By Alex Tarrant
Winston Peters says Saturday's vote has allowed for nine government permutations, although he's not going to talk about them, or coalition potential, until special votes are known on 7 October.
Interest.co.nz understands that included in the nine are situations where policies are supported (or not) on an issue-by-issue basis - effectively giving rise to the potential of minority National and/or Labour governments. But Peters on Wednesday wasn't giving anything away as to whether he and his caucus favoured one route or any other.
The New Zealand First leader spent 25 minutes on Wednesday fronting to the political press in Parliament, sometimes discussing New Zealand First’s approach to the next few weeks, but largely ripping into the media on pre- and post-election coverage and on the lines of questioning during the press conference on potential coalitions.
Peters and his caucus had just emerged from a two-and-a-half-hour meeting – the team’s first get together since Saturday’s election. After initially laying into the media with his initial remarks, Peters raised the issue of the special votes – why 384,000 people still had not had their votes counted, meaning NZ First had to withhold its views on government formation until after they were known on 7 October.
Peters told media there were nine permutations for the make-up of the government after the 23 September results. He said these didn’t include any with ACT involved.
He also asked the media not to write that one party [ie National] had “got the moral authority” to lead a government. “We’re not under first-past-the-post here,” he said. Peters said he would seek feedback from NZ First’s membership, but caveated this by saying he would expect the party board would already have a fair understanding of members’ views. New Zealand First’s final position is expected to be a result of the views of its caucus and board.
Peters said his caucus at the start of its meeting had forsworn not to put their own personal views above the interests of the party or the country. NZ First would make a decision in the national interest “when we know what the people of this country have said,” he said. Peters indicated that he expected he could have a final decision by 12 October.
Asked whether the timeframe of less than a week between 7 and 12 October was tight, Peters said he’d been aware of other parties’ policies for more than a year, and of their costings. While he acknowledged others had tried to cost NZ First policies, he said public references to any numbers had all been wrong. He accepted that conversations might be held in the meantime.
He also referred to speculation that he had a vendetta against National’s Steven Joyce. “I don’t hate people,” he said before saying he’d discussed the matter in an airport queue with Joyce himself Wednesday morning, with neither of them able to figure out the source of the speculation.
103 Comments
"Nine permutations"? Winston is obviously better at math than me.
All I can think of are four to get at least 61 seats, and these don't include Seymour/ACT.
NAT + NZF = 67 seats
NAT + GRN = 65 seats
NAT + LAB = 103 seats
LAB + GRN + NZF = 61 seats
Two of these seem very improbable indeed.
Can anyone enlighten me on Winston's "logic" ?
There are also the potential that the left/right might pick up or lose a couple of seats. He will need to factor that National may gain a seat and still need him, or Labour Greens could gain up to 2 seats and still need him.
So there are a few unknowns with the special vote to be considered.
OK. I get the cross bench option. Another far-out one.
But why are my set FPP options? What are your "MMP options"? I need these explained to me. Please. (These "MMP options" sound like smoke and mirrors to me. But I am open to knowing what they are.)
I don't think "minority govt" options are real options. "Confidence & Supply agreements" are the same as my list above. They decide who governs. I am still at four options, and only two real ones. I suspect Winston is just making stuff up as he speaks, winging it.
Nine permutations involving NZ1st are listed by political journalist Claire Trevettt are here -plus three more involving the highly unlikely Green/National party combinations
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11927164
Listening to talk back radio it appears a great number of people do not understand the implications of MMP - for instance it could be possible for NZF+LAB to agree to join together, the GRNs get cut loose and stand alone while NATs form a government without 61 seats - highly unlikely but possible - the problem is NZ has never had a minority government - but it can work as Julia Gillard found in AU - successfully for 3 years - drove the talking heads nuts.
It worked because the other side were terrified of forcing a new election knowing they would be slaughtered
thats the trouble with baubles of office, they can blind people from the bigger picture. if they had stayed outside and screamed and shouted and made small changes they most likely would have survived as they would have had the image of fighting against oppression, underdog against big (white) bully.
instead they got seen as buckling under time after time, and sooner or later that wears thin.
even though they did get some policy through it was not enough and big enough to make any difference
They are not real options. If you can get LAB + NAT together, why on earth would you need NZF? or the GRN, or NZF + GRN. Once you have 61+ votes you only complicate matters immeasurably with others joining in. No politician is ever going to make things harder when an 'easier' solution is available.
Similarly NAT + GRN + NZF is just unnecessarily harder than just NAT plus one of either of them.
None of these are sensible options.
I think it could be more likely that NZF splinters - not highly likely, but more likely than NAT + GRN + NZF.
David, the nine outcomes relate to the form of Government/governing arrangements - none of the nine including ACT being in the mix and not considering a Nat/Green coalition.
In other words, nine options for the various forms of government where NZF is the decision-maker with respect to that form the government takes.
The graphic had a cute beehive with the flags in the various party colours sticking out the top of the beehive (indicating coalition parties to the Government), or placed to the side of the beehive (signalling C&S agreement by the 'flag' not on top, but rather beside) and the options of a coalition agreement in the form of the smaller partner being inside versus outside Cabinet. As well as options for a two-party coalition (either LAB/Green or Lab/NZF) with the other party outside giving C&S.
But, sorry, I can't find it (the article with the graphic).
Nats minority govt, Winnie on cross benches (his natural home btw imho)
Lab + Winnie with Greens with confidence and supply
So that's 6, might need some help to get to 9 but if all of the specials go to Winnie, as I am sure he is hoping, he might be able to form his own minority govt, with anyone else on confidence and supply. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Fritz I’m trying to work out in my head who will last the longest when they finally have this meeting, Jacinda or bill. He’s bound to go off the deep end. Jacinda would be smart enough to give a little but can stand her ground too. Bill I think will lose it and try and be smart. Winnie will pounce at that behaviour. Winnie hates stupid questions so bill would definitely lose there too. This shouldn’t be funny but I’m still laughing after watching that video. I hope bill doesn’t have high blood pressure. Maybe he should have a big blow before this meeting. Smoke a ounce
What cracks me up is that every Nat supporter I have talked to since Saturday has trumpeted the election 'win'. They don't seem to realise is that Saturday was a terrible result for the Nats as it has required them to go hat in hand to a party that they share very little in common with.
The reality is that the government that all of those Nat supporters voted for is going to look very different to the one that they will get with Winston/NZ First. Some are starting to realise it now that we are hearing the calls of the process is undemocratic, etc.
Yeah nymad, all I’ve heard is the same thing. It’s as if peters will definitely go with national and with peters there’ll be no differents . Unbelievable. National with peters is more or less like a big % off labour getting in. In fact if I was a bull on immigration and high house prices I’m not sure which would be worse. National and NZF or labour NZF and the greens. Peters with national will have strict changes and dates because he’d need to be certain things happened but with labour I’m not so sure of urgency
Paashaas, to quote yourself: "face it, your team lost"
More people voted against National's ideology than for it. For National to get into power will require more changes to that ideology than it would for Labour/Greens. Either way, National gets reined in. Democracy wins.
Paashaas. If you are asking me. Nationals result is they have to change a lot of what they were used to or they’re out. NZF gets there own way either way and helps to lead . Labour changes little and helps to lead or is out but some of there biggest policies are still put in threw peters and they have a extremely good chance to lead in 3 years. Greens , chance to help lead. Results in order of “winning haha” . NZF, labour , greens and I cant see national have any advantages at all except embarrassment. How’s that for basics
O4
Interesting to think what policy concessions Nats may have to give to get Winnie to side with them.
Surely he wants a pull back in immigration? When you look at his policies, reduced immigration is central to many of them, such as housing.
