Now I know the first thing you might say to that, is ‘what about Chris Hipkins saying he would never work with Winston again’?
Well, a couple of things on that. If Labour really wanted to get back into government and a deal with NZ First was the meal ticket, one of two things could happen.
Hipkins could fall on his sword and step aside. Or they could dump him.
The other thing is, let’s remember what Chris Hipkins himself has been saying this week since being reaffirmed as leader. Everything is back on the table.
So far that’s all been about taxation - in particular, the idea of a wealth tax and a capital gains tax. So if everything’s back on the table, why wouldn’t a coalition arrangement with NZ First be on the table as well?
To pull it off, the Greens and Te Pati Māori would also have to be onside. Te Pāti Māori has six seats. The Green Party has 15. Labour has 34. And NZ First has eight seats. Add them all up and you get 63 seats. A majority.
National has 48 seats. ACT has 11 seats. And with NZ First’s eight seats, you get 67. A slightly larger majority. But what Helen Clark is saying, is that National and ACT shouldn’t be taking things for granted and think that they are NZ First’s only options.
As she points out, in 1996 Winston banged on about not letting National become government again. And then, what did he do after keeping us all waiting for weeks and weeks and weeks? He put National into government again.
The way he explained it, though, was that a National/NZ First coalition government was different than a National government. Weasel words, yes. But at least he satisfied himself that he hadn't gone back on his promise to get rid of the National government.
This time around, he said NZ First “will not return Labour to power”. In a way, exactly the same thing. In 1996, he said he wouldn’t allow a National government to return and claimed that a National/NZ First government was different. He could say exactly the same thing if he went with Labour.
A Labour/NZ First/Greens/Te Pati Māori government would not be returning Labour to power. In his mind, anyway.
Another thing you might be thinking about this is the likelihood of the Greens and Te Pati Māori having any interest in being in government with NZ First.
On paper, both those parties would run a mile. But do you think it’s possible, a few weeks down the track since the election, that the Greens and Te Pati Maori are looking at the record number of MPs they’ve ended up with and thinking that they’re all a bit wasted in opposition?
I’d be thinking that if I was them.
And as for Labour itself. I know it's saying that it’s going to use the next three years to “take stock” and “digest” the election result, and rebuild for the 2026 election. But still hold the government to account blah, blah blah.
But do you really think that, if it had a choice, Labour would go with three years of digesting and taking stock? Or do you think it would go with another three years in government?
Just like if I was the Greens or Te Pati Maori, if I was Labour, I’d take government over opposition any day. Wouldn’t you?
So I’m not going to write Helen Clark’s comments off. And, as Jim Bolger is saying today too - which I see as a bit of a warning for National and ACT - he’s saying that the current negotiations could go on for a couple of months like they did back in 1996.
He’s says Winston Peters is a very experienced and smart political leader. Anybody who goes into with Peters thinking he’s a pushover is stupid. That’s what former National leader Jim Bolger is saying.
But on Helen Clark's comments. I think she’s on the money. I agree with her when she says anything is possible. A lot of dead rats would have to be swallowed by Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori. But politicians are very good at that.
And think about this. If Helen Clark - former Labour Prime Minister and endorser of Labour’s election campaign this year - if she’s saying that a Labour-led government involving NZ First is a possibility, then I’m listening.
She is still very much connected to the party. And if she was convinced that there is absolutely no way Labour would do a flip-flop and get a deal together with NZ First, then she would be saying so today. But she’s not.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
The other thing is, let’s remember what Chris Hipkins himself has been saying this week since being reaffirmed as leader. Everything is back on the table.
So far that’s all been about taxation - in particular, the idea of a wealth tax and a capital gains tax. So if everything’s back on the table, why wouldn’t a coalition arrangement with NZ First be on the table as well?
To pull it off, the Greens and Te Pati Māori would also have to be onside. Te Pāti Māori has six seats. The Green Party has 15. Labour has 34. And NZ First has eight seats. Add them all up and you get 63 seats. A majority.
