There is still some uncertainty. The special votes may yet alter the composition of Parliament, and Wairarapa in particular looks vulnerable to a Labour gain once those votes are counted. Beyond that, however, National appears likely to retain the rest of its electorate holdings. Unless something truly remarkable emerges from the count, the broad shape of the next government may already be visible.
Assuming the numbers remain roughly where they are, an interesting question is what role, if any, The Opportunities Party (TOP) will play. My suspicion is that National will be keen to keep TOP somewhere within the governing orbit, perhaps through a Confidence and Supply agreement rather than a formal coalition arrangement.
This would not necessarily be driven by immediate necessity. Politics, however, is a long game. Governments that survive one election are already thinking about the next. National’s strategists will be acutely aware that today’s comfortable arrangement may not be available in 2029. Cultivating a relationship with TOP now could prove useful insurance against future electoral arithmetic.
There is also the matter of policy. While ACT and New Zealand First have often been willing partners on economic and regulatory issues, there remain areas where National’s preferences do not align perfectly with either party. Climate policy is perhaps the clearest example. National has shown little appetite for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement or abandoning New Zealand’s commitment to net-zero emissions targets. Having TOP available as a supplementary parliamentary partner could provide additional support for maintaining those policies should disagreements emerge within the Coalition itself.
As always, social media reacted far more quickly than the formal political machinery. In fact, I first became aware of the likely outcome through the inevitable outpouring of despair and outrage online before I had even bothered to check the actual results. Long before the Electoral Commission had finished its work, the vocal minority had already declared the end of democracy, the collapse of the country, and the triumph of everything they dislike.
The major media outlets are, for the moment, presenting the situation as considerably less certain. Strictly speaking, they are not wrong. Special votes have been responsible for surprises before, and there is still enough uncertainty to justify caution.
Yet one also gets the sense that some outlets would prefer a few weeks of suspense. Election-night certainty does not generate nearly as much content as an ongoing narrative of dramatic possibilities, electoral calculations, and hypothetical coalition permutations. The prospect of special votes “changing everything” is simply a more exciting story than a relatively straightforward continuation of the status quo.
No doubt some of those same media outlets will soon discover a newfound concern about overhang seats. One can already predict the outraged commentary should the Coalition benefit from them. Yet such commentary would require a remarkably short institutional memory.
It was the Māori Party that first demonstrated how overhang seats could be used as an effective political strategy under MMP (vote for them in the electorate, vote Labour for the Party).
National, meanwhile, spent the closing weeks of the campaign opposing such arrangements. Principles, however, have a habit of becoming remarkably flexible when the beneficiaries change.
Should an overhang prove important to the formation of the next government, it will be fascinating to watch commentators explain why a tactic that was once a legitimate expression of MMP has suddenly become a threat to democracy. The choreography required for that performance may prove more entertaining than Parliament itself.
For now, though, the most likely outcome remains the simplest one: New Zealand wakes up after an election to discover that, despite months of campaigning, countless promises, endless debates, and millions of dollars spent persuading voters that the country stood at a historic crossroads, the government is probably much the same as it was the day before.
The faces may change, the seating plan may shift, and the pundits may spend weeks analysing every decimal point in the vote, but the broad direction of government appears likely to remain intact.
Politics is often like that. The rhetoric promises revolution. The voters usually deliver administration.
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE
Assuming the numbers remain roughly where they are, an interesting question is what role, if any, The Opportunities Party (TOP) will play. My suspicion is that National will be keen to keep TOP somewhere within the governing orbit, perhaps through a Confidence and Supply agreement rather than a formal coalition arrangement.
This would not necessarily be driven by immediate necessity. Politics, however, is a long game. Governments that survive one election are already thinking about the next. National’s strategists will be acutely aware that today’s comfortable arrangement may not be available in 2029. Cultivating a relationship with TOP now could prove useful insurance against future electoral arithmetic.
There is also the matter of policy. While ACT and New Zealand First have often been willing partners on economic and regulatory issues, there remain areas where National’s preferences do not align perfectly with either party. Climate policy is perhaps the clearest example. National has shown little appetite for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement or abandoning New Zealand’s commitment to net-zero emissions targets. Having TOP available as a supplementary parliamentary partner could provide additional support for maintaining those policies should disagreements emerge within the Coalition itself.
As always, social media reacted far more quickly than the formal political machinery. In fact, I first became aware of the likely outcome through the inevitable outpouring of despair and outrage online before I had even bothered to check the actual results. Long before the Electoral Commission had finished its work, the vocal minority had already declared the end of democracy, the collapse of the country, and the triumph of everything they dislike.
The major media outlets are, for the moment, presenting the situation as considerably less certain. Strictly speaking, they are not wrong. Special votes have been responsible for surprises before, and there is still enough uncertainty to justify caution.
Yet one also gets the sense that some outlets would prefer a few weeks of suspense. Election-night certainty does not generate nearly as much content as an ongoing narrative of dramatic possibilities, electoral calculations, and hypothetical coalition permutations. The prospect of special votes “changing everything” is simply a more exciting story than a relatively straightforward continuation of the status quo.
No doubt some of those same media outlets will soon discover a newfound concern about overhang seats. One can already predict the outraged commentary should the Coalition benefit from them. Yet such commentary would require a remarkably short institutional memory.
It was the Māori Party that first demonstrated how overhang seats could be used as an effective political strategy under MMP (vote for them in the electorate, vote Labour for the Party).
National, meanwhile, spent the closing weeks of the campaign opposing such arrangements. Principles, however, have a habit of becoming remarkably flexible when the beneficiaries change.
Should an overhang prove important to the formation of the next government, it will be fascinating to watch commentators explain why a tactic that was once a legitimate expression of MMP has suddenly become a threat to democracy. The choreography required for that performance may prove more entertaining than Parliament itself.
For now, though, the most likely outcome remains the simplest one: New Zealand wakes up after an election to discover that, despite months of campaigning, countless promises, endless debates, and millions of dollars spent persuading voters that the country stood at a historic crossroads, the government is probably much the same as it was the day before.
The faces may change, the seating plan may shift, and the pundits may spend weeks analysing every decimal point in the vote, but the broad direction of government appears likely to remain intact.
Politics is often like that. The rhetoric promises revolution. The voters usually deliver administration.
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE
7 comments:
One possibility no one appears to have thought of is if NZ First goes with Labour, if they offer Winston a better deal. It's happened before.
TOP is interesting given who runs it in the background and who is in Parliament. Some appear more amenable to negotiate while others like the Canadian belong in the Green Tpm alliance. Down the line we might see splits and resignations and new faces in from Top list. I place it in the Lgtpm bloc although its leader Q might not be. I predict she will be gone and replaced by a treaty warrior.
A coalition with any party that preaches universal basic income would be a mistake.
Are you mad?
What a crock of a PM Luxon is. Totally in denial he would be in opposition but for ACT and NZF.
Now offering a conciliatory hand to left-wing TOP, when he totally ruled them out! He could have put this all to rest and had a comfortable majority by not pushing 2 ticks Blue. But no, one concludes he surely must have deep-seated, left-wing tendencies. Hopefully ACT and NZF don't cave in their negotiations with him. If they ever get that opportunity.
No way can you have TOP and NZF in the same political orbit, their natural constituencies are diametrically opposed. Winston lives off (and for?) the oldies, Wong is ‘down with the kids’ and wants to land tax the oldies into penury. Can’t happen.
If Luxon tries to tempt TOP into his camp, Winston could very well switch to Labour, as Anon 3.24 says, its happened before.
Luxon’s dislike for the two parties that saved his bacon two years ago became quite evident in the lead up to this election. Seymour and Peters must destroy Luxon’s Labour Light ambitions by negotiating far more forcefully than last time. Act’s desire to crush Luxon’s Net-Zero fantasy would be a good non negotiable commitment. NZ First’s desire to withdraw NZ from the terrible Indian FTA should also be non negotiable if possible. There are many others.
What are you people on about. NZF can't go with Labour period, before the election or after - it simply was never an option. The delusions of NZF going with Labour following the election are simply mathmatically impossible to boot. Wait for the final count 27 Nov and all the speculations will have been for nothing, the answers will reveal themselves.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.