I beg to differ. If I was a betting man my money would be on Winston staying where he is or, as Chris Trotter has suggested, occupying the cross benches. I believe him when he says he won’t join Labour while Hipkins is leader. Recent polls have shown a favourable view for Hipkins as leader so I think his caucus will leave him there. Should he be replaced then it’s ‘game on’.
I still don’t think ‘game on’ means Winston going with Labour. In 2017, his main reason for going with Labour was personal grievances with certain members of the National Party, including Bill English, who contributed to his resigning from the party in early 1993. Winston is one who harbours grudges for some considerable time. This is where he can get himself into trouble, as he appears to put his personal interests ahead of the good of the country. Voters ensured he paid the ultimate price in 2020.
Jamie highlights the areas that NZ First have in common with Labour. He quotes David Seymour, who said Peters’ promise to repeal the Regulatory Standards Act sounded like the NZ First leader “was getting ready to go with Labour”. Peters laughed that off, says Jamie, suggesting Labour had “no position on anything, basically”. He’s right there, although increasing taxes is a perennial. Jamie, clutching at straws, opines Labour are also wanting to repeal the legislation.
In light of Seymour’s comments, Jamie says the Herald repeatedly asked Peters if he could work with Labour. No doubt desperately hoping for a yes answer, Peters was his usual non-committal self, first ignoring the question and then calling it “stupid”. Jamie concedes with Labour polling well, and that’s debatable in my view, a leadership change seems highly unlikely. However, further clutching at straws, Jamie says personal differences haven’t mattered to Peters before highlighting his relationship with Seymour, which seems to be working depending on the day.
Jamie offers the proposition, a likely one in my view, that NZ First may not be working to prepare for a partnership with Labour, but rather positioning itself to appeal to certain voters, particularly the working classes in the regions. He says Peters argued in September that Labour no longer represents the “hard-working blue collar battlers of our country”, like miners, labourers, foresters and fishermen. Again he’s right. Labour, like the left globally, deserted them decades ago.
Labour’s friends now reside in academia – the so-called educated elite spouting the politics of envy from their ivory towers. The average Labour voter is taking a long time to wake up to the fact this is the case. These pontificating professors and political commentators are completely clueless as to how the real world works: they live in a different universe. Fortunately there are not enough of them to decide an election outcome but they are a squeaky wheel that the left seem happy to keep oiled.
Another bone of contention between Peters and his coalition partners is the subject of asset sales. He correctly surmises that Peters is more in tune with Labour on this topic. Jamie states that Peters is also critical of how the economy was being managed by a government of which he is a senior member. But, if Jamie is citing this on the basis of Winston thinking Labour would do a better job, he’s wrong.
Next Jamie wrote of a similar idea NZ First and Labour have to create funding mechanisms to be used for future investing: in Labour’s case New Zealand businesses; in NZ First’s case to “invest solely in a multi-decade infrastructure build to enable economic growth and social enablement”. Labour want to kick theirs off with an input of $200 million, while Winston spoke of a $100 billion fund, calling Labour’s amount a “joke”, as well he might. They only think big if it’s taxing people.
Peters accused Hipkins of pinching his idea. Hipkins replied that Peters’ plan appeared to involve overseas investors, which his wouldn’t. Of course it wouldn’t. Overseas investors? Perish the thought. The examples given in Jamie’s article are not substantial enough for Winston to move from where he sits. If he did go with the left, he has a lot more to lose than he has to gain.
I am sure his deputy, Shane Jones, would not be advocating such a move, as he would see everything he is trying to achieve in the energy sector quickly undone. In this area, Hipkins would be between a rock and a hard place: does he go with Winston or the Greens? The Greens are the party he needs to keep onside more than NZ First, but the infantile Chloë Swarbrick is already threatening illegal moves by saying all mining licences will be cancelled if the Greens are part of a future government.
National is somewhat akin to Labour when it comes to dealing with Winston. As the Greens are a more reliable partner to Labour, so ACT plays a similar role with National. The advantage National has is Winston has more in common with Luxon and gets on better with him than he would with anyone in Labour. This has been apparent when watching the coalition in action, where David Seymour is often the odd man out when it comes to policy decisions.
We can be sure nothing will be decided by Winston prior to post-election negotiations. Winston will play his usual game of extracting whatever he thinks he can get from either side but I think this time it will be to the disadvantage of Labour. He does not have the issues he had with National in 2017 and if he can’t finalise a deal with them, then I think Chris Trotter might well be right – the cross benches await.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
I still don’t think ‘game on’ means Winston going with Labour. In 2017, his main reason for going with Labour was personal grievances with certain members of the National Party, including Bill English, who contributed to his resigning from the party in early 1993. Winston is one who harbours grudges for some considerable time. This is where he can get himself into trouble, as he appears to put his personal interests ahead of the good of the country. Voters ensured he paid the ultimate price in 2020.
Jamie highlights the areas that NZ First have in common with Labour. He quotes David Seymour, who said Peters’ promise to repeal the Regulatory Standards Act sounded like the NZ First leader “was getting ready to go with Labour”. Peters laughed that off, says Jamie, suggesting Labour had “no position on anything, basically”. He’s right there, although increasing taxes is a perennial. Jamie, clutching at straws, opines Labour are also wanting to repeal the legislation.
In light of Seymour’s comments, Jamie says the Herald repeatedly asked Peters if he could work with Labour. No doubt desperately hoping for a yes answer, Peters was his usual non-committal self, first ignoring the question and then calling it “stupid”. Jamie concedes with Labour polling well, and that’s debatable in my view, a leadership change seems highly unlikely. However, further clutching at straws, Jamie says personal differences haven’t mattered to Peters before highlighting his relationship with Seymour, which seems to be working depending on the day.
Jamie offers the proposition, a likely one in my view, that NZ First may not be working to prepare for a partnership with Labour, but rather positioning itself to appeal to certain voters, particularly the working classes in the regions. He says Peters argued in September that Labour no longer represents the “hard-working blue collar battlers of our country”, like miners, labourers, foresters and fishermen. Again he’s right. Labour, like the left globally, deserted them decades ago.
Labour’s friends now reside in academia – the so-called educated elite spouting the politics of envy from their ivory towers. The average Labour voter is taking a long time to wake up to the fact this is the case. These pontificating professors and political commentators are completely clueless as to how the real world works: they live in a different universe. Fortunately there are not enough of them to decide an election outcome but they are a squeaky wheel that the left seem happy to keep oiled.
Another bone of contention between Peters and his coalition partners is the subject of asset sales. He correctly surmises that Peters is more in tune with Labour on this topic. Jamie states that Peters is also critical of how the economy was being managed by a government of which he is a senior member. But, if Jamie is citing this on the basis of Winston thinking Labour would do a better job, he’s wrong.
Next Jamie wrote of a similar idea NZ First and Labour have to create funding mechanisms to be used for future investing: in Labour’s case New Zealand businesses; in NZ First’s case to “invest solely in a multi-decade infrastructure build to enable economic growth and social enablement”. Labour want to kick theirs off with an input of $200 million, while Winston spoke of a $100 billion fund, calling Labour’s amount a “joke”, as well he might. They only think big if it’s taxing people.
Peters accused Hipkins of pinching his idea. Hipkins replied that Peters’ plan appeared to involve overseas investors, which his wouldn’t. Of course it wouldn’t. Overseas investors? Perish the thought. The examples given in Jamie’s article are not substantial enough for Winston to move from where he sits. If he did go with the left, he has a lot more to lose than he has to gain.
I am sure his deputy, Shane Jones, would not be advocating such a move, as he would see everything he is trying to achieve in the energy sector quickly undone. In this area, Hipkins would be between a rock and a hard place: does he go with Winston or the Greens? The Greens are the party he needs to keep onside more than NZ First, but the infantile Chloë Swarbrick is already threatening illegal moves by saying all mining licences will be cancelled if the Greens are part of a future government.
National is somewhat akin to Labour when it comes to dealing with Winston. As the Greens are a more reliable partner to Labour, so ACT plays a similar role with National. The advantage National has is Winston has more in common with Luxon and gets on better with him than he would with anyone in Labour. This has been apparent when watching the coalition in action, where David Seymour is often the odd man out when it comes to policy decisions.
We can be sure nothing will be decided by Winston prior to post-election negotiations. Winston will play his usual game of extracting whatever he thinks he can get from either side but I think this time it will be to the disadvantage of Labour. He does not have the issues he had with National in 2017 and if he can’t finalise a deal with them, then I think Chris Trotter might well be right – the cross benches await.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment