Coalition Options

September 26th, 2005 at 7:07 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports that both the Maori Party and the Greens may pass up on coalition.

The Maori Party never were going to seek coalition, so this is no surprise.

The Green stance is one of realism, not desire. NZ First and United Future both effectively are vetoeing the Greens being in Government.

What one can not rule out is a Labour-Progressive-United Future Government. Why? Mutual benefit?

From Labour’s point of view it needs to not just be in Government but also pass legislation. Having United Future in coalition will make most bills pass easier. Also it will force United Future to vote for their picks for Speaker and Select Committee Chairs. Finally it also makes it look like Labour is moving to the centre and rejecting extremes.

From United Future’s point of view, it is the chance to increase support at the next election. If they are not in Government, they will be merely on of four parties propping up a third term Government, and probably the one with the weakest brand. I can’t see how they could possibly increase their vote from that position. But if they have Dunne as a Minister, they can attempt to take credit for initiatives in his policy areas.

No tag for this post.

5 Responses to “Coalition Options”

  1. baxter () says:

    I thought the Greens fought the election on the basis that they would go into co-alition with Labour. Isn’t this what their voters expect. Labour appeared to at least imply that this was what they wanted. If it doesn’t happen we will have Clark able to call the same tune she did last time, Greens supporting left issues,Winston supporting right issues both of them effectively lap-dogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. John Pickering () says:

    It’s a high risk strategy for UF to be in government with anyone when they’ve only 3 MPs, but it may be lesser of a risk than being thought of as irrelevant if they sit it out. When they had 8 MPS and supported Labour in confidence and supply they were all but ignored in the media – how much more likely is that if they are not in government?
    Also, by being in govt they could claim they are better representing the overall view of the electorate by pulling Labour a little right rather than letting the Greens pull it left. Would this not be responsible given that there was a strengthening of the right vote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. postprandium () says:

    Does Heather Roy lose her deposit ?
    I notice that her vote in Ohariu-Belmont is less than 5% ( 4.3) of the winning candidate.
    How rich that the ACT actually is paying to stand for parliament.
    Ken Shirley just gets over 5% (5.88) and Muriel Newman gets 5.7% of the winning candidate but of course only 3% of votes caste.
    Stephen Franks scales the hieghts of 6.1% of the winner, by getting 3% of all votes.
    And these were their so called hard working MPs?
    Well they are bone idle when it comes to working for votes. Their performance review has put the lot except Rodney in the bottom one twentieth.
    Good riddence !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote