I have a shameful confession to make.
On a gorgeous spring afternoon in 2017, I drove to Fernridge
School, just west of Masterton, and cast my vote in the general election.
Virtually until the moment I entered the polling booth, I remained
an undecided voter.
My electorate vote was straightforward enough. It went to Labour’s
Wairarapa candidate Kieran McAnulty – mainly because I thought Alastair Scott,
the sitting National MP, had done bugger-all in his first term other than turn
up for photo opportunities, and therefore didn’t deserve to be re-elected.
In the event, Scott was returned, albeit with a reduced margin,
and has been noticeably more active than when his party was in government.
Perhaps the fright did him good.
But that’s not the shameful bit. For the crucial party vote, I
ended up holding my nose and placing a tick beside New Zealand First.
I apologise now for this act of political vandalism. It was a
moment of madness in an otherwise unblemished life and I will suck up whatever
opprobrium comes my way.
Voting for Winston Peters went against all my instincts, but I was
able to rationalise an otherwise irrational act on the basis that I was voting
for purely tactical reasons.
The polls indicated the result could be close. I reasoned that
whichever major party formed a government, it might be useful to encumber it
with a coalition partner that could serve as a check on its power. Tragically,
the only party likely to fulfil that purpose was New Zealand First.
If Labour got in, and especially if it had Green support, Peters
and his MPs might be in a position to
curb any wild ideological excesses of the type centre-left parties are prone to
after long periods in opposition.
If a National-led government was returned, I foresaw a different
problem. I didn’t fancy the thought of a smugly triumphalist National Party.
The born-to-rule syndrome is not a pretty sight. Being in coalition with New
Zealand First, I reasoned, might take some of the wind out of National’s sails.
Well, we all know the outcome. As the old saying goes, we should
be careful what we wish for.
Some readers may recall a great deal of huffing and puffing in
this column over the way Peters subsequently gamed the system to secure maximum
advantage for himself and New Zealand First, leveraging his party’s piffling 7
per cent share of the vote into a commanding position from which he was able to
dictate the shape of the government.
I was too ashamed at the time to admit my partial responsibility
for this state of affairs. Only a trusted few knew my guilty secret.
No doubt I’ll be accused of hypocrisy for giving my vote to Peters
and then professing to be appalled by what transpired.
Well, fair enough. But I would argue that it was possible to vote
for Peters and still be outraged by the way he took control of the coalition
negotiations. I don’t think anyone could have foreseen the ease with which he
was able to manipulate the other players - helped, of course, by Labour’s
desperation to regain power after three terms in opposition
And in mitigation I would point out that in voting for New Zealand
First I was doing exactly what the MMP system was intended to do, which is to
ensure as far as possible that no one party ends up wielding total power. The
architects of MMP would be proud of me.
From a strictly pragmatic standpoint, I have to admit that things
panned out pretty much as I envisaged. My tactical vote had the desired effect,
which was to moderate the behaviour of whichever party formed the government.
New Zealand First has now jammed several sticks into the spokes of
Labour and the Greens, to the teeth-grinding frustration of the Left. The
government is looking shambolic and there must be doubts about its ability to
run a full term.
No one should be surprised at this turn of events. Peters is a
team player only if he’s in charge of the team. He might behave himself for a
while, but in time his natural belligerence and contrarianism will assert
itself.
The irony is that the Left now has to endure the agony of seeing
their agenda frustrated because of an electoral system that the Left
championed. But this was always on the cards, given the fundamental
incompatibility between two socially “progressive” parties and one that draws
inspiration from Muldoon-era conservatism.
It’s kind of perversely satisfying in an “I told you so” way, so
why am I not celebrating? Probably because I don’t think this is how democracy
is supposed to work.
Karl du Fresne blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz. First published in The Dominion Post.
1 comment:
My Shameful confession, so you are are not alone Karl.
Yes I too, voted for Peters on the List, I remained faithful to National; not because for years i was a member or because I held positions in that Party.
My resins were that National, like its counterpart across the Tasman had moved slowly and insidiously to the left. It had betrayed its principals and its members.
The decisive one for me came on the issue of the Smacking Vote when Parliament ignored over 82% of the democratic vote of the people. The previous one was the then P.M. John Key signed the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights, without any referral the main body of New Zealanders.
After all this was, and still is, a vast Constitutional Change which needed at least a 75% approval.
Instead our Parliamentarians decided, probably under pressure from the United Nations, that our future unemployed politicians would not be considered for lucrative positions in that organisation!
Whether W. Peters will risk the ultimate his deputy premiership and position of kingmaker, to collapse the [present Government is doubtful.
He is after all a pragmatist, and the loss of his Party’s power might just be a step too far.
This then is a case of-
“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”
King Henry the fourth.
BRIAN
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.