Also with regards to housing, he's much closer to Labour in terms of limiting foreign buying, and building more houses.
On policy grounds, he's simply much closer to Labour than the Nats in most areas, and that has to count.
Labour are halfway there already with their immigration policy.
Fritz. It would be great if we could turn back the clock 4 or 5 years as if this overseas investors and high immigration levels never happened but we can’t. Those two things had a big part in the housing boom and high rents and unaffordability. Peters is against the two of those two major policy’s. So is labour. It’s a hell of a shame if people get hurt with house prices coming down. Landlords could get hit . Builders. Developers. The economy. But it needs to happen to fix the problems. I don’t think the last 4 years should have happened at all. Interest rates should have gone up. Overseas investors should never been aloud to invest in homes. It probably doesn’t matter about what peters does with overseas investors because housing is correcting anyway but something still needs to be done . Immigration is miles to high for Auckland for many reasons to list. If labour or peters had a good result from overseas investors and immigration those two things alone would be enough for me. You’d be surprised the things they would fix in the end. Getting there’s the problem, and the blame game. I shouldn’t say this but naturally the government build houses, killing overseas investors and dropping immigrants are all house price killers but it’s peaked anyway. We need cheap housing. We need to start looking after the people that are here. Shame we stopped because it’s going to be painful turning the clock back
Yeah high immigration goes back to the early 2000 with Clark but people were leaving for mining etc overseas. National took things to extremes and with the help of the RB didn’t stop it way Before the housing bubble got carried away. It could never have carried on which has just recently proofed to be correct. Now the country’s in dept from hell and there’s a risk interest rates could go up but I don’t think so . And overseas investors could massively leave nzs housing if prices drop to much which I think will happen . There’s a lot of maybes at the moment but one things for sure nationals high house plan is over . That’s the one thing they don’t get but remember housing is dropping anyway. Labour and peters just won’t let it happen again . Wages, house prices, dept , keep these 3 in check and happy happy happy. Not . Greed greed greed
Is that based on the linguistic / mathematical proficiency of the median individual from their voter base relative to that of the voter base of comparable political parties in NZ or some other form of scholastic aptitude? Please elaborate and provide sources.
I am exceptionally interested in this assertion because I have personally noticed a strong positive correlation between fiscal aptitude and political alignment amongst my peers.
Perhaps these options have escaped some of the public.
1. An injuction in the High Court to stop policies being implemented that diminish or override the 1688 Bill of Rights.
2. Personal accounts sent to MP's for compensation against any loss of rights.
3. Personal accounts sent to political parties for formulating policies that seize individual rights.
Maybe these crazy election promises and deals that go beyond the mandate that the 1688 Bill of Rights grants to politicians on entering parliament is going to take another twist!!
Dont get that, democracy gave him 7%. If National have the Moral Authority then they would get more then 50%, they didnt. People who voted for WP knew he may have the Kingmakers role, his policies align with theirs. If they wanted National, they would have voted for National.
NZers know the greens will partner with Labour. So effectively thats a block. Now we wait for special votes.
WPs policies align more with labour but I may be wrong, but its about whose policies align and the number of people who voted for it. That will give whoever the majority. WP is doing a good job.
MMP you have to love it.
Are labour pro immigration.
Theres a storyline thats goes once upon a time.
We have a horrendous situation in NZ with poor infrastructure where we are reducing number of classes, we have hospital ques, traffic jams, house prices out of this world with average of 900K in Auckland, DTIs of 10 times, money laundering, education rorts, low wage inflation, low productivity.
Even Bolger says "neoliberal economic policies have absolutely failed."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91769882/The-9th-floor-Jim-Bol…
lovely - three more weeks with everybody fawning over some almost 80 yr old egomaniac with only 7.5% of the vote - paralyzing the country when we need to get on with it - the special votes wont really change anything - Nat and NZF will have a majority and Lab NZF and Green will have a majority either way - Nats will still be biggest party by 7-10% regardless of the special votes - so he can make the call now - in fact if the specials go the same way historically - nats will lose 1 or 2 NZF will drop .25%+ and the greens will get one or two - which could weaken his position on teh left if the greens end up with nine seats!
madness
Yer, 3 years ago NATs couldn't get over the 61 line on their own, having to rely on their pet rats to give them that final leg up, and sure the rubber-stamp pet rats gave the NATs immediate control without any argy-bargy or negotiating - well look where that got those minor parties - oblivion - gone - finished - kaput - but these NAT urgers want the same immediate hari-kari by NZ First - the more I see of this utter-rubbish the more I'm inclined to hope Winston goes for the cross-bench option, sides with LAB on divisions and makes NATs look like fools for 3 years
The paralyzing the economy comment is bloody ridiculous. You can sit in the corner in your self induced coma if you like. Elections are like weddings, you get out of bed the next day, the birds still sing, coffee tastes the same, you are still breathing. Nothing changes, especially if the nats get another go, nothing changes.
The election in a close race ends on the 7th. It’s not the end of the world. Although you’d think so from the national voters . I guess they think by hurrying peters he will go with national. Haha there’s a good reason peters is waiting and it doesn’t look good for national. Because yes there’s no point waiting if he was going with national.
This is a hung parliament - get used to it
In a parliamentary system of government, a hung parliament is an expression used to describe a state of a parliament when no single political party has an outright majority of seats in the parliament (legislature) and therefore has no legitimate mandate to form a government
my prediction - If Peters forms a National coalition the herald and other MSM will praise his decision with reassuring articles of positive affirmation. If however he chooses a Labour Green coalition he will be savaged with the same vitriolic contempt that's being directed towards Donald Trump in the US.
my personal opinion from talking to many immigrants most likely true of new immigrants, as they want to still bring in family and friends and keep telling me we are under populated and they all voted national.
for those been here 10 years + seems they focus more on the other issues health, education, housing the same things that effect the rest of us so some tend to be moving away from national to other parties but they seem confused as too which to vote for.
many dont understand MMP and seem confused when you try to explain vote splitting to them for a better outcome. ie ACT
True r1970m by about a whole 4% - but then when you consider that a higher percentage of NZers voted for National this election, than when they got into Govt in 2008 (i.e. After 9 yrs of challenges of Govt more people think they're worthy of support than did before), only the blind beggar wouldn't see that as a major endorsement of a job well down to date across the wide spectrum of what a Govt has responsibility for?
Anybody know what Winston meant by 'inevitable correction' with this interview with Australia's Sky News on Wednesday?
Peters told Sky News that the one "big thing" he wanted both Labour and National to consider in exchange for his cooperation was the international economy.
"I want them to promise that they have a grasp of economic reality. I think that we're in a very serious state with our international economy, I think the situation in China is very uncertain and unstable in terms of the debt. It's not so flash in Australia, our biggest trading partner, and one tremor can have a serious effect on New Zealand," he said.
"I wished in this campaign, the two parties had a grasp of the inevitable correction it's going to take and how much pain that's going to bring. That's what I really hope for."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97321178/winston-peters-hints…
IMO - Basically the world economies are currently fueled by massive debt, china $250 Trillion alone.
There comes a time where the creation of money has to stop or it devalues the currency, so cash then becomes a lot tighter. As a result interest rates rise based on demand and risk.
Basically once everyone starts wanting their money back the speculative markets loose ground back to true value, defaults start happening, bankruptcies and liquidations follow. Jobs get lost, consumer spending dries up and there you have it Depression
Once again, this statement from Winnie places him much closer policy-wise to Labour than the Nats.
The thing is, with the Nats hands off policy, the going is better when things are good, but the going is worse when things turn sour.
We are already seeing construction turning, a policy like Labour's Kiwibuild will keep building activity ticking along much better than the status quo approach which is very subject to the whims of the market.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.