Tuesday, September 26, 2017


It's interesting to speculate on 'where to' for NZ First.   Forget all the current hullabaloo about them ... sorry, Winston (because Winston is them) being in a kingmaker position ... that's short term stuff.    The real question to be faced by  NZF is how to ensure their political survival three years hence.

Underpinning all this is that they came out of the election weaker than when they went into it.   Their leader lost his Northland seat.   Their twelve MPs are now nine.   They don't have a presence in the South Island after Peters dumped on Prosser and consigned him to the nether regions of their List for embarrassing him by pointing out it was NZ First policy to compulsorily reacquire the shares sold off under the asset sales program while Ria Bond, their Invercargill based MP, was given the flick also.

Those of you who frequent other blogs will have picked up that Paul Scott, Winston's chief apologist on this blog, is highly pissed off and has called their campaign a c*********k (thereby committing a cardinal sin ... excommunication beckons) and leading to the obvious question 'how many other NZF disillusioned Party apparatchiks are out there now (or after Winston makes his call?).   Then there is the brouhaha in the making with Winston's clear preference for Shane Jones as his Deputy over the lightweight SAS wannabee incumbent.

But all that aside it matters not whether he goes with National or Labour because the reality is that the junior Party in any coalition deal inevitably loses support come the next election as the 'sins' (real or imagined) of the senior Party are visited upon them ... and a Party with no electorate seat to fall back on and polling 7% is vulnerable, very vulnerable.

So, what to do.   Those who have suggested that changing the threshold to say 3-4% are dreaming.   There is no inter-party consensus within National and Labour for change,   It will not happen ... thankfully.   Who, apart from the minor parties, wants more fragmentation; who, apart from the minor parties is going to vote for more tail wags dog.

The answer is for the junior Party to do a deal with either National or Labour to 'gift' them an electoral seat as insurance against oblivion.   Happened before with National and ACT and United Future,   Can happen again.    David Farrar at Kiwiblog has done an analysis of where that could happen in respect of NZ First.   He rated twelve electorates in descending order of probably based on the NZ First Party vote.   Numbers one thru eleven are National held electorates.   Number twelve is West Coast-Tasman held by Labour (the birthplace of the Labour Party) ... the chances of Labour gifting that to NZ First is zip, zero.   But for National and with eleven electorates to 'play' with there are options.

One thing for sure ... Northland ain't part of the mix.

But if I were NZ First and looking to the long game this would be right at the top of my negotiating agenda. 


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

To quote a famous beleagued American general, National would be 'nuts.'

As long as Peters breathes, that is.

Anonymous said...

Troll Adolf's breathtaking insight into the machinations of politicians of all stripes is positively ..well breathtaking If only he had a seat at the top table the world would be a better place.

In the meantime back on planet earth can anyone tell me why NZ household debt has to 94% of GDP fifth highest in the world (88.4% 2014) and tax cuts are the main subject.
Homelessness, a broken housing market, full jails and recidivism at world beating levels, a railway system that was asset stripped by US company and don't talk to me about Telecom. ... https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/new-zealand/household-debt--of-nominal-gdp

And yet it was all about TAX. We reap what we sow and when the brown stuff hits the whirling blades we will not be in a good position.

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

Those who have suggested that changing the threshold to say 3-4% are dreaming. There is no inter-party consensus within National and Labour for change...

Well, duh. There's no inter-party consensus among turkeys for Christmas, either. The 5% threshold exists to make it extremely difficult to set up new political parties to compete with National and Labour - of course they don't want it removed.

Who, apart from the minor parties, wants more fragmentation; who, apart from the minor parties is going to vote for more tail wags dog.

Who wants a political system that doesn't privilege some people's votes over others? Not the parties benefiting from that privilege, and their partisans, sure. However, the Royal Commission that recommended MMP proposed a 4% threshold and the Electoral Commission recommended lowering it after receiving a high volume of public submissions in favour. The rate was set at 5% and remains at 5% solely because it's in Labour and National's interests to have it set that high.

Anonymous said...

Ye Gods....I have just read Alan Duff's article in the Herald. "Ron Marks adding starch to the NZDF if he gets MinofDef"........Jesus Christ on a Pogo stick. The cheeky bastard is hiding from his creditors in a million dollar Chateau 200k from me and the Herald is still paying him for ravings of the drunk kind.

As for the Special forces wannabee... god help us if Labour falls for his "military experience".

Lord Egbut

pdm said...

Egbut - perhaps I am off the pace this morning but to help me - is the `cheeky bastard' you refer to Ron Mark?

Your last sentence infers otherwise.

Johno said...

Egbut: "In the meantime back on planet earth can anyone tell me why NZ household debt has to 94% of GDP fifth highest in the world (88.4% 2014) and tax cuts are the main subject."

Household debt in NZ is not a big problem because

a) household debt is mostly held by higher income earners who can afford to service it (unlike the US sub-prime debt)
b) it's largely comprised by mortgages and backed by positive equity

In 2016 this was the GDP household debt to GDP top ranking:

Switzerland 124 per cent
Australia 123.1 per cent
Denmark 122.9 per cent
Netherlands 1 11.4 per cent
Canada 96 per cent
Norway 93 per cent
New Zealand 91.3 per cent
Korea 87.2 per cent
United Kingdom 86.4 per cent
Sweden 84.2 per cent

Terrible company there - all the economic basket cases of the OECD, eh Egbut?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Bullshitter Legbut has been flying by the seat of his pants for so long his arse has worn off.

Noel said...

You're paraphrasing not quoting Adolf.

The Division Operations Officer, Lt. Col. Harry Kinnard recalled that McAulliffe initially asked, "They want to surrender?" Moore told him, "No sir, they want us to surrender." McAulliffe arose and erupted in anger, which shocked those looking on. He took the paper, looked at it, said "Us surrender, aw nuts!" and dropped it on the floor.

The Veteran said...

PM ... and the Royal Commission also recommended doing away with the Maori seats and Parliament, in its wisdom, rejected both settling on 5% and keeping the Maori seats.

Actually I wouldn't be overly opposed to 4% and no Maori seats.

As an aside the voter turnout in the Maori seats was appalling. Consider this (and acknowledging that all the electorates, Maori and General, are roughly the same size in voting numbers) ... the highest number of votes recorded in a General electorate seat was 38,943; the lowest number 21,195. The highest number in a Maori seat was 19,423; lowest number was 15,517. You can argue that Maori are voting with their feet for abolition.

Anonymous said...

Johno......New Zealand's household debt has soared to over 96% it risen above Australia since this article was printed.. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/15/how-australian-households-became-the-most-indebted-in-the-world

Household debt includes ALL debt that needs to be paid off except stocks and shares. This includes credit card debt. The Bank of England has issued it's third warning on household debt and it is being taking seriously by the labour party who have introduced potential credit card caps into their manifesto.

In an over inflated wild west property market like Aus/NZ to back your debt against property values is not only foolish but dangerous for the entire country and to compare it to the value of Swiss debt is a red herring given that Switzerland and Denmark have negative interest rates

PDM.........sorry badly formatted....Duff lives in the TWO million dollar pile down the road a bit. If only the Herald would pay me for the drivel he puts out...particularly about French life,

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

Re my post about gifting NZF to the Nats and poisoned chalice......this Hoskings bloke is stealing my thunder....

Lord Egbut Nobacon