John Denton: Post Election Prattle

There’s a great deal of blather being skited across the media in the aftermath of the election.

From Hipkins’ claim that “National was only holding on to the prospect of power because they’ve manipulated the electoral system” (When Labour’s co-conspirators, TPM, apparently did not). To claims that “National had been pulled too far right” (Excuse me whilst I laugh. Hysterically).

From claims that a grand coalition between Labour and National could be the answer (Presumably with Luxon and Hipkins alternating, month about, as joint Prime Ministers). To the assertion that TOP may still be ‘the kingmaker’ (Oh! How Winston must gnash his teeth at the thought of that crown slipping through his hands).

“Voter suppression”, claimed by the Greens. “Nine seats delivered” claimed by TPM. Cover up of the $11.8 million deficit in the finances of that megaphone of the left, RNZ, by National’s Broadcasting Minister. The list goes on.

In light of these wild ideas, I thought I might add a few more to make the commentariat classes choke on their cornflakes.

How about Winston Peters throwing NZF in with Labour? Of course, the last time he did this it all but destroyed NZF, with voter support dropping like a stone, from 7.2% in 2017 to 2.3% in 2023, but given that he’s now 81 years old and this is probably his last rodeo, what does he care?

We know that for all of his 47 years of political life, from the Roundtable bribe allegations, the Winebox Affair, backtracks on the "Baubles of Office", the missing Owen Glenn donations mystery, Superranuationgate, and the Regional Investment Fund pork barreling waste, Winston has been in it primarily for Winston.

Why then, if Hipkins sweetens the ‘baubles’ pot sufficiently, would Winston not accept these and turn his coat yet again?

Winston for Deputy PM and Minister of Finance? Cloe wouldn’t like it, but she might well suck it up if it gets her back onto the government benches without needing Cutie Qiulae in the coalition, thus preventing TOP from stealing her limelight, and her voters.

As for Waititi and TPM, he probably wouldn’t mind, provided he could still perform the odd haka on the few days he bothers to turn up in Parliament, and to continue plotting the implementation of He Puapua with Willy Jackson.

Sure, after vociferously “Ruling out Labour’ on several occasions, to now rule them in would destroy Winston’s credibility, and probably the NZF vote, but again, like Trump he’s nearly at his use by date, so why would he care?

On the upside it would feed his ego, keeping him on the front pages for another three years, with the bonus of adding squillions more to his pension in 2029.

Of course you might also ask why Hipkins would agree to this, given his own rejection of NZF Winston’s “overt racism” (Something which is strangely OK when it’s TPM and the Maori seats displaying this characteristic, but there you go).

The answer is again quite simple. If Hipkins doesn’t lead Labour into government this time then he’s a gonner anyway with McAnulty, Edmonds or Wood lurking in the wings, so why would he not swallow the rat and invite NZF into his coalition? He has nothing to lose save his virtually non-existent credibility, and everything to gain.

But enough of that NZF/Labour coalition idea. Here’s another one, addressing the Maori seat question.

NZF (Winston again! Perhaps wanting his political epitaph to read “I led my people to political equality and abolished the Maori Seats”) and Hobson’s Pledge under ex National leader Don Brash, are among several voices calling for a binding referendum on separate Maori seats in Parliament. But why?

Stand-alone referenda, apart from the taxpayer expense involved, also have a track record of exciting only 55% or less of the proletariat to vote, a situation which risks said referenda being captured by vocal, activist minorities.

And make no mistake, even if only half the country votes, and the “Retain” lobby wins by only one vote, Maori seats are pretty much locked in forever. So why risk it?

On the other hand, Parliament has the power to abolish the Maori seats with a simple minority vote, so why wouldn’t the coalition do just that? Tied in with a coherent MMP split vote endorsement campaign, this presents as a brilliant strategic ploy from the right-of center, the ROCs, prior to 2029.

A coalition decision that ‘Maori seats are abolished as of 2029’ would force Labour and the left to campaign, probably to the exclusion of all else, on reversing that edict and retaining the Maori seats.

The whole election then becomes a referendum on this question and given that general elections excite considerably more voters than referenda there a much better chance that no vocal, activist minority could overwhelm the issue.

It would also be a clear choice for the voter, effectively asking them ‘Do you want to go against what has already been enacted and actively vote for reinstatement?’

There’s much psychological research on this ‘status quo bias’. If the status quo is ‘the Maori seats are gone’ then the question ‘do you want them back?’ is more likely to result in a ‘no’ vote.

The alternative, if the status quo is ‘the Maori seats exist’ then the question ‘should we get rid of them?” is less likely to result in a ‘yes’.

It’s a subtle difference, but a very powerful one.

This strategy would of course require forceful management by the coalition, particularly under the leadership of National. Which leads me to the final speculation in this essay.

The fact that National held 42 seats, with 35 of these going to returning MPs, but lost 20% of its party vote (875,234 reduced to 706,680) suggests the National electorate has faith in its local MPs, but very much less in the management board which set the 2026 direction, and in Luxon who endorsed and fronted that plan.

The only logical conclusion then is Luxon must go. He has clearly shown he doesn’t have the political cojones to rise to the task of PM (blatherskite comes again to mind). But who will be the face of the coalition in his stead?

Winston, as noted above, is nearing the end of the political road. He’ll be 84 in 2029 and whilst ‘elder statesman’ can be a positive, ‘geriatric statesman’ not so much. So it’s up to Shane to step up for NZF, but, whilst he’s an effective streetfighter, I don’t think he has the gravitas to drive this strategy.

Then there’s Seymour, probably the brightest and most economically literate of the crop, he impresses me with his grasp of media management, but again, given he still looks like a head prefect rather than a headmaster, he might have difficulty facing down the political sh*tstorm that will erupt when this strategy is revealed.

So, we’re back to National, but with Luxon deposed, who could replace him? And the answer, if we accept that Bishop is gone, seems to be that the only alternative is Erica Stanford.

A proven performer in the Education portfolio (Indeed it could be argued that her popular education reforms have made her the most effective performer of all the National ministers in this parliament). A mature 48 year old coming up to her fourth Parliamentary term. A married woman with two kids. Photogenic. First class honors degree, and several years working in the real world before politics. Stanford ticks all the boxes.

Women can relate to her, as can the intelligentsia. Wokesters also, given part of her degree was in Maori studies. Able to retreat behind claims of misogyny when attacked and to point to motherhood as proof of her empathy, compassion etc. she has all the attributes to claim she’s promoting the strategy of abolishing the Maori seats for the good of a nation divided, rather than a cynical political ploy.

In effect she could even take a leaf from the Ardern playbook and claim ‘kindness’ as her driving dictum. Freeing Maori from 160 years of Pakeha condescension and treatment as somewhat retarded, less politically capable citizens, needing special treatment before they could play with the big boys in government.

And who could argue with that without tacitly agreeing that Maori, for the last 160 years, have indeed been thus?

To summarize then, three ideas. NZF to Labour, Maori seats abolished by simple majority and Erica Stanford to rescue National.

Stupid maybe, but no less so than many of the others currently being thrown around by the losers and their supporters in the MSM.

I rest my case.

John Denton, a retired Australasian Marketing Director of an American multinational, now pursues the hobby of addressing ill-informed opinions with hard facts.