Tuesday, July 22, 2008

We don't need him


Have just watched the news on One and Three , in particular the articles on our very own bauble free zone, and was very bemused that both National and labour were reported as going easy on winny as they both may need him after the election.

Bugger me.

Have we sunk so low in our principles and our perceptions that we're starting to believe that this buffoon has to hold the balance of power, that good governance is impossible without his presence?
I don't want to labour the point, but in my view all it would take to lift national's rankings up by a hefty helping would be for John Key to tell the nation that there is no way he would form, lead, or be part of, a government that included WP in its midst. I know it might seem naive to the political know alls amongst us, but surely cutting nzf off at the knees now would bugger them during the campaign. Peters would have to declare himself with labour from the get go and probably alienate quite a few of the lunatic 5% who might be inclined to vote for him.
It would also remove the "sitting on the crossbenches" load of bollocks we got last time, as everyone now knows he's incapable of keeping his word and that it'll never happen.
Lastly, it must be obvious to Key and co that the man is trouble and can be relied on only to create some ruckus late in the parliamentary cycle so why put yourself through the bother?
If the unthinkable happens, and theNats do end up forming a government with nzf, then I'll be watching its progress with interest - from the other side of the Tasman.

PS Does wp get DPS protection when he's at his party conference? Or were those his own paid goons that were looking all staunch at the cameras? If they are, then that sort of style worries me.

PPS The warriors had another win. Three on the trot now.
G

7 comments:

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

I am sure whoever disowns Peters citing principle, integrity, tough leadership, etc, will gain a boost in the polls.

Anonymous said...

Haven't I explained all this, repeatedly, at length?

National and labour were reported as going easy on winny as they both may need him after the election.

yep...

Have we sunk so low in our principles and our perceptions that we're starting to believe that this buffoon has to hold the balance of power, that good governance is impossible without his presence?

It's not about "good governance" - it's about any governance under MMP, but especially about National government under MMP. This is the "level playing field" that is basically as level as the side of a Wellington hill: unless they get very creative, MMP is designed to deliver long periods of stable but hard-left government, with little breaks of unstable, soft-left (National) governments. That's what it was designed to do and that's what it does.

I don't want to labour the point, but in my view all it would take to lift national's rankings up by a hefty helping

National's ratings are at what 55%?
It's not going up any further under MMP.

would be for John Key to tell the nation that there is no way he would form, lead, or be part of, a government that included WP in its midst.

This "promise" would bind just one person: John Key.

I know it might seem naive to the political know alls amongst us, but surely cutting nzf off at the knees now would bugger them during the campaign. Peters would have to declare himself with labour from the get go and probably alienate quite a few of the lunatic 5% who might be inclined to vote for him.

Rubbish. Winnie would come out hard, saying "I don't care what Key says, we'll sort this out after the election and the National Party will come crying to me if they have to".

And if voters gave enough votes for Nats to be in government, given that Key has personal integrity - he'd just get dumped by some other Nat who would do the necessary with Winnie. So it goes.

It's not about personalities or bunnies or winnies. It's about the mathematics of MMP. Plain and simple.


What could National & ACT - OK, basically all democratic Kiwis do to avoid this?

Apart from sending in the truckies, there is really only one way: party vote ACT in safe National seats. If ACT has 20% or more, then National will be government. But to get to 20%, ACT needs to stay to the right of National (that is - it needs to be in the political centre :-) it needs to not scare the horses, not put its faith in a few "big ego personalities" (especially 70 year old ex-Labour cabinet ministers), just pick 3 issues National can't run hard on (Smacking;, more police, bigger tax cuts say) and drive that message home.

Then National gets the electorates, but ACT puts the parliament into overhang by 15% or so, that beats the Maorimander, and National gets one term to reform MMP and elections laws, and hopefully take out the unions and the Labour and Green parties. Because if ACT & National does this, you can bet the greenies and the lefties will be well pissed.



There's a similar option, setting up a "Farmer's Party" that wins the country electorates while they party vote National. Harder to do this time around I think.
But the principle is the same: unless a National party ally gets at least 10% of the party vote with zero electorates, then National either loses, or, if within 5% or so of losing, gets to coalition with Winnie.

Grant said...

Hey anonymous. Thanks for a good old fisking. Never had one of those before.
I take your point re the ACT party vote and have employed this technique for the last two elections, but I still feel that the electorate will relate to passion and integrity. Both of which would be required to declare Peters persona non grata in the post election agreement discussions.
Once again thanks for the post, and why not get a nick name? It would distinguish you from the other anons.
Cheers
G

Dave said...

Have we sunk so low in our principles and our perceptions that we're starting to believe that this buffoon has to hold the balance of power, that good governance is impossible without his presence?

Apparently - it must be remembered that any (as distinct from good) MMP Govt- left or right - has to have MPs from NZF or the Maori seats.... BOth parties have already pissed off the Maori Party, so cant piss off Winston. Greens are as irrelevant as United Future

Psycho Milt said...

MMP is designed to deliver long periods of stable but hard-left government, with little breaks of unstable, soft-left (National) governments. That's what it was designed to do and that's what it does.

Wrong. In fact, so wrong that if anyone else had written it, I'd have assumed they were joking and had a laugh along with them. Not in your case though.

What MMP is actually designed to do (for those whose lives aren't one long paranoid authoritarian fantasy), is put political parties into Parliament in the proportions that people actually voted for them. And apart from the annoying distortions caused by the 5% threshold and the Maori seats, that's exactly what it does. There seems to be an element of the right wing who simply can't stand this fact, but it remains a fact. Your real problem is with democracy, not with MMP.

homepaddock said...

If the politicians won't say no to Peters and his party the people can - if Peters doesn' win Tauranga and his party doesn't get 5% or more of the vote he and NZ First don't get into parliament.

Regardless of the truth or otherwise over the donations, NZ First still owes the taxpayer $158,000 so every cent they spend on the campaign is a cent they owe us and tells us getting re-elected is more important to them than repaying their debt.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Homepaddock is right in the role the voters can play in not votingfor NZ First.
But I like anonymous's idea of rorting the electoral system Maori-party style.
It shows the current system of MMP is flawed.
The electoral system needs to be reviewed.
I like the idea of some little parties being in there but they do seem to leave the tail wagging the dog somewhat.
The dictatorship of a small number in the middle.