haven’t been doing it properly instead letting the speculators and rentiers set the exchange rate and then patting ourselves on the back with it being so bloody high that we can afford to import stuff despite all the excess importation over the last few decades.

                      From whom does one exchange some others currency with if not the NZ Government then?

                      From whomever has some that they want to trade for NZ$ at the exchange rate. If there isn’t anybody then tough.

                      and your model states the NZ gov controls all NZ currency

                      No it doesn’t. In fact, it goes to quite an effort to prevent government control. All the money may be on government servers and the only money created is by the government but that’s not government control.

                      who is going to have the bulk of our Foreign currency?

                      Nobody because there won’t be any foreign currency in NZ.

                  • Pat

                    “No it doesn’t. In fact, it goes to quite an effort to prevent government control. All the money may be on government servers and the only money created is by the government but that’s not government control”

                    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzw1w_mGwiHfSWFsVkZBd1dfOTg/view

                    suggest you revisit you own document and sort out your position then

        • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.2

          MMT is a description of the actual way currency functions in the real world. Nothing needs to change about the existing mechanisms for MMT to apply to the economy. Of course we have inter currency trade today.

          • Pat 1.1.1.2.1

            well even the architects/proponents of MMT dont agree with you there nor do they agree with each other on how it can work inter currency…indeed it is designed for a closed economy.

            • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.2.1.1

              Your experiencing difficulties in reading comprehension. What you quoted is simply saying you might consider domestic and overseas currency users as one aggregate (even though the identity of the overseas users may change when they engage in forex transactions).

              • Pat

                “NOTE: Some MMT economists view this distinction as misleading, regarding the currency area itself as a closed system, and do not differentiate between the external and domestic sectors. They view the world (closed system) split into several currency areas, not necessarily the size of a country.”
                Using the same application of vertical transactions MMT argues that the holder of the bond is irrelevant to the issuing government. As long as there is a demand for the issuer’s currency, whether the bond holder is foreign or not, governments can never be insolvent when the debt obligations are in their own currency; this is because the government is not constrained in creating its own currency (although the bond holder may affect the exchange rate by converting to local currency).[20] Similarly, according to the FX theory outlined above, the currency paid out at maturity cannot leave the country of issuance either.

                MMT does point out, however, that debt denominated in a foreign currency certainly is a fiscal risk to governments, since the indebted government cannot create foreign currency. In this case the only way the government can sustainably repay its foreign debt is to ensure that its currency is continually and highly demanded by foreigners over the period that it wishes to repay the debt – an exchange rate collapse would potentially multiply the debt many times over asymptotically, making it impossible to repay. In that case, the government can default, or attempt to shift to an export-led strategy or raise interest rates to attract foreign investment in the currency. Either one has a negative effect on the economy.[21] Euro debt crises in the “PIIGS” countries that began in 2009 reflect this risk, since Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. have all issued debts in a quasi-“foreign currency” – the Euro, which they cannot create.”
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

                Which piece of miscomprehension would you like to correct?….it is designed for a closed economy…..you may theoretically use it if the entire trading world used the system but thats not what is being proposed is it (one world government anyone?)…..it is being promoted as a NATIONAL system and one that operates alongside and interacts with the existing contrary system….and that assumes that the contrary system wants to even bother, especially when you are talking about a market the size of a smallish city.

                • Nic the NZer

                  “Which piece of miscomprehension would you like to correct?”

                  You could start with,

                  “In other words there is no mechanism within MMT to allow for inter currency trade…ipso facto, a closed economy. ”

                  Because what you are claiming is in no way implied by those paragraphs.

                  And following this you could also correct your comprehension of MMT, which is a description of how existing currency regimes function right now in the real world and is not in any way,

                  “designed for a closed economy…..you may theoretically use it if the entire trading world used the system but thats not what is being proposed is it (one world government anyone?)…..it is being promoted as a NATIONAL system and one that operates alongside and interacts with the existing contrary system….and that assumes that the contrary system wants to even bother, especially when you are talking about a market the size of a smallish city.”

                  • Pat

                    thats awesome….pity it dosnt address either of the points outlined in the paragraphs quoted

                    • Nic the NZer

                      If you can’t show a basic understanding of what your being critical of then there is hardly any point in engaging with your misunderstanding and ignorance. What I already said twice, MMT is not a regime, its a scientific argument of how the real economy actually works. You can reasonably critique that by showing the real world does not appear to actually function as described, but you can’t possibly refute it by claiming it has never yet been tried in practice.

                  • Pat

                    “MMT is not a regime, its a scientific argument of how the real economy actually works. You can reasonably critique that by showing the real world does not appear to actually function as described, but you can’t possibly refute it by claiming it has never yet been tried in practice.”

                    no…its an incomplete theory on how the economy works….one that i can accept to a point and that point is trading across currencies which i have highlighted as the area unaddressed….it remains so by yourself and insofar as i can discover it has not been satisfactorily addressed by any MMT proponent….youre welcome to do so or even provide a liink to such an explanation…otherwise you are correct about one thing…there is hardly any point in engaging as you appear incapable.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      Yes, well obviously MMT is basically silent about all the aspects of inter-currency area trade such as forex markets, separate currency areas, domestic and external sectors, fixed exchange rates and the like. /sarc

  2. CLEANGREEN 2

    New Zealand First could not support any Labour government without knowing its true intentions, he told the Herald.

