By Peter Dunne*
The National Party’s delight earlier in the week at revelations that consideration was being given to the establishment of a “blue-green” party that could be a partner at future elections was as understandable as it was premature.
It was understandable because National currently has no viable potential support partner, should it be in a position to form a government after the next election. But it was also premature (unless National is attempting to be deviously coy with the voting public and discussions are far more advanced than it is letting on – a move in itself that carries a considerable risk of backfiring) as the history of attempting to form “blue-green” parties offers not much encouragement.
In 1996, three prominent environmentalists, Sir Rob Fenwick, Gary Taylor and Stephen Rainbow attempted to do so, and their efforts were a dismal failure that did not last much beyond that election. Yet, unlike the current situation, they had the apparent advantage of well-known and credible names, with very strong environmental credentials, that bridged the political spectrum from left to right at that time, but it was still not enough.
Some have speculated that for a new party to succeed it needs a distinctive cause. While that is true, it is not necessarily enough of itself. The cause has to have relevance at the time. UnitedFuture is a good example - its cause was standing up for the values of middle class New Zealand, including blue-green environmentalism. Its spectacular success in 2002 was due to a combination of anxiety that the then Labour-led Government needed some restraint on what was feared to be a looming assault on a range of middle class values, and a lack of confidence that the National Party would be any better in standing up for their interests.
Once the feared assault was averted the need for UnitedFuture’s moderate restraint steadily evaporated. While its message continued to be generally well received, it was just seen as less and less important to vote for it, especially after the Key Government’s pragmatism stole back the centre ground for National.
The putative “blue-green” party faces exactly the same problem – there will be those who will like its message, although it currently seems unlikely there will be enough of them sufficiently energised to vote for it to give the support it needs to be successful. While many environmentally concerned middle class voters find the Green Party’s approach to social and economic policy far too left wing, they are less agitated than they might otherwise be because they can hold their noses and let the neo-Luddites of New Zealand First keep them in check. While that situation remains, it will be difficult for the “blue-green” party to get traction of its own. All of which brings National back to its primary challenge for the next election – making sure New Zealand First is out of Parliament altogether.
There is also the delicious irony of National‘s excitement at the prospect of such a party emerging occurring the same week that it blamed previous support partners, UnitedFuture and Act, for the current housing crisis because they would let it gut the Resource Management Act the way it wanted. National’s approach then was all or nothing – I well recall their Minister telling me he was only prepared to negotiate about the RMA if I gave him an assurance in advance that we would reach an agreement. On another occasion, that same Minister told me he was unwilling to talk further because he suspected (correctly) that I was also consulting with Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the architect of the RMA, and he did not want that.
Yet, all the while, right up to the eleventh hour, UnitedFuture and Act were putting up separate proposals to the Government for possible changes to streamline the way the RMA operated, and to remove perceived procedural roadblocks. UnitedFuture even suggested bringing the provision of affordable housing into the objectives of the RMA but that was rejected because we would not agree to National’s planned watering down of the RMA’s principles and objectives. It is hard to see how a “blue-green” party would have fared any different in those circumstances.
National’s understandable current focus is on how it can get the numbers to form a Government after the next election. Even if it is able to do that, through the advent of a “blue-green” party or some other combination, it will not succeed long-term until it comes to appreciate that while getting the numbers is one thing, working constructively with partners and acknowledging their successes, rather than using them as the whipping boy every time it does not get all its own way, is something else altogether.
*Peter Dunne is the former leader of UnitedFuture, an ex-Labour Party MP, and a former cabinet minister. This article first ran here and is used with permission.
63 Comments
Nationals real chance of getting in is if the current Labour government continues to stuff it up until the next election. Its always a vote for the best of the worst and were heading to the bottom of the barrel across the political spectrum. I don't think I have felt less motivated to vote for over 30 years .Its getting pretty bad, my vote will be to get someone out rather than get someone in.
C’mon there’s been some terrible years
Like the Muldoon years The Bolger years and the duplicitous Lange / Douglas years
What about Australia 5 prime ministers in quick order
What about the UK ?
Forget about us in the US the worlds laughing at us
Who will win Super Bowl is more important
If Winston stands next election (which he will) then NZF remains. After that though? Despite all the huff and puff Shane Jones cannot carry NZF so 2023 is going to be one heck of a conundrum. National needs a viable coalition partner. Nothing in the offing now nor in time for 2020. National needs a charismatic trustworthy and competent leader, well the messiah is not in the camp yet for that coming. Black smoke aplenty, white smoke not likely. For National any hope earlier than 2023 depends on a catastrophic bust up of the current government and maybe a fall out from the Greens to align with them in significant terms. Green smoke folks, that’s what’s needed.
Winston in opposition has always been a dog-whistling big mouth who never has to deliver anything. But in power he has repeatedly been shown up to be a self centred ego maniac and duplicitous liar (one of only MP's ever censured for lying to parliament) who repeatedly reneges on promises so that he is dumped below 5% threshold at the next election. He is a toxic partner in any coalition and best avoided. He is also very old, increasingly erratic, often under the weather and barely coherent in the house, and there are many rumours of serious medical issues, eg: https://twitter.com/hamishpricenz/status/1090197870144180226
One way or another he will soon be gone from Parliament for good (literally)
On Twitter National party MP Matt King blamed United Future for not supporting the Key governments housing affordability RMA reforms. But when I asked (via Twitter) what exactly Nationals proposed RMA reforms were he said he did not have that information at hand. Apparently National is now reviewing its RMA policy position and it will not be ready to be announced until the election year.
So it seems that for some reason Nationals RMA policy position -past and present -is a secret. It would be very helpful if National could clarify these past and present positions so a proper public debate can be had on how to move forward wrt affordable housing.
People complain they don't like either National or Labour, yet they keep voting for National or Labour .. it's complete insanity.
There are plenty of political parties in NZ to choose from, pick one! The only wasted vote is a vote never cast. As the saying goes, don't vote - don't complain!
and that is why people are less likely to vote for a minor party, its a wasted vote and if they dont get in helps the two major parties with extra list seats.
its long past time that the finding of the review were enacted
The Commission presented its final report to the Minister of Justice on 29 October 2012 with the following recommendations:
•The one electorate seat threshold should be abolished (and if it is, the provision for overhang seats should also be abolished);
•The party vote threshold should be lowered from 5% to 4% (with the Commission required by law to review how the 4% threshold is working);
•Consideration be given to fixing the ratio of electorate seats to list seats at 60:40 to address concerns about declining proportionality and diversity of representation;
•Political parties should continue to have responsibility for selecting and ranking candidates on their party lists but they must make a statutory declaration that they have done so in accordance with their party rules;
•MPs should continue to be allowed to be dual candidates and list MPs to stand in by-elections.
'Don't vote, don't complain' - I reckon that's really simplistic.
If you don't have faith in any party and its policies, it's quite principled not to vote.
If there was an election tomorrow I would probably on balance vote Labour. However, if come election time they haven't lifted performance on housing, then there is every chance I won't vote. I have voted Natuonal once or twice in my life but I was massively let down after voting for Key so I would be very hesitant in doing so again.
No, there are plenty of options for protest votes, simply vote for a party that has no chance of getting in if you don't think any of the parties are worth your vote. McGillicuddy serious or the yogic flyers or whoever. It at least shows you cared enough to vote and won't lie down and be steamrolled.
Not voting is the political equivalent of rolling over and exposing your belly. Fine if you have no idea whats going on (and i'd prefer those people didn't vote) and your voting method was going to be "thats a pretty name/face" or some other equaly worthless voting method.
A lot of people vote to get rid of a government or a person. Negative motivation is widely accepted & widely used as a strategic way to vote, especially in this country it seems. Our Tall Poppy Syndrome continues to exercise its powers, somewhat sadly I feel, but there's a lot of disenfranchised & angry people out there.
My vote won't chance, it never has, but I'll be watching & waiting for CoL to slowly but surely publicly implode over the next 18 months or so. According to the whispers in the corridors, it's already underway behind the scenes.
John not sure if you're being sarcastic or not? Has the National party not been publicly imploding the last 18 months? It would appear about 45% of our voting population don't mind cover ups, affairs, mental breakdowns, calling subordinate staff f'ing useless, selling the country out to China make money, creating financial bubbles...perhaps they respect that because it reflects their own position in life and values/principles? Unsure...
Works in the short term, but long term its bound to fail. And what I find even more difficult to fathom, is that if there is a recession under the current government - this government will receive the blame from the National party when in reality its just part of a business cycle that is due to turn...who'd of thought? Why else did John Key run for the door? 'Whispers in the corridors' that I've heard is that he to was having an affair but chose to leave before it came public...but have no evidence to back that up so its just a rumour - nothing factual to base an opinion on...
So your value system is as a National voter that its okay to be unfaithful to your 'life' partner as a leader of the country? Are you sure this is a good role model for society?
Society is going to degrade quite quickly if this is the standard you're happy with?
What about the children? What about honesty and integrity - you know, all of those desirable values of a leader?
The CoL is gone next election. Jacinda mania has already worn off and unless they get some serious cut through and get some points on the board, they are gone.Yes they will get the blame for any economic crash, you cannot continue blaming the previous government 3 or 4 years later. The honeymoon is over.
Probably on the up given what a nasty piece of work JLR turned out to be and how Bridges showed good leadership in removing him even at cost of short term embarrassment. Did you notice that Labour didn't 'leak' their internal polling this month in an attempt to bolster support as they have been in recent months? Must be pretty bad. Last (november) public poll had Coalition sinking badly - NZF below 5%, Greens hovering on 5% and Labour 3 behind Nats who were on 46 even in midst of JLR issues.. So National were close to leading even then. Since then nothing but bad stories and more screwups accumulating (Karel Sourbrek, Kiwibuild, lack of tree planting, worsening economic data) and NZF has deeply angered its' core with their signing of UN migration compact.
Question needs to be asked - have you ever voted for any colour other than blue? If the answer is no, then I find it difficult to take any of your views seriously as you simply just do what you've always done - regardless of whether its a principled decision or not when new information comes to hand.
I've always voted for National and always will - regardless of how many scandals and affairs there are, no matter how much of the country is sold out to foreigners and no matter how poor the party leadership is...
Couple of problems, though.
1. National has been happy to run the immigration taps as wide open as possible - a "sign of our success" and a "good problem to have" alongside the on-again-off-again housing not-crisis.
2. Simon 1-Chinese-1-Indian Bridges still has an integrity problem arising from the recording of the donations for MP list spots conversation. A lot of people don't like the idea of NZ's democracy being even potentially up for sale, even if some long-term votaries are happy to excuse this and far more.
3. People who are angry about the UN migration compact are also likely to be angry about National appearing to be too much influenced by the Chinese Communist Party, a la Jian Yang, and/or point 1.
Sure, dyed in the wool voters from either side aren't likely to change, but the world itself is changing. More will be disenfranchised than necessarily trusting of the current National Party again.
You might want to have a look at nine years of question time in parliament before you suggest you can't blame a previous govt otherwise you might appear biased. I say question time as it is the easiest way to confirm this, the blaming was not confined to then only. Do you really think that people have memories that short, oh wait, it seems Nat supporters do. LOL
If National embrace a few of NZFs policys and keen overseas owner ban and immigration reduction thus allowing housing to continue to loose air slowly they will win. Had they embraced NZ born tax payers with those two policies in the last election they would still be in power. Time will tell.
National to keep the foreign buyer ban and to curb immigration??? Absolutely no way cos these are the lifeline for the National Party. Remove these 2 supporting pillars and the whole National Party will crumble.
Look at the influence the Blue Dragons wield in the party, the solid votes they get in such ethnic ( read "China") enclaves like Flat Bush,Botany.
