What If? Some Random Thoughts about The Next Three Weeks
WHAT IF, three weeks from today, National decides that an acceptable deal with NZ First just isn’t on “the cards that count”? What if the easy assumptions of Election Night: that Winston Peters will recognise the futility of attempting to build a coalition with anyone other than National; have long since proved vain? What if it only takes a few days for National’s negotiators to realise that, in the 21 years since 1996, NZ First had matured into a political party with a mind of its own?
What if it turns out that Peters’ views, although taken extremely seriously by his party colleagues, no longer enjoy the status of Holy Writ? What if National’s negotiators discover that NZ First’s policies are actually a great deal more than mere rhetorical flourishes? What if NZ First’s manifesto is expected to be treated as a serious proposition by both National and Labour? What if, when English’s negotiating team are caught rolling their eyes and smothering guffaws, the atmosphere drops rapidly from cool to effing freezing. What if the prospects of a deal with NZ First – a deal which National’s caucus, members and supporters, the markets, and New Zealand’s major trading partners, can all live with – dwindle?
What if, three weeks from today, NZ First’s parallel negotiations with Labour are going gang-busters? What if the Wellington beltway’s confident prediction that Peters and Jacinda Ardern would not hit it off prove to be wildly inaccurate? What if a shared liking for single malt whiskey breaks the ice between the two leaders and the talk flows freely? What if Ardern’s rural upbringing has equipped her with a set of core values remarkably congruent with Peters’ own? What if both leaders evince a strong sense of patriotic duty which, in turn, imbues their respective negotiation teams with the feeling that they are but two halves of a single mission?
What if the broad policy over-lap of NZ First and Labour only makes matters easier? What if, on immigration there is particularly strong agreement? What if, in the midst of their discussions on this subject, both negotiating teams come face-to-face with their strong negative feelings – bordering on complete aversion – to the Greens and their policies? What if, reported back to their respective leaders, these reservations progress quickly to a top-level conversation that edges, inexorably, towards the conclusion that if an agreement is to be concluded between NZ First and Labour, then the only role for the Greens will be to supply the votes necessary to carry confidence and supply motions?
WHAT IF, three weeks from today, a recording of this conversation between Peters and Ardern is placed in the hands of the Caretaker Prime Minister by an employee of the Security Intelligence Service? What if English, reassured that the information had been collected in accordance with the “activities which impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being” clause of the SIS Act, calls the Greens’ leader, James Shaw, to a clandestine meeting where he invites him to listen to the relevant fragments of the secretly recorded conversation between Ardern and Peters?
What if, putting to one side the morality and legality of the recording, Shaw demands to know from English why he has been allowed to listen to it? What if English then briefs him on the difficulties his own party is having negotiating with NZ First, and on the sheer size of the dead rats NZ First is expecting National to swallow in order to secure the right to govern. What if, being asked again by Shaw to explain why he is being told all this, English takes a deep breath and invites the Green Party leader to set forth the conditions under which he would be willing to ask his party to vote on whether or not to enter into a formal coalition agreement with the National Party?
What if Shaw laughs out loud, declaring that the very notion of such an arrangement would send the farmers into paroxysms of rage and split the National Party asunder? What if English agrees that a split would be inevitable, but then asks Shaw to consider whether that would be such a bad thing? What if English suggests that a “country party” would not only provide National with a permanent coalition partner, but would also draw support away from NZ First? What if English went on to suggest that, with the Greens anchoring a much more moderate National Party in the centre of the political spectrum, the ecological policies so dear to his heart would have a much better chance of being enacted? What if he then pointed out that, if the Greens came to feel that National was insufficiently attentive to the needs of the planet, they could always turn to Labour?
What if Shaw objected that the very idea of negotiating with National would almost certainly cost him his job: and that the Green Party would never let him do it? What if English responded by asking Shaw if his party would still feel so adamant about keeping National at arm’s length if its members were made aware of what their supposed friends in the Labour Party and NZ First really thought of them? What if he asked Shaw to weigh-up whether or not the Greens really would walk away from a serious Government offer to get real about Climate Change, poverty and swimmable rivers?
WHAT IF, three weeks from today, Bill English asks James Shaw if he has ever heard of the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact?
I can’t see any reason why negotiations between NZF and Labour would need or want to be kept secret from the Greens. OK there would inevitably be one on one phone calls, but the content would have no reason to be kept from James. He and Winston seem both to be pragmatic.
Though it was in itself regrettable, it is likely that Metiria’s withdrawal has taken most of Winston’s objection to the Greens with her. There is no fundamental incompatibility between Winston’s priority with restoring NZ economic sovereignty ,and looking after the environment, in fact the former is an absolute prerequisite to addressing the latter. Without that environmental protection is largely empty rhetoric.
They all three need to just think clearly and forget any past personality prejudices and the way forward is clear and unobstructed.
D J S
100000% DJS
This is the way forward I believe.
As a former green party member I to have grudges against the ‘modern’ Green party as a more ‘bussiness friendly’ stable I feel that there are a lot of similar environmental poicies in both those parties.
Infact three of my own family (excluding me have become NZF members that were Green Party friendy before too.
We need to look ahead now and bury the past issues booth parties had with each other.
Here is one point I must make;
At Gisborne public meetings in 2014 and another in 2017 Winston at those meetings said “if you want your rail services restored in Gisborne you need to change the government.”
Of course His party is the king of rail restoration with the (RONI) “Rails of national Importance” so if he in now the king maker he can not initiate the restoration of all provincial NZ Rail services now right.
Geens as another party now strong on rail restoration, may see this as one consolidation among several of the policies they can begin to build anew relationship with.
We live in hope.
James Shaw has looked all right over the past few weeks. A bad time for the Greens but he’s come through pretty well I think. I was sceptical about him because of his background but he might be OK.
The Green’s message has I think been weakened by the plethora of device social issue positions they have taken on that have nothing to do with looking after the environment. It’s a hazard of any and all small political parties that start to make some headway with the voters, that they get infiltrated by carpet baggers that want to ride on the wave of popularity to advance their own unrelated agenda. And ultimately derail the vehicle they have hijacked , and crash with it.
There’s no reason for the Greens to offend anyone across the Left/right spectrum . We all need the environment to be preserved.
But the “market” has no way of taking account of its needs.
Cheers DJS
However, even if the Greens were conservationists who care more about wildlife than people, and not the eco-social-democrats they actually are, the Nats would still be totally unattractive. Look at their history of statements and legislation (or lack of it) on climate change, defunding of DOC and pivoting them into a hospitality business, funding the pollution of waterways through industrial-scale irrigation projects etc etc etc.
There are four core principles in the Greens charter, and only one of them relates to “environmental wisdom”. The other three are “social responsibility”, “non-violence”, and “appropriate decision-making”. I’m getting thoroughly sick of everyone from the news media to ex-MPs (Bolger and even Dunne) trying to reframe the Greens as an exclusively environmentalist party. This is never what they set out to be, and it’s never what they’ve been. The Greens propping up a failing Nat government is a cyano-tory wet dream, and is even less likely to happen that NZ First swallowing those dead rats.
As I’ve said before, whether NZ First act on their “had enough” campaign message, or betray their left-leaning voters and get toasted in 2020, it’s a win for the left either way. The question they will be asking themselves is what has worked out better for their party in the past? Propping up a failing Nat government (1996) or helping a rising Labour government take the Treasury benches (1999)?
Hmmm…
What if you changed your medication Mr Trottoir?
What if the magnificence of big politcal parties slipped below relevance to 62% voter participation.
What if those within Labour and Greens would realise now, that most of their election policy has a crap chance of being implemented? What if they realised, that the insufficient votes to go it alone, without depending on Winston and his own agenda, is not a good scenario, and hence they go into opposition, to let the Nats stuff the country up totally, so they will at least have a chance of a landslide win in 2020?
That could give Labour and a rebuilt Green Party a win to do real changes, to reform the country thoroughly, and to get even a second or third term, to carry on with that.
Desperation is great, I know, among the many supporting Labour and Greens, and also NZ First, but what if a three party alignment will simply not achieve enough of substance, given clear differences? It would end up being a one term government, damaging all involved in it.
Look for example at the parliamentary elections just completed in Germany, where they had a grand coalition for years, both major parties involved, losing heavily, particularly the social democrats.
A marginalised Green Party as the weakest link in a three party arrangements is likely to face death next election, as it will not get enough policy into the agreed bits of policy Labour, Greens and NZ First may agree on. Is that what we want???
Maybe compare the policies:
http://www.labour.org.nz/policy
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policies
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy
And do not forget, what was more or less considered ‘bottom line’ by all the three parties, one for each of themselves, during the campaign. Only tough, difficult and also careful negotiations would shape a set of core policies, that will be a compromise of sorts, but much will simply NOT be realised, what was intended to be done.
For a start, re any ‘what if’, we should perhaps ask, how can you reconcile policy, e.g. between Greens and NZ First, and of course also between those parties and Labour, to form a workable government?
Greens policy:
https://www.greens.org.nz/great-farming-cleaner-water
“It is not enough to address the symptoms of dirty rivers, we must also address the causes. The simple fact is that we need fewer hooves on the land, creating less pollution for our waterways. Ten million dairy cows and beef cattle produce the same amount of waste as 141 million people, but without the same standards of waste treatment.”
“Put a moratorium on new dairy farm conversions.”
“Wind up Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd and stop providing subsidies for big irrigation projects.”
In short, reducing numbers of cows, and stopping irrigation schemes is what they plan to do.
Greens Te Tiriti policy:
https://www.greens.org.nz/te-tiriti
“Entrench the Māori electorates and oppose any call for a referendum on them”
“Create a level playing field for local government wards, by letting councils establish Māori wards without being overturned by a poll”
In short: Seems the Greens want to ensure Maori representation and that the Treaty is applied across government, central and local.
Greens on Maori language:
https://www.greens.org.nz/te-reo-in-schools
Seems they want to have Te Reo offered in all schools.
Greens on refugees and immigration:
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fairer-society/welcoming-more-refugees
“To help pay for refugee resettlement, we will require high net worth immigrants who gain New Zealand residency under the Investor and Investor Plus categories to invest a portion of their required investments into building, maintaining, and running the refugee resettlement services.”
I read little else on immigration on the Green’s present website!
NZ First primary industry policy:
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/primary_industries
“Require Landcorp to be opened up to sharemilking and sharefarming.”
“Oppose resource rentals such as the Labour Party’s proposed water tax.”
“Repeal the separate race-based planning that has been put into the Resource Management Act.”
“Establish new liquid milk supply guarantees for consumers and New Zealand majority-owned processor start-ups.”
In short: Seems pro farming, pro dairy and pro irrigation to me.
NZ First on ‘Maori Affairs’:
“Māori don’t need the Māori seats. They don’t need tokenism. That is why we commit to a referendum of all electors to retain or abolish the Māori seats.”
“Ensure that all policy-making is based on need and not on race, creed or colour.”
“The Treaty should be a source of national pride and unity and not used to expand the separate rights of Māori or anyone else.”
“The Treaty is not part of the New Zealand Constitution. It is not capable of supporting the extraction of so-called ‘principles’ for any legislative or government purpose. Ill-defined and abstract ‘principles’ are a recipe for legal and constitutional misunderstanding and dispute.”
Sounds a bit like it comes from Don Brash’s handbook on ‘Maori Affairs’.
NZ First on immigration:
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/immigration
“Increase the residency rules around NZ Superannuation from the current 10 years to 25 years.”
That is just bits of policy, that must be compared, and it is clear, there are some significant differences, and the same applies to other areas.
Instead of desperately hoping and dreaming of an alternative, perhaps we should accept that this election has not delivered sufficient common goals for change. The voters and the nation are split about half way, and it may be better to wait for 2020 to then go into battle with formidable policy, well prepared, and Jacinda and James leading Labour and Greens (with new coleaders), to perhaps then bring solid and effective change after a good win then.
Both Winston post election and James have said, “there are grounds for negociation”.
So if both move some way towards each other and use the familiar ‘sliding scale’ prinicipal of change, – as national have been and wil continue to do we may get there?
Winston actually said in one recent interview “everythings negocable”.
Wouldn’t national just really hate to see this happen?
If they take the government then they can find how National have operated under where they cat all services and transferred funding eldsewhere as Joyce willhave done.
This may bring criminal charges on the national party hierarcy!!!!
Do not throw the baby out with the bath water syndrome there I guess..
there will be no criminal charges if the Nats are turfed out Cleangreen….there wont even be much in the way of naming and shaming ,let alone accountability should all the promised inquiries proceed….it will set a dangerous precedent and provide for the opportunity of repayment in kind in future