    This was referred to in this earlier post.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/is-nzf-positioning-itself-for-a-4th-term-national-government/

    “It was certainly interesting to see Winston Peters, the master of pre-election, ‘hold your cards close to your chest’ secrecy, coming out yesterday demanding that Labour tell the world everything they think about tax, before the election, despite Labour’s long held position of having a tax review once it becomes government.
    He appeared to be making a clear line in the sand of when he would refuse Labour and by implication go with National,”

    Winston Peters has set out a full set of policies of going into Government with Labour and must be taken seriously.

    My submission;

    Our regional rail services has been decimated under National and the roads are now falling apart and gridlocked with trucks that are killing other road users and another case of this happened yesterday as another truck and car accident fatality occurred in Waikato, which demonstrated my point that serious transportation using rail that NZ First (RONI) (Rail of National Importance) policies ‘loudly’ express these reasons why Labour need to support NZ First policies as they are all well thought out as being responsible and in the best public interest.

    • Cinny 2.1

      Greens are big on rail.

      Am rather happy that all 3 opposition parties share pretty much the same views on education as well.

      • Karen 2.1.1

        Also, Labour and NZF have a very similar forestry policy and the Greens policy on tree planting fits with this this quite well. All 3 parties want to increase the minimum wage to the living wage, and also all are keen on regional development. If Winston wants a legacy policy that helps the regions he is much more likely to get one with with Labour and the Greens.

        Tracey Martin has a good relationship with both Labour and Green MPs and I see both she and her sister are part of the NZF negotiating team. So is Fletcher Tabuteau, who James Shaw said yesterday he has a very good relationship with.
        Unfortunately there is still Shane Jones, who is more likely to get a significant position with National – I don’t know how influential he is within NZF.

        Winston is an old-fashioned conservative with racist tendencies, but is still retains a desire to make NZ a fairer place to live. I cannot say the same for Jones, who I see as someone who’d sell his soul for a cushy position.

      • CoroDale 2.1.2

        Yes, and regional forestry, but hope China trade is ocean stable, preferring bit-coin.
        Question is, will Winnie allow Labour’s plan to massively increase foreign debt when the tax policy fails? “Oh, but interest rates are so low”, says Cullen, flashing his sharp teeth. Only tax plans like top-sweeters’ will work. Greens know this too.
        Expect a clean out in…

      • Skinny 2.1.3

        Labour & Greens are big on ‘light rail’ which is the opposite to NZF thinking. CleanGreen they both don’t give a toss about Northland Rail. Adding to Labour’s woes is untrustworthy Neo Liberal Goff is sucking up to the Chinese, particularly after taking a 500k sweetener so now he is doing his masters bidding. So will be hellbent on PPP’s with them.

        Labour are also as guilty as sin hitched up to the PPP’s, lucky National are going this way also. But wait help is on the way! Good job you Natcorp & Labcorp flunkies you just got a big ugly spanner thrown in the neo liberal works.

        • CLEANGREEN 2.1.3.1

          True that Skinny,

          We want freight moved back to rail now as trucks are just wrecking our roads and we are not getting them to increase the funds proportionate to what they are doing to our roads, as trucks are now causing all these slips because Roading engineers are reporting this as truck increased unchecked use & weight and sizes is being found to be heavily impacted on all regions now.

          Reports are in press now confirming that regional authorities and even now ‘Downers’ in the HB/Gisborne regions are reporting they cannot handle the repair costs to fix roads now.

          Something had to give.

          National = Want blood out of stones.

        • tracey 2.1.3.2

          What 500k sweetener? Please post your proof?

          • Skinny 2.1.3.2.1

            His mayoral campaign donations. If you didn’t know that then I suggest you go research yourself and make your own informed decision as to what is going on.

            • tracey 2.1.3.2.1.1

              Well you are the one making the allegation which if untrue is defamatory

              • Skinny

                Go look yourself and stop being a dumb arse arguing. Most people are well aware of this it has been widely reported.

                • Ed

                  Chinese money bought and owns Goff.
                  Is that what you’re saying?

                  • Well y’know… I attended a function for a Sikh security guard ,who was killed on duty ,… he hadn’t been in NZ all that long,… a rookie, no RT – just a cellphone , using his private car , no comms checks etc , etc,…

                    And what did I see at that function?

                    Phil Goff doing his ‘ Namaste’ clasping of the hands to ‘ curry ‘ fucking favour with the Indian community for the sake of public acceptance.

                    Phil Goff is NOT Hindu.

                    And as far as I know know he isn’t a Hindu , not a Buddhist , not even a frikken Taoist.

                    I don’t like bastards who pretend in order to win favour.

                    I like bastards who are REAL bastards.

                    Now I attended that function to honour another fallen security officer who was grossly taken advantage off by some cunty cheap privatized outfit who didn’t give a flying fuck.

                    And I didn’t even see their insignia and if I did ,- it was so bloody minuscule so as to hide among the trees and grass in the background , – those fuckers had something to hide and it had much to do with basic incompetence and negligence.

                    And here was this hypocrite Phil Goff acting as if he was some sort of Eastern mystic clasping his hands in a lame attempt at Hindi prayer.

                    What a wanker.

                    What a neo liberal wanker.

                    And not even a real decent bastard.

                    Just a cheap opportunistic , globalistic neo liberal wanker.

                    The worst sort of wanker you could ever hope to meet.

                    You want to screw with the security fraternity ?… then you better get it right and you better make sure you cross all T’s and dot all I’s, – we are trained to spot bullshit frauds a mile off.

                    Because THAT’S what we do.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury

                      Had a nice little racist rant?

                      sounds like Goff was being respectful to the family of the poor victim by acknowledging and following the rites and rituals of their culture.

                      Be a bit rude to just walk in and go full white middle class male on them

                    • Don’t be an arselicker.

                      You dont need to be a fake to honour someone – regardless of their religion. It was easily seen through for what it was ffs.

                      Racist … I suppose people like you could call a loaf of bread racist if it was white or brown. Honestly , the overuse and easy reference to that term in preference to using common sense is way past its use by date.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury

                      You are an angry thing aren’t you? the anonymity of the internet seems to have made you a real tough guy.

                      I think Phil Goff did a splendid job at that function, 5 years ago. pre mayor of Auckland days. When he was an opposition mp. don’t see how he can be hauled over the coals for that now.

                      Also, Sikh’s aren’t hindu. So don’t be racist in your ignorance.

              • Ed

                This looks like what skinny is referring to.

                ‘Phil Goff has been accused of hypocrisy over foreign investment after the Auckland mayoral candidate raised nearly $250,000 in a Chinese community fundraiser.

                Rival Vic Crone said Mr Goff campaigned against foreign investors buying existing homes in New Zealand, but was happy to take six-figure sums from the fund-raising event.

                A copy of a book about governance in China that Mr Goff owned, signed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, was sold for $150,000 to an overseas bidder at the fundraiser over the weekend.’

                http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/313906/goff-denies-hypocrisy-over-$150k-donation

                • Skinny

                  Yeah that is some of the loot. And a bit more oil got a retread MP who secured the Chinese community funds. Like we know Peters is dog on the loss of sovereignty.

    • Foreign waka 2.2

      The problem is the transport lobby that is pushing for their own agenda. If the money they invest in trucking would be spend on shipping docks rail connections to all bigger towns, it would be a huge blessing in many ways. But unfortunately, it seems that the business case is still more profitable to have the tax payer pay for the roads that those trucks use. A difficult issue to tackle.
      On a different but related issue, I see in my neighborhood drivers with huge trucks parking in their driveways. I suppose this is to have these vehicles in a secure place overnight (another saving for those poor trucking companies). The problem is that those suburb roads are not build for those ton heavy trucks and we have huge issues with constant deep pot holes the size of a scooter. I think this is dangerous when the road is just managing two way traffic – but alas until a serious incident happen, nothing is done. If this would be Remuera or Parnell it would have had a reaction a long time ago.

  3. It is apparently Rodney’s last column for the Herald. Hopefully they will do something radical and get a progressive voice to replace him.

    It’s probably going to be Blinglish after he retires from government on Thursday.

    • English will probably still be in hospital getting all his mates knives removed from his back. Apparently key was going to do something but crayon drawings were considered too intellectual for gnat supporters and anyway key couldn’t remember where he left it anyway.

    • ianmac 3.2

      And Draco. Won’t English be a bitter writer after a possible loss. He has a degree in Literature so would wow with his style.

      • Shona 3.2.1

        English has spent his entire life in Wellington,troughing. He was educated there. Been nowhere done nothing. Couldn’t even produce a surplus. What wouldhe write about that would be even vaguely interesting?? The man has no imagination. Studying Literature and writing literature(as if he could!) are two vastly different activities.

        • CLEANGREEN 3.2.1.1

          100% Shona.

          English/National = Hollow/man

          • In Vino 3.2.1.1.1

            +100 Shona. I think his oral expression gives English Literature Studies a bad name.

          • CoroDale 3.2.1.1.2

            Literature degree in this case, is a decade of studying high level rhetoric at a boys club.

        • tracey 3.2.1.2

          Interestingly under his stewardship Humanities are being heavily sidelined in our Teriaries…

          The only people who can get into Treasury jobs now would need Treasury Degrees by Joycrs reasoning neither he nor English could ever have got into finacy type work…

    • Sanctuary 3.3

      That doesn’t surprise me. Hide’s pieces have been boilerplate talkback Taliban talking points for a while. No one is clicking his column anymore, I’ll wager.

  4. ianmac 4

    Interesting that Graeme Edgeler looks at what would have happened if there was no threshold. TOP 3 seats, Maori Party 1 seat.
    I think many rubbished TOP because they were seen as a threat to Labour Greens but many of their policies would have enhanced the Left.

    https://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/election-2017-the-no-threshold-hypothesis/

    Oh and we are optimistic about our chances to banish National.
    (Funny how Bennett is almost invisible???)

    • savenz 4.1

      Don’t kid yourself. TOP would go with National and prop them up. TOP took 2% from the left more than the right.

      • CLEANGREEN 4.1.1

        True SaveNZ.

        TOP = The new Bob Jones type party.

        • Anne 4.1.1.1

          Very good comparison. And the B Jones party rapidly disintegrated after they failed to get into parliament.

          • Andre 4.1.1.1.1

            Jones was pretty open about just wanting Muldoon gone, and not actually wanting to go into Parliament. Then when Douglas implemented pretty much everything he might have wanted, why waste money having another go?

