The list of political parties in NZ you can vote for if you want a real change of Government in September

By   /   June 13, 2017  /   15 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

If you want National out of power so that there is a real change of Government in this country, these are the only political parties you should cast your Party vote for in September:

If you want National out of power so that there is a real change of Government in this country, these are the only political parties you should cast your Party vote for in September:

Guaranteed change of Government:

LABOUR: Will never, ever, ever, ever, ever go into coalition with National, so are the safest vote.

GREENS: The chances of the Greens cutting a deal with National are about as likely as North Korea launching nuclear missiles at us.

MANA: Hone will never serve to prop up a National Government. Ever.

 

Every other Political Party going into this election says they can work with National to form a Government. United will, ACT will, the Maori Party will, and NZ First won’t rule National out.

TOP have said they will sit on the cross benches and vote on policy, but they haven’t made this a firm bottom line pledge so they could end up supporting National on supply and confidence and if the goal is a clean sweep and real change of Government, you can’t add them to the above list until they formalise that.

 

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

15 Comments

  1. CLEANGREEN says:

    At two NZ First meetings in Gisborne & Hastings in the last six months the NZ First Party and the leader said they will not go into coalition with National as the National policy is counter to the policies of NZ First.

    The NZ First unveils their policies and strategies in July.

    You will be assured they will join in some agreement with any party who wants Nactional removed from power.

    • J S Bark J S Bark says:

      Oh I really wish the NZ First supporters would shut the fuck up about NZ First being anti National Party.

      They have a very bad history of enabling National governments and being so anti Green that it has effectively undermined any sort of coalition deal to oppose National.

      And so what if Winnie has said they will not go into coalition with National? A party based on the personal desires of an unreliable tory like Peters is never ever going to be a party one can form a coalition with.

      For fuck’s sake get real. True opposition to the National Party comes from the left not the wannabe right wingers…

      • Cemetery Jones says:

        Bad history enabling National governments? I dunno man, they’re 1:1 for having supported a National government and a Labour government, the rest of the time they’ve been in opposition. When you add to it that in coalition with National they got knifed, while in coalition with Labour they got taken down more from Winston’s own rather old school way of dealing with donations, you’d have to say that they have little to gripe about from their dealings with Labour. Not so for their dealings with National. I’m still wary of them until I hear some definite disavowal of National, but in terms of their history, fair is fair.

        • T Dawg says:

          1996 Winston said he would not form a government with National. Was adamant about it. Nek Minit. National made him a offer he couldn’t refuse. Bahahahaha

    • Petercvs says:

      Then why won’t Winston say this in public? Cause it ain’t true.

  2. Sally's Husband says:

    “MANA: Hone will never serve to prop up a National Government. Ever.”

    Waitaminnit. If Hone Harawera (bless him) has an agreement of co-operation with the Maori Party, and the Maori Party have stated (as on The Nation last weekend) they will not join with Labour, then…??

    “Oh I really wish the NZ First supporters would shut the fuck up about NZ First being anti National Party.

    They have a very bad history of enabling National governments and being so anti Green that it has effectively undermined any sort of coalition deal to oppose National.”

    Ditto.

    I still remember 1996 very vividly. We were betrayed then, and Peters’ refusal to outline his coalition preferences gives me a feeling of deja vu. Once bitten, twice shy.

    • strypey says:

      “If Hone Harawera (bless him) has an agreement of co-operation with the Maori Party, and the Maori Party have stated (as on The Nation last weekend) they will not join with Labour, then…??”

      The deal between Máori and Mana is about the one thing they agree on; that they don’t want the Máori seats to be held by MPs subject to discipline by (majority) pákeha parties. This makes it an anti-Labour deal within the electoral contests for the Máori seats, but that doesn’t make it a pro-National deal. From the POV of both, it’s a “pro-Máori”deal.

      Besides, the Máori Party have always made it clear that like Peter Dunne, they will join whatever government will have them, since they falsely believe that being a tiny minority in a coalition government that doesn’t need them gives them more power than being in opposition (it clearly doesn’t). Marama Fox confirmed in March they would support a Labour/Green government if they had the seats to form one:
      http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/maori-party-says-it-would-jump-sides-if-labour-changes-govt/

      Has something changed since March?

  3. Jack Ramaka says:

    Winston & NZF only enabled National to be in power in the first MMP Election because the Alliance under Jim Anderton did not want to play ball, meanwhile the Nation took umbridge with Winston for taking so long to negotiate a coalition agreement.

    Then Jenny Shipley rolled Jim Bolger and coerced a number of NZF politicans over to National, so I believe there is probably still some bad blood between NZF & National, I am only guessing ?

  4. Helena says:

    What about Dotcom? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvT-6ll1tog
    If Teresa May’s aim at screwing down the internet spreads here, will Dotcom lead the wireless party?

    • Strypey says:

      The Internet Party (IP) is a fundamentally anti-democratic organisation. It is controlled by an unelected Secretary, chosen by DotCom (“Party Founder”), who can and will violate the IP constitution when its suits DotCom’s interests, lie about it, and attack any member who tries to investigate.

      I was involved in a group aligned to Pirate Parties International when the IP was announced. I became an IP member to help them get launched, supported the coalition with Mana, and argued that the Pirates were better to keep our powder dry in 2014 to avoid splitting the vote:
      https://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/internet-party-what-seems-ridiculous-to-the-old-often-makes-perfect-sense-to-the-young

      After the election, I represented the Pirates in a discussion on the IP Loomio group about how the two groups could work together. I subsequently tried to investigate whether the constitution was followed when an elected member was removed from the executive body. I was treated so appallingly by members of the cabal in charge of the IP that I resigned my membership. I would not consider supporting this party again, or working with it in any way, until I see evidence that its constitution has been amended to strip DotCom of his dictator-for-life status.

  5. Booker says:

    Not only would they represent a change in government, but I think those three would make a good combination too!

  6. strypey says:

    “TOP have said they will sit on the cross benches and vote on policy”

    I hope they get in and that they do exactly this. This is what the Greens used to do, and I think it actually gave them much more influence. The other parties new they couldn’t be bought with blankets and beads, so if they wanted their votes, they had to either make a strong case, or offer a major concession that would be worth a compromise. Unfortunately, a lot of Greens members seem to have fallen into the same fallacy as the Máori party, that being “in government” somehow gives the same number of seats and votes in parliament more power (it doesn’t).

    Once a party decides that being “in government” is the goal, rather than representing their values through however many seats voters give them each election, the rot starts to set in. I suspect this is how we ended up with a “Labour” government run by and for banksters, not workers. I hope the Greens can learn from this history, rather than repeating it.

  7. Marcus says:

    i don’t trust Winston.
    He will spend most of his campaign attacking National and after the vote if he is in the king maker position he will 90% likely do a deal with them.
    Just what he did in 1996.