National has 48 seats. ACT has 11 seats. And with NZ First’s eight seats, you get 67. A slightly larger majority. But what Helen Clark is saying, is that National and ACT shouldn’t be taking things for granted and think that they are NZ First’s only options.
As she points out, in 1996 Winston banged on about not letting National become government again. And then, what did he do after keeping us all waiting for weeks and weeks and weeks? He put National into government again.
The way he explained it, though, was that a National/NZ First coalition government was different than a National government. Weasel words, yes. But at least he satisfied himself that he hadn't gone back on his promise to get rid of the National government.
This time around, he said NZ First “will not return Labour to power”. In a way, exactly the same thing. In 1996, he said he wouldn’t allow a National government to return and claimed that a National/NZ First government was different. He could say exactly the same thing if he went with Labour.
A Labour/NZ First/Greens/Te Pati Māori government would not be returning Labour to power. In his mind, anyway.
Another thing you might be thinking about this is the likelihood of the Greens and Te Pati Māori having any interest in being in government with NZ First.
On paper, both those parties would run a mile. But do you think it’s possible, a few weeks down the track since the election, that the Greens and Te Pati Maori are looking at the record number of MPs they’ve ended up with and thinking that they’re all a bit wasted in opposition?
I’d be thinking that if I was them.
And as for Labour itself. I know it's saying that it’s going to use the next three years to “take stock” and “digest” the election result, and rebuild for the 2026 election. But still hold the government to account blah, blah blah.
But do you really think that, if it had a choice, Labour would go with three years of digesting and taking stock? Or do you think it would go with another three years in government?
Just like if I was the Greens or Te Pati Maori, if I was Labour, I’d take government over opposition any day. Wouldn’t you?
So I’m not going to write Helen Clark’s comments off. And, as Jim Bolger is saying today too - which I see as a bit of a warning for National and ACT - he’s saying that the current negotiations could go on for a couple of months like they did back in 1996.
He’s says Winston Peters is a very experienced and smart political leader. Anybody who goes into with Peters thinking he’s a pushover is stupid. That’s what former National leader Jim Bolger is saying.
But on Helen Clark's comments. I think she’s on the money. I agree with her when she says anything is possible. A lot of dead rats would have to be swallowed by Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori. But politicians are very good at that.
And think about this. If Helen Clark - former Labour Prime Minister and endorser of Labour’s election campaign this year - if she’s saying that a Labour-led government involving NZ First is a possibility, then I’m listening.
She is still very much connected to the party. And if she was convinced that there is absolutely no way Labour would do a flip-flop and get a deal together with NZ First, then she would be saying so today. But she’s not.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
I think that is unlikely to happen because Labour dropped (aah) "unmentionable stuff" on Winston from a great height before the last election. Furthermore, I can see the skids being put under MMP, but to replace it with what? Something else to apply corruption to?
Kevan
Stirring up mischief......if will be irritating to Labour and their 2 Left allies if the 3-party coalition works well.
Peters is on record, including on a video, categorically stating that in no way, shape or form will he go into government with Labour. Not just Hipkins, but Labour.
If he goes back on that promise, which would have been a deciding factor in many people voting for him, then he'll have a price on his head and his political legacy will go down the crapper.
Clarke is more than likely stirring the shit, as Labour and the Left are prone to do.
Clark is seldom wrong esp on matters maori, but is this time. I suppose it is just possible that living surrounded up north, in the interest of reducing threat from utu nutters, Winston could turn (with Shane) 5th columnist and support maori control. But he is not the whole party.
Until a deal is done anything could happen. This is MMP. So NZ could end up with a Labour infused government despite the massive swing against them.
Helen Clark is just mortified that her party has been such a disaster, she is looking for somewhere else to throw a bit of blame. How she has managed to keep schtum up to now is beyond me.
People live in hope until there is no hope and I think poor Helen is just being hopeful. If we were to get Labour back I think there would be a few broken windows and small fires.
And what Dee M said about Winston.
Labour are still toast.
MC
It's dismissed, just like Labour.
Post a Comment