The Green problem
September 19th, 2005 at 8:27 am by David FarrarI am surprised that so few media [I am told in fact the NZ Herald has focused on this quite a bit, and National Radio also] have focused on explicit statements from Unite Future and NZ First that they will not support a Government which has the Greens in them. Dunne repeated that yesterday, which got publicity but the NZ First statement has been so unreported that I wondered if I was dreaming it.
But no here on Scoop is the Greens’ response to it on the 7th of September. In words they may regret they said “We’re grateful with Winston Peters for laying down a bottom line that he would not support Labour if in coalition with the Greens”.
The four parties of the left have only 61 out of 122 seats. Unless one of those parties picks up a seat on specials, Labour will not be able to do a coalition with the Greens.
No tag for this post.
September 19th, 2005 at 9:35 am
There’s another question to be asked: I’ll give the Greens credit where credit’s due. The non-agression pact with Labour was observed to the letter, though I’m sure many of their activists must have bit their tongues clean off during the campaign.
But don’t tell me that the Greens won’t expect some kind of payback for not distracting Labour on the left. So, when are we going to see Labour and the Greens front up with a clear statement of what policy concessions & offices are being played around with?
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Goodluck Nandor!
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 10:09 am
And this is why Don was right not to concede Whoever between the Socialists and the Nats gives the most away will get to govern thats MMP folks!
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 10:18 am
Good Morning David
Don’t be too surprised at the media.
Vote:They are still working for Helengrad.
Hell, Don Brash had barely made his way through the crowds to give his speech on Saturday night and Fran Mold from TV1 was asking when he would resign.
Now, can we see someone ask Clark and Cullen when they will resign because they did not win the unloseable election?
September 19th, 2005 at 10:28 am
I took Winston’s comments to mean he wouldn’t join a Labour/Green coalition on the Govt benches, but might be willing to support them on a confidence vote. But who really knows what Winston means?
I’ve always thought Winston’s natural home is with National, but a poll mentioned on telly last weekend apparently shows his supporters leaning more toward Labour. Then there’s the effect on Nat/NZF relations of the battle for the Tauranga seat – which may not be over.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 10:29 am
But what about an ‘opposition’ speaker?
Wouldn’t that make their 61 sufficient for conf and supply?
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 10:34 am
When will Dunne get his head out of his ass and realise that the Greens got 50,000 more votes than him? I’m disgusted that Mr Common Sense and stability is now quite content to hold the country to ransom and insult the media. Don’t be surprised if he gets duely demonised by the media in the coming days/weeks.
The problem is NOT the Greens, who have campaigned entirely on real and serious issues and made their intentions clear throughout the campaign. The problem is the centre spineless parties trying to act tough. The election’s over – put your penis away and form a government.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 10:40 am
What Dunne has said is he will not support Greens in the Cabinet and he said that before the election. It leaves things open for a support agreement. I am not convinced the centre-left will do well out of specials, though the media and other seem to take that for granted. They did not do well on pre-poll specials, so why should they do well on the remaining specials. National is waiting for the specials to come in AND it suits National to have Labour rush things.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Icehawk, no an opposition speaker would not be enough – after the introduction of MMP rules changed and the speaker now casts a vote with his or her party.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Dunne is furious because he thought he was going to be deputy PM in a National government (apparently their private polling had them as third largest party). And he’s realised how irrelevent he suddenly is, even if the media haven’t. Look at the numbers:
Labour+JAP=51
C&S from Maori+Greens+NZF=17
This gives Labour a clear majority of 68, sans little Peter Dunne.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Exquire, how can you say that Peter Dunne is holding the country to ransom by not going into a coalition government with the greens? He campaigned on this very basis and it could be said that he is actually living up to his campaign promises. Obviously it would suit you for him to break these promises, but how critical would you be if the situation was reversed? Perhaps the greens should forget the nonsense that they campaigned on and form a coalition government with National!
I’m no fan of Dunne’s or UNF, but I do give him credit for announcing what his non-negotiable policies were before the election.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Nonsense …When did Winston say he “would not support labour if in coalition with the Greens” He clarified all the false reported quotes in Rotorua by saying he would “support the Party with the most votes” (and sit on the cross benches).
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 11:29 am
There is little that is truly non-negotiable in politics and Labour have done well to avoid stating too many bottom lines – MMP requires that parties campaign hard and clear but get on with it after the polling day. The public have no appetite for petulance.
Dunne will settle down and will play some sort of relatively constructive role in the next parliament – inside or outside a formal coalition – as will the others.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Darren:
“Don’t be too surprised at the media.
They are still working for Helengrad.”
You bet.
It really pays to observe the body language & voice inflection of not only politicians but also of the media.
On Saturday night, when National looked like bolting in, the talking heads of Wood, Sainsbury, Campbell, et al, suddenly came across very studious & considered in their opinions. As soon as the gap began to narrow there was an almost palpable lightening of the mood. Wood smiled and Campbell became his normal gnome-like & boyish self.
Further, Sainsbury’s interview with Don Brash on the Sunday programme last night was flippant to the point of being condescending. Willie Jackson, on the same show, pawed-at & back-slapped Wyatt Creech in the most egregious display of flattering-to-deceive that I’ve seen in quite some time.
Perhaps the ruling coalition for the next three years will be this: Lab + JAP + Green + Media = backroom deals & smokescreens galore.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 11:56 am
As I’ve posted elsewhere, if the roles were reversed and ACT was refusing to back National if NZF was on board, then suddenly Rodney wouldn’t be the flavour of the day with the right wing either.
PaulW is right. The nature of the campaign and the media demands clear positions before the election, but the nature of MMP demands negotiation and compromise afterwards. For the media and others to then go around saying this is or that is “duplicitous” or “breaking promises” just creates false double binds, and is scarcely constructive.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
I was very interested in Dunne’s coomets last night on Sunday.
When asked what his view was on the greens and whether he could go withthem he gave a waffled answer and a severly toned down answer!!!
back track!! flip-flop!!!
It would be worth going through all his cooments regarding the greens, because I think he may be aboutto betray his voters.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Going over Dunnes comments ? . Just like Dons backflip over reducing the petrol tax by 5c.
One week economically irresponsible, next week they were desperate and it was OK.
Monday morning has the losers refusing to get off the stage
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Helen will be ringing around to see what are the bottom lines for each party for C&S Agreements and then putting them to the rest. I.e. Winston, can you live with a GE Ban and a 15% extra tax on energy. Jeanette, can you live with a reduction in company tax to 30 cents.
I give Helen a 75% chance of forming a government. I only give Helen a 5% chance of keeping it stable enough to govern for 3 years.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
yes, but can dunne or peters risk pushing the point all the way to new elections?
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
The interesting thing about Peter Dunne is akin to the Maori issue. The Maori have stated that they will go back to their people to get a steer in where they should put their allegence. Given that the voting in the Maori seats was overwhelmingly Labour, that seems like a no-brainer.
But who are Peter Dunne’s voters backing?
The results in Ohariu-Belmont are confusing – on the party vote, National was about 1500 votes ahead of labour – not enough to give a clear mandate.
However, candidate-wise, Labour had about a 1500-vote edge on the Nats.
On the assumption that labour voters gave “2-ticks” as did national voters, we can back those out from the total party votes. Do the same on ’2-ticks Dunne’, and this would suggest that of people who split their vote to vote for Peter Dunne, they then voted national at about 1.6:1.
I don’t think this is enough to be a clear mandate that people wanted Dunne to support national, but it might be a message that he should be careful next time. The lunch with Brash might have stopped a swing against him this time, but if he cosies-up in a Labour cabinet, will this marginalise him next time?
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Susan Wood is biased towards the left????
By that standard, Paul Henry is left leaning, and Newt Gingrich is centrist.