            • Craig H 4.1.1.1.1.1

              And Jones supports Labour over National because he says business makes more money when Labour are in office.

          • tracey 4.1.1.1.2

            No MMP then tho?

      • That may be true but it’s no reason to exclude them from parliament.

        If they did go with National I expect that they’d be non-existent at the next election.

      • RedLogix 4.1.3

        TOP took 2% from the left more than the right.

        I don’t understand that. Their total vote was only 2.9%, so are you suggesting 70% of their vote came from the left? I’d be interested to see a citation for this.

        And if you believed this, why would you then claim they would automatically support a right wing government? Especially when they have virtually no policy alignment with National at all?

        Besides if you look at Edgeler’s numbers, Nat/TOP/ACT would still be only 58 seats, still short a majority and still leaving NZ1 as the ‘kingmaker’.

        Morgan made it perfectly clear he’d go with a coalition that gave them them most policy wins; and on these numbers there is no more reason to think that would be a Nat led govt than a Labour led one.

    • Robert Guyton 4.2

      The leopard-skin print has become ACUPAT.

    • red-blooded 4.3

      “Oh and we are optimistic about our chances to banish National.”

      If there was no optimism, ianmac, there’d be no point in politics.

      I am (finally) starting to allow myself to feel optimistic for this election, but I’m also keeping in mind the fact that even if National bargain their way back to power this time, the tide has turned and the Labour-Green option clearly looks more credible to the average voter than it did. It would be really hard to imagine a National-led alliance carrying on after the next election, especially given that the opposition would be invigorated and strengthened, that Ardern will mature further as a leader and that any relationship between the Nats and NZF is likely to be testy.

      In the meantime – good luck to the Labour negotiating team. There’s nothing wrong with optimism, especially when tempered with strong ethics, sound judgement and good people skills.

    • tracey 4.4

      Shhhhhhhh @ Bennett

    • NewsFlash 4.5

      Top was “designed” to take votes from the left, all policies leant themselves towards it deliberately, and then a full intention of teeing up with National, feel sorry for the voters who supported Top thinking they would some how deliver on social justice when the real intention was just “status quo”

    • Nic the NZer 4.6

      TOP has always been a basically neo-liberal party. I am surprised they have any appeal to left wing voters.

      http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36686

  5. RedBaronCV 5

    National has far more electorate seats to lose over the term of the parliament than Lab/NZF/Greens (as per Northland in the last parliament) so those 2 extra seats are an illusion as far as stability is concerned?

  6. savenz 6

    I think that it should be a Labour/NZ First/Green government. As well as significant policy overlap between each party there is also a benefit for everyone in the coalition.

    AKA – concern Labour is still too focused on neoliberalism and globalism is cancelled out by the strong NZ First stance against it. Concerns NZ First is too conservative and is too focused on the older folks is cancelled out by Labour and Greens being focused on under 65’s. Concerns that the Greens are too concerned with identity politics and have yet to make significant inroads making their ‘big picture’ of a Green NZ a practical reality is cancelled out if they work with Labour and NZ First to get real cultural change in legalisation rather than a policy on their web page. I’m talking real gains here, not just insulation. Nature feeds the soul and it’s going to be in short supply around the world the way it’s going. Nature is actually NZ nest egg. Clean water, pollution free and a decent society should be the goals for all parties.

    The National party have absolutely decimated everything Green in this country and for zero reason. Why remove healthy foods from schools for example under urgency? Why run down trains in NZ and build the world’s most expensive road while buying trains with Asbestos from overseas? Allow business to take water for free from conservation areas or build a white elephant irrigation store in an area under global warming will actually have less water and is not suited in any way to an industry that needs high amounts of it, that are happy to pay their executive 8.3 million but too poor to invest in their own irrigation?

    The National party have sold their soul to the highest bidder and have zero moral interest in the people of this country. In fact they are seeking to repopulate and give political power to people and businesses in NZ, who want to exploit and destroy it for their own short term (and long term) monetary and political gain.

  7. Ad 7

    We need a lot more New Zealand First members and supporters commenting here.

    New Zealand First is at the core of the next government – particularly if it is only on Confidence and Supply.

    • CLEANGREEN 7.1

      Ad, I heartily agree as my wife and son are now NZ First members recently and want to see the coalition between Labour/NZF/Greens going forward to we need to take care to iron out a common set of policies to satisfy all parties.

      I am not aligned to any particular party as I am on the executive of a long serving Environmental NGO who has a written agenda not to be aligned to any party.

      My Personal wish is for NZF to align with Labour and green party with similar policy agreements.

      • Ad 7.1.1

        Get your wife and son on here.

        That way the whole family can triangulate somewhere between NZF policy and conservation issues.

        A match made in heaven!

        • CLEANGREEN 7.1.1.1

          Ad,

          My Son was secretly signing on as NZF before we as ‘Labour traditional’ even knew then.

          My wife joined NZF as she saw policies were more in line with her as she retired.

          We still give half our two votes to Labour (wife/me) and we were once for two years during 1999-202 Green party members then.

          Voters how they change today is the norm it appears.

    • CoroDale 7.2

      Rather Greens win C&S, make NFZ go in govt, Winnie as finance minister! Green cross-bench.

      • CLEANGREEN 7.2.1

        CoroDale,
        Could be possible = as Winston gets along with most policies, so this may work.

    • tracey 7.3

      Perhaps because it is a left wing blog and NZF is not Left wing?

  8. Anne 8

    Winston Peters is basically an establishment figure and a conservative from way back. I fear they will trump all other considerations. He is more likely do a deal with the more experienced leader- Bill English. His party members will have no say in it.

    Hope I’m wrong but them’s (I suspect) are the realities.

    • Yep 80% going the gnats way. He won’t get his head past the numbers.

    • He is more likely do a deal with the more experienced leader- Bill English. His party members will have no say in it.

      1. Don’t think so as there’s still a lot of experience in the Labour caucus that he’s worked well with before
      2. I’m pretty sure that he’s talking to his party about possibilities and that that will sway him as to which way to go. I know taking what Winston says as gospel is generally seen as a bad idea but he did say that he would go back to the party about it and in this case I believe him. That means that it’s going to come down to the party members preferences and policies both of which more closely align with Labour/Greens than with National.
      3. Winston split with National in the 1990s and started NZ1st because of the way that National has gone. 1996 to 1998 showed that there was no way that NZ1st could work with National at that point and National has gone even further down the hole that Winston refuses to go down.

      Everything I see tends to indicate that NZ1st can only realistically go with Labour/Greens.

      If they do go with National it’s going to be worse than 1996 to 1998.

      • CLEANGREEN 8.2.1

        Yes Draco,

        I would note also that ‘blood is thicker than water’ as in Labour Winston does have close relations too. Kelvin Davis, & other than Willie Jackson I hear.

      • veutoviper 8.2.2

        I tend to agree with your assessment Draco.
        Sorry, Anne; I don’t believe that Winston will be more likely to do a deal with English. There is a lot of bad blood there, as well as with other National MP stalwarts. Time will tell.

        IMO Winston has been attempting to keep the whole situation neutral, bias free and procedural to date, for the most part. For example, as in his interview with Barry Soper yesterday (I think this was the only statement he has made to the press since the specials were announced).

        It is the first video in this Herald article by Audrey Young which is being updated live on the talks National/NZF which are now underway in Parliament.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11930719

        As noted, the NZF Team today is the same as Thursday’s team.
        Peters is joined by his deputy Ron Mark, MP Tracey Martin, confidante Paul Carrad, chief of staff David Broome and staffer Kirsty Christison.
        (I did not know until yesterday that Kirsty is Tracey Martin’s sister. )

        No sign of Shane Jones again – wonder if he is back from Niue yet? See my ‘conspiracy remarks yesterday – LOL. https://thestandard.org.nz/young-on-coalition-options-an-edge-to-labour/#comment-1396953

        National’s team today includes Paula Bennett who was not there on Thursday. Today’s line-up: Bill English, Paula Bennett, Steven Joyce, Gerry Brownlee, and chief of staff Wayne Eagleson.

        The press have been moved even further back from the site of the talks with considerable comments by them on Twitter re Open Government etc. but
        Stuff also have a live column running: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97661642/nz-first-kicks-off-formal-negotiations-with-national-followed-by-labour

    • tracey 8.3

      This is my inkling too.

      • Anne 8.3.1

        @DTB, CLEANGREEN, veutoviper and tracey.

        I couldn’t be happier if you are right and I am wrong. 🙂

      • Anne 8.3.2

        Ooops… a further look and I think tracey agreed with me. Well tracey here’s hoping we are wrong.

        • Carolyn_nth 8.3.2.1

          I have been thinking that, too. But then I see Joyce and Paula Bennett are part of the negotiating team. I wonder how Peters will get on with them.

          But, it may be better for the left for NZF to go with the Nats. With Joyce, Collins, bennett, etc in the Nats, I wonder if a Nat-NZF coalition will be stable in the long term.

  9. Zorb6 9

    National’s politics are so expedient they will offer Peters the best ‘deal’ imo.I expect him to win major committment to regional developments ,’juice’ up the Gold Card and getting G.S.T removed from food to cement his legacy.Stability and positioning his party for life after his retirement would be his priority.A knighthood wouldn’t go amiss,and he is probably more deserving of one than many, given his long career which includes stints as Dep P.M,F.Affairs,Treasury.

    • CLEANGREEN 9.1

      National would need to offer Winston the job of PM and remove from caucus all these; S Joyce, J Collins, P Bennett and Maggie Barry, as they are all sworn enemies.

      Then give Winston ‘Minister of Rail’ & half the current Transport fund to fix regional rail services, then offer other serious senior portfolios to allow him to change the Reserve Bank Act to use the bank facility to print funds to begin the regional economic rebuilding of our country again that is the least he could use to leave his mark as he completes is long road to his “legacy”

  10. Keith 10

    Chris Trotter will be panicking.

    This “left wing” commentator has been writing a series of blogs post election, not to mention before, telling us all why he thinks Labour should not OR do not deserve to be in government, anywhere from “the moral mandate” bullshit to Jacinda is a pretend lefty blah, blah, blah.

    With friends like Trotter, who needs enemies. Still the right have clever ways of smearing the left and after years of reading his diatribes against Labour most especially and his praise of all things National, Trotter appears Just another tool in their arsenal.

    • Anne 10.1

      I’ve stopped reading him which is a pity because he has a lovely turn of phrase. Some of his past contributions re- Labour were delusional.

      • red-blooded 10.1.1

        He still gets published in my local paper (the ODT) and over the election time I started reading him again so that I could write letters to the editor responding to some of his more outrageous stuff (online subscription – I’m over the paper product). I don’t know who he thinks “the Left” are in NZ – he’s almost permanently looking to attack and undermine not just Labour, but any organised voice for the Left.

      • CLEANGREEN 10.1.2

        I am impressed with Winston when he speaks about his Corrin Dann at the last NZF conference and on RNZ ‘checkpoint’ with John Campbell as they gave Winston a good time to clearly speech his policy in complete form with the usual ‘interjections’, the MSM usually destroy any interview with.

        One clear solid policy NZF has was to take over any NZ business who was threatening closure EG; Aluminum smelter, Warner Bros, Fisher Paykel, Cadbury’s, and set them up as a co-operative for locals and workers to reap the rewards of their labour.

        Another move was to change the reserve Act to use our own Bank to issue funds interest free for regional development, ( a Social Credit”) policy from 1980s’.

        • CHCOff 10.1.2.1

          There would need to be a cultural change between the governed and governing in society before any of those Social Credit type approaches could be used sustainably and responsibly, otherwise they would lead to the same problems of insufficient distributed purchasing power for the market system to function adequately on it’s own, only by too much money rather than by too little although probably with a lot more accelerated social upheaval.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.2

          Another move was to change the reserve Act to use our own Bank to issue funds interest free for regional development, ( a Social Credit”) policy from 1980s’.

          And a Labour Party policy that they used successfully in the 1930s.

        • CLEANGREEN 10.1.2.3

          “There would need to be a cultural change between the governed and governing in society before any of those Social Credit type approaches could be used sustainably and responsibly”,

          Funny that is CHCOff we saw all our trading partners do this to save their arses when the 2008 GFC came here.

          We did the wrong thing by shrinking our industrial industry by selling it all off to overseas corporate raiders and now we are suffering so the cultural shift is now upon us whether we want it or not.

        • WILD KATIPO 10.1.2.4

          Good on ya , CLEANGREEN ! , – comment 10.1.2

          … ” One clear solid policy NZF has was to take over any NZ business who was threatening closure EG; Aluminum smelter, Warner Bros, Fisher Paykel, Cadbury’s, and set them up as a co-operative for locals and workers to reap the rewards of their labour.

          Another move was to change the reserve Act to use our own Bank to issue funds interest free for regional development, ( a Social Credit”) policy from 1980’s ”…

          And WHY SHOULD NZ First want to do this ?

          Probably because of all of the insider trading and blatant theft in stealing the built up tax paid for SOE’s that went on during the 1980’s , 1990’s and still goes on today – particularly under this govt.

          And if you are confused about , have forgotten , never knew , – or are just plain out and out in denial about whats been going on under these scumbag neo liberals and their shit thieving govts?

          THEN READ THIS :

          New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
          http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html

        • Nic the NZer 10.1.2.5

          As I understand it the reserve bank act already supports this, just not at zero percent interest.

          CHCHOff appears to have his own peculiar meaning for basic english language.

    • Incognito 10.2

      Trotter is not very good when he’s writing about what the Greens should or shouldn’t do.

      • weka 10.2.1

        This is true, although he did have a big change of heart about the Greens for while there (post-Turei’s speech?). Didn’t last long.

      • DS 10.2.2

        Trotter’s good on stuff from before the war. Less so anything since 1945.

        • Incognito 10.2.2.1

          This might be so but it highlights the problem (I have with Trotter) when he writes about other stuff such as the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in 2017. He writes from a historian’s perspective, i.e. cerebral, distant, objective, impersonal, and disconnected. One of his recent blogs about what the Greens should be doing, in his opinion, was in many ways a shambles.

          He wrote like he’d never really contemplated or even tried to understand the deeper meaning of the NZ Green’s Charter and philosophy as if he was trying to describe having an orgasm while clearly refusing to ever experience one, metaphorically speaking … Either way, it was an exercise in futility. IMHO, of course 😉

  11. tsmithfield 11

    National has the biggest cards to play, if they want to.

    1. National could guarantee the survival of NZ First by undertaking not to stand in Northland next time around, and gift the seat to NZ First. Since NZ First has already won this seat in a bi-election, it would be a lay-down misere that they would win it if a National candidate didn’t stand. The outcome for small parties in coaliton hasn’t been great over time, so having a guaranteed seat would ensure the viability of NZ First, even if they dropped below 5%. It is difficult for Labour to match this.

    2. Financial headroom. Labour is already pretty much maxed out with their own promises. Plus they have to accommodate the Greens as well as NZ First. National has been a lot more conservative in their financial projections, and only has to accommodate one other party. Hence, they have a lot more room for NZ First’s own spending promises.

  12. I reckon this will have a fair bit to do with it ,- that and the fact that a 4th and 5th term govt is not really a goer anyways for a Peters legacy.

    …”Thirdly the National-New Zealand First relationship has so much baggage. Winston has been subject to a decade of attacks by National, the release of his superannuation details being but the latest example”…

    That and the obvious policy overlaps. Pretty obvious , really. Then there’s the fact that a large majority of NZ First want a Labour/ NZ First coalition.

    Poor Wodney. He was victimized by the very same govt that he advocates for . By govt appendage surveillance no less,…. and still he sings their praises. Typical far right wing extremist blind loyalty.

    And that sort of blind loyalty is a very dangerous thing to have in politics and government.

    It is indeed time for his retirement.

  13. Patricia Bremner 13

    I am hopeful that we have a coalition of Lab/NZFirst/Greens. The people need it.

    I would like to see Winston in a Lead role Jacinda time to develop her role for the long term.( Co-Leadership? Ways to survive hostile elements/press/other members which Winston has developed.)

    I think National need to lose the reins for at least 9/12 years while people become the heart of new policy, rather than China and the dollar.

    Quite a number of questionable actions and activities of JK’s and B.English government need investigating through public inquiries.

    Finally, a referendum should be held on the rights of citizens, re health education housing privacy issues and pensions and immigration. The purpose to inform the current parliament of people’s views to assist in drafting or redrafting good legislation, which has public scrutiny at meetings and discussion before becoming law.

    Only aspects of National importance should come under urgency.

    Urgency coat-tailing and outright lies have been the hall mark of bad governance.

    • tracey 13.1

      How cool if everyone remembered NZF has 9 seats and Greens 8. And Labour 46. Imagine if NZF and Peters were all grown up about what to expect given between them and Greens they have less than 18% of total votes. Now THAT would be a victory for MMP

    • tracey 13.2

      Patricia

      I was thinking this morning if the behaviour would have had more consequences had Lockwood Smith stayed Speaker…

    • red-blooded 13.3

      Patricia, a couple of comments in reply:
      1) Winston may have served as an MP for longer, but that doesn’t make him a more effective (or more trustworthy) leader. It is ridiculous to suggest him as PM – and it’s been explicitly ruled out by both National and Labour.
      2) Public enquiries into actions of previous governments should be used very sparingly. Disagreeing with the wisdom, or even the ethics, of a particular decision doesn’t mean a new government should set up a public enquiry. What would be the point? Should each new government focus their attention and resources backwards, investigating previous ones? If they suspect a law may have been broken, maybe, but that’s pretty damn rare. Do you have suggestions about what you think these multiple public enquiries should focus on?
      3) Referendums (or “referenda” – I don’t mind) have to focus on specific yes/no questions. Each issue on your list is multifaceted – not simple to simplify down to one (meaningful) question. Any question broad enough to encompass “the rights of citizens to education” (for example) would be so broad that it would be vague and open to interpretation. Besides, NZ referendums are non-binding anyway.

  14. infused 14

    At the end of the day, special votes have changed nothing. If the moral right to govern (whatever that is) is removed, it’s the same as before, the same as a year ago, the same as 2 years ago. Nothing has changed.

    You’re making the mistake policy overlap means something. It means nothing. It’s what peters can get out of either side.

    • tracey 14.1

      The 61 seat versus 63 is quite a change though… Remove someone as Speaker… another from a tantrum… still stable. Same from 61 is new election territory.

      Peters is conservative. He knows the small parties get blamed for breakups. So 63 is a much better bet for him than 63.

      Peters can only take what is given. He cannot hold anyone to ransom because it is the biggest party’s decision to sell their political soul for any price, or not.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1

        Since 1996, the speaker’s vote is counted in their party vote.

      • veutoviper 14.1.2

        “Remove someone as Speaker… ”

        Just a small point of clarification: Since 1996 the appointment of someone as Speaker no longer results in that person losing their vote., and therefore does not affect the numbers.

        From Wikipedia as I don’t have time to find it on the Parliament site:

        “Historically, a speaker lost the right to cast a vote, except when both sides were equally balanced. The Speaker’s lack of a vote created problems for a governing party – when the party’s majority was small, the loss of the Speaker’s vote could be problematic. (Para break mine)

        Since the shift to MMP in 1996, however, the Speaker has been counted for the purposes of casting party votes, to reflect the proportionality of the party’s vote in the general election. The practice has also been for the Speaker to participate in personal votes, usually by proxy.[10] In the event of a tied vote the motion in question lapses.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_New_Zealand_House_of_Representatives

        EDIT – OAB Snap!

    • mauī 14.2

      Yes I’m sure that’s what was going on in Peter’s head. This is nothing, specials are nothing, nothing, nothing. I will wait for the 15% of nothing votes because they are nothing to me.

    • It’s what peters can get out of either side.

      You’re still thinking that Winston and the rest of NZ1st think like National Party leaders and is only there for their benefit and not the benefit of the country.

    • CLEANGREEN 14.4

      Infused is confused again,

      “At the end of the day, special votes have changed nothing.”

      In your dreams.

  15. james 15

    Ive said forever that Winston will go with Nats – Key leaving was the price.

    I still think that this is the case.

    • Ha ! – even if he did go with the Nats, – it’d be the last you’d ever hear of them for ages. Get real ,… a fourth term govt that is loosing credibility ? , – even the sycophant media are rebelling . Do you really think Peters wants that as his legacy?

      Peters will be wanting leverage and continuity and he will only get that with a fresh govt that has prospects for general popularity for the next few terms at least.

      And that notwithstanding the many policy overlaps.

      Nationals done and dusted this time round.

    • ianmac 15.2

      Thanks for that inside information james. And will you also tell us what plans Winston has for English and Bennett? Your heart must be bursting with so much genuine info.

      • james 15.2.1

        I have never said it was based off any inside info.

        Its my view / guess and I have had the same one on here for ages.

        • CLEANGREEN 15.2.1.1

          James, you are wrong wrong wrong!!!!

          Just imagine Winston in front of 230 people in Gisborne last month saying; “Have you had enough of National”?

          The picture in the Gisborne herald afterwards showed his poster saying “Had enough”?

          Does this now sink in so you can stop ranting please!!!!!!!

          Oh just in case you may think this was only a one off, well think again, as we have attended four meetings over the last three years and heard him saying it all before so get real.!

          • james 15.2.1.1.1

            Ranting? really? CleanGreen – you really are panicking and desperate if you think thats ranting.

        • NewsFlash 15.2.1.2

          It’s called optimism, we all have that.

          It’s still a 50/50 throw in reality, and Thursday will reveal all, we hope, there is the possibility of a deal done even sooner which would put a spanner in the works for one party, an early decision from Peters would likely favor the left in my view, for obvious reasons.

  16. Sanctuary 16

    I see the every reliable Tory Claire Robinson has stepped up to the plate to claim National’s moral right to govern…

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/08-10-2017/election-2017-a-vote-for-the-status-quo/

    I have to say this election saw a drastic drop in my opinion of theSpinoff, which I think has badly damaged it’s nascent reputation for being a fresh voice.

    For “new media” it sure is as arrogant towards it’s critics as anything you’d find in the old media, never deigning to engage on social media with it’s followers or to justify it’s often questionable judgement in failing to clearly to signal it’s pay to publish content and slanted opinions.

    A major disappointment, you can never know if it is PR for paid interests or journalism.

    • red-blooded 16.1

      She makes some valid points re voting percentages of lead parties in NZ MMP governments. Other comments are up for challenge, though:
      – This is the first election in which voters were informed ahead of time that two (real) parties were campaigning as a bloc. In the past we’ve had “understandings” between major and minor (usually one-person) parties, based on vote-splitting. (Think Labour-Progressive, Nat-ACT.) Ignoring this and just comparing Nat vs Lab ignores a pretty big factor.
      – While it might be true that usually opinion polls show a mood for change by a shift in party support a year before the election, the fact is that the public never got to like Andrew Little and never saw Labour as a real alternative under his leadership. That may say all sorts of things about the media, the general public, Andrew himself, his Party advisers… but it’s still the fact. When Ardern stepped up, the policies weren’t changed, but the messaging was. Comparing opinion polls pre and post leadership change is comparing apples with oranges, and I can’t think of another election when the major opposition party changed leaders within a year of the election. We don’t know what the polls would have been like if Ardern had been leader a year out.

      Anyway, we can’t take anything for granted, but we do know Claire Robinson isn’t going to be one of the people making decisions.

  17. CLEANGREEN 17

    Just keep the faith for the coalition folks as we see the national doubt patrol is again peppering the blogsites TS & TDB with these negative doubts again saying NZF/National Government next, as it is a mirage only again as it was before.

  18. NewsFlash 18

    The interview with English on the news last night after the specials showed a degree of arrogance on English’s part, that he expects to form a Govt on Thursday, tbh, his body language wasn’t saying the same thing, the tone of his voice and demeanor was suggesting a high degree of uncertainty and concern, on the other sides, optimism is riding high, both Ardern and Shaw were very positive and respectful.

  19. CLEANGREEN 19

    Yes an NewsFlash;

    Tonight on prime news again English looked very smug and as you said again very arrogant.

    We need to put this rabid liar out to pasture soon Winston please as he has become to comfortable with dirty politics and lack of integrity & honesty.

  20. repateet 20

    Looking on the bright side ….

    I’m getting pleasure out of thinking of David Carter and Winston sharing a bench in the House should Winston go with National.

  21. Lets wait until Thursday.

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Bird of the Year – Loving Aotearoa
    I love that I live in a country where there is a competition for ‘Bird of the Year’. Right now, around New Zealand, there are teams and campaigns promoting the attributes of our native birds; from the famous kākāpo creeping ...
    GreensBy James Shaw
    1 day ago
  • A Post Election Update
    It’s the start of another week and I wanted to give you a quick update on what’s happening in relation to our efforts to form a new Government for New Zealand. We’ve been working hard to ensure that the issues ...
    GreensBy James Shaw
    3 days ago
  • Labour welcomes final election results
    Today’s final election count has strengthened the mandate for change, and for negotiations to continue in earnest, says Leader of the Opposition Jacinda Ardern. “We congratulate Angie Warren-Clark on becoming Labour’s 14th additional MP, which expands the Labour caucus to ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Lewis Moeau – he aituā, he aituā!
    Kua tau ngā pōkeao ki runga i te marae o Te Poho o Taharākau ki roto o Manutūkē, oti rā ki runga o Puketapu me Manawaru, ngā maunga tipua o te hautipua kua riro nei. E heke ana ngā roimata me ngā ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Statement on coalition negotiations
    “This morning I spoke with New Zealand First Leader, Winston Peters. We will look to hold a meeting between our respective teams later this week, while we wait for special votes to be counted. “Special votes remain an important part ...
    2 weeks ago