If Winston supports capital gains tax legislation before the next election, I really don’t think he will get 5%. UN Migration Pact has him on thin ice with his base as it is. If he opposes CGT, I could see another Labour/Greens/NZ First coalition happening. If Winston supports CGT, I think he’s probably below 5% and Labour loses enough votes that they can’t form a coalition with the Greens. I hope that Winston doesn’t try his old trick of not taking a position until after election day. He’s a scoundrel like that, but I can’t see him getting away with it on CGT.
Prediction: voters decide neither Nats nor Labour have stopped NZ's relative decline over several decades so look to other parties. Failure to make even the smallest criticism of the Communist Party of China causes voters to take an interest in party donations and decide to avoid both Lab and Nats. Leaving the field open for Greens and an NZF with a new young leader.
It could be that Judith Collins is the Leader for the Nats at the next election.
Notice how she 's been full on about the foreign buyer ban.
Here's a reminder of how deep she is in with the chinese
https://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/timeline-judith-collins-and-oravida-…
You would have to question any alliance with a green type party as well, should she become leader. How can you forget her "I don't like wetlands – they're swamps ... Go and find someone who actually cares about this, because I don't," in response to questions about her husband's link to a company that exported processed swamp kauri. Any link up between a party led by her and one purporting to be green surely would have to be laughed out of the room.
Those of the die hard national tribe will vote for a blue pen as will the equivalent red coats. The swing voters that possess objective intelligence as opposed to generational bias will make the difference, particularly in an mmp system. A blue green red green or purple party will do. All you dick heads that vote on an emotional and tribal bias need to take a long walk, smell the roses and leave the voting to those with an indipendant mind that can see beyond their personal motive which bears little relevance to current governanace issues. Vote on policy and performanec not personal bias, family bias or historical behaviour.
What amazed me was that National polling didn't fall during/following the JLR scandal and Simon Bridges behind closed doors calling his party members fcking useless.
So either they are fcking useless as Simon Bridges describes - or they're not fcking useless because they're still in parliament which would make Simon Bridges a terrible leader/manage and also a liar. Would this not be defamation?
So through all of this you either have fcking useless members in the national party or a terrible leader - yet the voters don't care. They vote blue because they've always voted blue. Wow....what a mess of a party.
NZers still remember the National years 2009 - 2017 and so will not swing back to National in a hurry at the 2020 election, regardless of the CoL performance.
Green (Party) will never mix with Blue - as they have a radical socialist philosophy (&people) incompatible with National.
Like all Western countries there is now a disconnect between traditional conservative support and parties that bear the name but have sold out to globalisation.
I think you may see the end of the road for both Labour and National support as the electorate finally faces up to the fact neither party is prepared to do what it takes to arrest NZ's social and economic decline. There will be a big gap open for the greens, nzf, maori party and tops to form a coalition and address the generational issues finally.
Peter mentions that UnitedFuture is a good example - its cause was standing up for the values of middle class New Zealand. Peter held to the old fashioned belief that he should represent his constituency, not the modern view that his job was to tell them what was best for them.
This is a fascinating snippet. To me, there seems to be a worldwide crisis in representative democracy. The West is falling apart at the seams because the representatives do not represent their constituencies.
The most plausible explanation I can find is that the internal Party mechanisms have become more powerful and control of policy and, most importantly, candidate selection, has fallen into the hands of a small ideologically driven group. The result is that the representatives no longer represent the concerns and difficulties of their constituencies. Instead they represent the thinking of the Party core. The Parties become highly polarised and unable to find a way forward on difficult issues.
Peter's commentary about RMA reform is a case in point. My expectation after the 2008 crisis was that the pendulum would swing rapidly to the right. That we would go from far too much stupid regulation to far too little regulation. (I discounted the possibility of excellent, simple and effective regulation as, er, improbable. These are bureaucrats and politicians we are talking about, these things take time, lots of time).
My thinking was out of date, based on a first past the post system where the incumbent party is booted out when things fall apart. The incoming party then unwinds some of the dafter policies of the previous administration and introduces new policies of their own, some of which turn out to be just as daft, but in a different way. This isn't as cynical as it sounds, it's just that all new policies sound good at the time, but many fail. It is called experimentation and should lead to the development of more useful policy over time.
I was wrong. I did not reckon on the ability of MMP to cause eternal stagnation.
At the time I thought the over regulation was from 10 years of stagnation under Labour, largely a reaction to the tumultous and difficult changes of the late eighties and early nineties. I now think it may be to do with the hidden polarising effects of MMP. Half of the MPs are list MPs, they have no constituency at all to represent; they are selected purely on the basis of their conformity to current Party Groupthink.
As Party Think develops it become harder to deal with difficult issues like housing and immigration as cross party support is just not possible. National tried to change the RMA and failed. National held to the fashionable belief that we need lots of immigration. My own view is that while the RMA acts as a bottleneck and serious anti-change mechanism for house building, capital flow is more important in determining house prices. Both need addressing, as does the rate of immigration, if we are ever to get housing sorted and the price, supply and quality to come right at all levels. They should be getting more affordable, more readily available and warmer and drier. Instead things have been going backwards, they have been getting more unaffordable, leakier and smaller. A symptom of a society in decline.
SNAFU?
Thanks. I've just been trying to figure out why representative democracy is failing. We have dramatic failure in the US, South America, and Continental Europe, Britain and Scandinavia. Jewish people feel frightened and unsafe in France and Britain and are leaving for Israel in despair. That was unthinkable a few years ago. We have anti Europe sentiment rising because the EU is anti-democratic and has failed. 20% unemployment is failure to me. How did this happen?
The Americans hate the democrats and republicans so much they elect Trump. Things have to be bad if that is who you turn to, it is a massive indictment of the traditional parties. Same for Brexit. Same for the Gilets Jaunes, AfD in Germany. Italy and Greece and Cyprus are bankrupt.. When representative democracy fails, first you boot out the incumbent party and try the alternative. When they fail you try the extreme parties. Civil disobedience becomes demonstrations, then comes riots, then limited slaughter, bombings and knivings and eventually the whole peaceful population is forced to take sides and you get civil war.
Allowing China full WTO membership was good for the CCP and encouraged the export of manufacturing jobs, thus gutting the incomes of those who relied on manufacturing for employment. The UN and WTO are not democratic bodies, the Warlord of any country is welcome. 'Tis a mess.
Americas voting system isn't really representative democracy, Hillary got more votes than Trump, so under anything that I'd qualify as representative democracy she would have won. Many things about so called democracy in the US.. simply aren't all that democratic IMO.
What is the dramatic failure in the UK as you see it?
That is your definition not the one used by most people. USA is a representative democracy - they do vote for representatives. Same thing has happened in the UK with number of MPs by party not remotely reflecting votes over the entire country. In neither USA nor UK are the quirks of democracy hidden or unknown.
USA is mostly representative on the state level, but not when it comes to the presidential election. A vote in Idaho has more heft than a vote in California. That is not fairly representative in any sense of the word. When you are all voting for one position all votes should have equal weight.
The UK is different in that nobody votes for the party, or the PM directly. Every vote inside the individual electorates are equal, and the parliament is formed from the winner of individual electorates. It is representative on the electoral level, which is the level at which you vote.
Idaho has 4 reps and California has 55 reps. But California has more voters. Pop of California is 39.5m and Idaho is 1.7m so roughly you are right - not sure how many registered voters, foreigners and children which would make a difference. But the value of a Idaho vote compared to a California vote is very roughly 2 to 1. When I lived in Scotland much the same applied to Scottish electorates and English and especially the Western Isles which had less than half the voters of the average electorate. I'm fairly sure there will be quirks in NZ too but maybe not as extreme as your USA example.
I prefer MMP. It is representative but has flaws (my vote for TOP) and it is better than UK's FPP which is also representative and the USA (a dogs dinner but still representative). A mathematician proved all democratic systems with representative have a flaw but they are all more democratic than say China or the EU where they have representatives merely to comment on what those in power have done.
Your vote for TOP carried just as much weight as a vote for any other party, or a party vote by any other person. The only unrepresentaive part of MMP is the 5% threshold/single electorate seat rule. And that could be largely fixed bay setting the threshold to ~2%.
All votes for TOP counted for nothing given that the 5% threshold wasn’t met. They were wasted votes. How can you say a vote for TOP had as much weight as a vote for the Greens, for example? Every vote for the Greens made a minor contribution to the number of parliamentary seats the Greens got, but the votes for TOP were essentially discarded.
If every TOP voter stayed home on election day, the outcome would be no different. If every Green or NZ First voter (for example) stayed home on election day, the outcome would be very different.
Democracy just reflects the people right? So the quality of the leadership reflects the qualities deemed desirable by the public. America is getting what it deserves as Trump reflects their 'desires' or at least of enough American's. New Zealand got what it deserved under the John Key/National party - everyone wants to be 'rich' without consideration to the long term failings that would cause.
So democracy is probably failing because the quality of society is deteriorating...causes...technology? Laziness in thought capacity/critical thinking? Stress?
I think a lot of it has to do with credit expansion? Everyone post GFC appears to have been running around trying to out do one enother - oneupsmanship - not realising that by trying to beat each we simply do just that - beat each other up. Zero sum game. Some can see how interconnected things are in a society - others just want to 'get ahead' over others - primarily financially but then don't realise they'll need to lift them out of poverty via government assistance which they need to pay via taxes....
Anyway I think democracy is failing because the quality of society is falling. When people can no longer think for themselves and think well, then they don't mind being told what to do by more autocratic leaders. No need to use your brain if you get told what to do...As Churchill said that the argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
Problem is we live in the Misinformation Age where the nature of social media is that most people end up in echo chambers being automatically fed with content that reinforces their current beliefs.
We don't help the situation much by too not often providing a strong education in both civics (to understand our political system) and critical analysis of information.
Interest team - is there any data on preferred party vote based on age group? Or home ownership vs party vote? Or property investor vs party vote? Be interesting to see if there is any type of correlation/trends. Might show personal bias in terms of voting preference as opposed to utilitarian perspective/paradigm when determining party vote.
There is a strong correlation in the USA of student debt equating to less younger people ( with qualifications and burden of said debt ) being able to purchase their first home. 60 % of those newly gained degrees are unable to get work in that field. ( except medicine and banking ) Thanks to Hillary and friends these students are unabe to escape that debt and their parents are forced to co gaurantee the debt also that can not be closed off by electing bankruptcy. It is effecting parts of the housing market there. ...
Why exactly is this Hillary's fault? She's never been President last time I checked. And the student loan program started back in 1965.. So is there some actual reasoning behind blaming Hillary and friends (I guess you mean democrats?) or is this just partisan BS?
From what i can see Hillary was going to (attempt to) make several changes to help those with studen loans: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickclements/2016/07/07/5-student-loan-pro…
If cgt is introduced and it is revenue neutral - ie. income taxes are reduced - I don't see why it is not politically palatable. Of course it won't be to all those self centred professional property investors, but it will be for people who can see the bigger picture.
NZ FIrst will have plenty of firepower for the next election. CGT to name but one. I'm no great fan, but Peters knows the game better than anyone. Neither Bridges nor Collins are electable and Labour needs a moderating force. Can't see a future for the Greens with Labour being so left wing. And Blue and Green are the two colours you should never mix. Such a party might take a bit of the real Greens vote, 1 per cent say, but probably more of Nationals. ACT is the only viable partner, and John Key knew that only too well. They need to move away from Brash, Banks and the like, though. Still the same problem, splitting the Conservative vote. Anecdotally, a lot of young people are moving right, I'm told.
My take is Labour's core 35%, National's 40% with NZF, the Greens, the minnows and swingers splitting the rest. So Winston is always going to be in the box seat.
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.