Idiot.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
“The results in Ohariu-Belmont are confusing ”
Vote:more people voted Green than United in the party vote in Ohariu-Belmont
September 19th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
@Ian:
Which absolutely confirms that people wanted Dunne as their MP, because either they think he does a good job, or they think that with him winning his seat, it would help “their” party form a coalition. Now – which party were they hoping he’d support? (Bet its not the greens
)
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
my thoughts on the green posistion is here
http://aboutown.blogspot.com/2005/09/greens-will-not-be-in-government.html
essentally the greens wont be in government
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
In coming up 12 years as a daily journo I am always surprised how often people say the media haven’t reported something – and it turns out it has been reported -often and over.
This would be a daily conversation in my office, on the phone…
ring – ring
Me: hello
Caller: why don’t you people report about blah blah. This proves how biased/lazy/hopeless/all of the above you are, etc etc
Me: But we did report that at 6′oclock/on page 3 today.
caller: Oh but (resume harangue about bias and incompetence and completely ignore the fact of being incorrect, it would be as few as 1 percent who would be stopped in their tracks by being told they were wrong)
In this case, this fact – that Clark was unlikely to have the Greens in Cabinet because of NZ First and United Future objections – was a key part of the NZ Herald’s front page lead today, and was in fact the angle of the lead in the Otago Daily Times, and was the angle of Radio New Zealand’s political editor’s analysis on Morning Report too.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Good to know Dean. I don’t get print editions of those papers and couldn’t see references online.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
“The results in Ohariu-Belmont are confusing ”
more people voted Green than United in the party vote in Ohariu-Belmont”
You are both being flippant.
Vote:1) OBVIOUSLY they voted for him therefore they wanted him. Nonsense to argue they prefer the greens or somthing.
2) Party vote wise they split their vote suporting national a little mroe than labour (simple enough) with more of those who voted for him backing national (ie his suport is more right leaning).
September 19th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
David, I think you`re right – the Greens are the party most unlikely to make it into cabinet and Ive been saying that for some time now.
The Greens may not even get confidence and supply, that may go to the Maori Party and the Greens may well get a co-operation agreement – or even another type or arangement. After all, they’re experienced in co-operation agreements.
And Mike, heres where Peters said he would not support Greens on confidence and supply
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10345292
“He suggested that support was conditional on the major party not teaming up in formal coalition with either the Greens, in the case of Labour, or Act in the case of National.”
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
@GeniusNZ: That’s what I said – they were right-leaning. Look at the detail of my other analysis.
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Weizguy:
“Susan Wood is biased towards the left????”
Since I think I’m the only one who’s mentioned Wood’s name on this thread, I’ll assume the query is directed at my comments.
And, yes, Susan Wood is what I’d characterise as a Chardonnay Socialist. The kind that sips Sav Blanc & drives a Pajero, then chatters around the dinner table with her well-heeled friends about the importance of wind-farms and the necessity of banning SUVs from built-up areas. The kind that greatly enjoys the products of capitalism but is a bit too blinkered to appreciate the inconguity of her comments.
Wood’s not the worst though. Campbell is a true leftie-dweeb, but the most egregious example would have to be Wendyl my-surname’s-a-type-of-hut Nissen; the prototypical chardy-simp if ever there was one.
Weizguy, again:
“By that standard, Paul Henry is left leaning, and Newt Gingrich is centrist.”
The line that divides the political left & right has shifted dramatically in recent decades. Only the unobservant would label National as a right-wing party. Thirty years ago, the National Party had a different name. It was called the Labour Party. Why the hell else did ACT get formed? And, any honest National supporter damn-well knows why.
Weizguy (August 25, to gd, on this blog):
“I suspect from your post that the phrase “anal retentives” was an ad hominem.”
Weizguy (September 19, to me, on this thread):
“Idiot”
[sigh]
Vote:September 19th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
You know, when the shit eventually hits the fan I hope New Zealanders remember who wouldn’t work with the only party serious enough to deal with the shit.
Vote: