Hard News: To be expected
163 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’d like both Key and Cunliffe to decide what they think about Winston Peters this week, if you don’t mind.
I fear you will be disappointed on both counts.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
But Labour and the Alliance didn’t campaign together in 1999 and didn’t enter a formal agreement until after the votes had been cast.
Helen and Jim buried the hatchet in the lead up to 1999, which is not the same thing as a formal agreement.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
And, of course, if Labour did do a deal with the Greens, Cunliffe would have to spend the next six months either defending Green party policy (much of which is (a) incompetently written and un-costed, and (b) off-putting to centrist voters) or repudiating Green party policy, in an ad hoc and damaging manner --- i.e, the coalition deal would end up being written in public, in an unco-ordinated and damaging way.
Weird how this has existed in Australian politics for over 90 years, with Tony Abbot spending precisely zero time on this kind of doomsday scenario.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
No Right Turn takes the opposite view -- that the absence of a Labour-Green campaign coalition will give National more scope for mischief, because National will be able to define the relationship itself. This seems counter-intuitive to me -- surely National would be more likely to make hay out of the fact of a formal coalition?
National will cricise them regardless. The difference is that without a formal alliance, it is National which gets to frame what a Labour-Green government will do, rather than them getting a chance to frame it themselves.
Edit to add: Or to put it another way: the "Labour beholden to loony Greens" narrative will exist regardless (hell, even Labour people are spreading it here). The benefit of a formal alliance is that you get to put up your counternarrative. The current situation - a public denial of what everyone implicitly understands to be the case - prevents Labour from doing that.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I fear you will be disappointed on both counts.
You're probably right, but since Winston's already started laying down quarter-arsed bottom lines like this it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask. Not that Winston's bromantic partners in the Press Gallery will bother.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Weird how this has existed in Australian politics for over 90 years, with Tony Abbot spending precisely zero time on this kind of doomsday scenario.
Your URL’s missing, but I assume you mean the Liberal-National coalition, which was formed after the 1922 general election. After. It's not the same thing.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
National will cricise them regardless. The difference is that without a formal alliance, it is National which gets to frame what a Labour-Green government will do, rather than them getting a chance to frame it themselves.
Did you call for a formal campaign coalition before today?. Given the view that it's apparently an absolute no-brainer, I'm trying to find someone who has actually been saying so all along. Still looking.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The difference is that without a formal alliance, it is National which gets to frame what a Labour-Green government will do, rather than them getting a chance to frame it themselves.
Yeah, and I think this is worth pointing out, but would require some homework from the press: This kind of loose coalition isn't exactly uncommon, and electorally successful, elsewhere. FFS, the current Prime Minister of Australia is the federal leader of such a grouping that's existed for over 90 years. And obviously I don't have access to Cunliffe's advice or internal polling, but I suspect a lot fewer people are terrified unto death of seeing Labour, Greens and coalition in the same sentence as the media-political complex conventional wisdom would have us believe. It's not my preferred outcome, but I could live with it and the people who can't aren't going to vote Labour anyway, I suspect.
-
But if you want to define the Labour/Green realationship, you need to dedicate substantial resources to it and come up with an actual coalition agreement, and a pretty clear joint programme. If you go to the electorate as an alliance but without a joint programme, it would be bizarre.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Your URL’s missing
Fixed - for once, I noticed it before the edit window closed. :)
which was formed after the 1922 general election. After. It's not the same thing.
Simple statement of fact there, but it's existed (in various forms) through every Australian federal election since. Not always peacefully, we're talking about Australian politics after all :), but it has worked.
You're quite right in the OP that Labour is perfectly entitled to maximize its vote (as are the Greens), but I just find it rather bizarre how high-handed and downright hostile the response has been from some quarters.
-
And you don’t see Labour and the Greens attacking each other this year either.
Except you do see a senior Labour MP attacking the Greens on a routine basis.
Did you call for a formal campaign coalition before today?. Given the view that it’s apparently an absolute no-brainer, I’m trying to find someone who has actually been saying so all along.
It felt like there was an INformal coalition for a long time, becoming more formal after the NZ Power launch and Shearer indicating that he’d have a proportional number of Green MPs in his cabinet. It became routine to talk about the Labour/Green position in the polls (‘Neck and neck!’) instead of just Labour vs National ('miles behind). And that was helpful to Labour. It makes them relevant and gets them to say they're in with a chance, that there’s a stable government in waiting, and it meant they didn't have to worry about being attacked from the left.
That falls apart when Shane Jones starts attacking the Greens on such a routine basis that it becomes obvious that its a strategy, with the Greens constrained from critiquing Labour back because that would trigger ‘bitterly divided’ stories. My take on the offer of a formal coalition is that it was a message to Labour that they don’t get to pretend they were both head of a stable left-wing government-in-waiting and attack their primary partner to try and win center votes at the same time.
-
The danger for Labour, I feel, is that this is just another move in the direction of not defining themselves. They don't have to enter into any formal agreements pre-election but they have to start to stand for somethign. As we get closer to the election, they just look more and more like National-lite. They appear to be terrified of losing the middle ground when, in fact, they have already lost that vital swinging 5% to National anyway - for now. As the saying goes, if you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
But if you want to define the Labour/Green realationship, you need to dedicate substantial resources to it and come up with an actual coalition agreement, and a pretty clear joint programme.
Or be able to clearly articulate your points of agreement, which should only be as difficult as you choose to make it. And I'm sorry, but what "actual coalition agreement" would be necessary. If Labour and the Greens don't actually have a pretty solid sense of their commonalities by now, I guess we should lay in the popcorn for a very long round of coalition negotiations afterwards...
-
Luke Williamson, in reply to
Absolutely, and they should be talking to each other to work out a consistent message that points out the evils of National. They also need to motivate the non-voters and disillusioned Labour voters.
-
This bit out of Gordon Campbell was bang on for me.
"Would a united Greens/Labour front have polarised the electorate? You bet. On that score, the electorate is way ahead of Labour. Much of it is already polarised, and in opposition to the policies and personalities of the Key government. What it lacks is a leader of that opposition – but yesterday, Cunliffe decided not to turn up to work." -
The AU coalition is a long term de facto merger between the National, Country and Liberal parties (rural and urban Tories). Because they have preferential voting, multiple aligned parties can run in electorates without letting Labour in by vote splitting. This allows National/Country to persist where its NZ equivalents (Reform, I guess) have disappeared.
(See also CitRats / City Vision).
There is no such electoral logic under MMP. The voters can choose who they vote for, and that vote decides how the government gets created. If people vote for Peters, he may get to form part of a government. If you don't like this, campaign against his policies.
-
"I'm a Green voter and I'm mad that Labour continues to insist on maintaining an independent political identity" is not really a great argument here.
-
And while I am being a comment hog, I don't understand why the commentators are so convinced that Winston would go with a Labour coalition when he already has form for campaigning on a "get rid of National" platform in 1996 and then promptly joining them in coalition. Winston will do whatever is best for him personally, even at the expense of his party.
-
I’m with Luke and Gordon Campbell et al here. Labour needed this more than the Greens. Because the perception is they are timid and divided and unclear what they stand for. Whereas the Greens (even if their actual policy is ‘incompetently written and uncosted’ – can’t comment on that) come across clearly. You feel you know what they’re for and against.
In that sense, Labour could realistically fear being out-shone by a far smaller but better focussed partner.
An informal arrangement is best, for sure. But it should be tight, with no surprises. The fact this is public and a story is another stumble. And that narrative – of gaffes, fumbles and own goals – has plenty of legs.
A determined and ferociously well-managed change of story could kill it. This could have been the story that did. In the meantime, the zombie stumbles on. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
The fact this is public and a story is another stumble.
This is the thing I would like to know. Who leaked it? Because that does seem like an act of bad faith.
-
Rob Salmond (who advises Labour's leader) offers his opinion, which comes down to New Zealand's comparatively fair electoral system doesn't provide Labour much incentive to accept it.
I find this unconvincing, but for the reason that I think it does not bolster Labour's own support within its potential voter pool. They (and the Greens, but independently too) need to be able to present themselves as a government in waiting in order to pull together the unenthusiastic masses and convince them that going down to the local school and ticking the red box is a valuable use of their time.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
It became routine to talk about the Labour/Green position in the polls (‘Neck and neck!’) instead of just Labour vs National (’miles behind). And that was helpful to Labour. It makes them relevant and gets them to say they’re in with a chance, that there’s a stable government in waiting, and it meant they didn’t have to worry about being attacked from the left.
That falls apart…
The public need a narrative. The media desperately need a narrative supplied, or they are forced to invent their own. And the narrative of 32-35% is quantitatively different than the narrative of 44-47%, as we are at at this point in time.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
This is the thing I would like to know. Who leaked it? Because that does seem like an act of bad faith.
So would I -- and it's funny how many folks on my Twitter have assumed it's someone in the Greens, and that the whole thing was just a giant bad faith troll from the beginning. None of which makes a lick of sense to me, but moving on...
-
Winning the election is about beating John Key and he only stumbles when he gets cornered - the nasty JK appears and gives everyone a fright. What will make him feel cornered and act a little desperately is the prospect of an opposition coalition polling at 48%. A coalition that is united enough to be believable. That becomes a real battle and JK's ugly side might just shine through.
Just as a short aside, is there any chance that the investigation into manipulation of foreign exchange rates will dig deep enough or back far enough to implacate JK? -
Again though George, you're a Green party member! Of course you like the idea that Labour commits to the Greens. Similarly but differently Gordon Campbell etc. I really think a lot of this is pretty motivated reasoning: Labour should be more like the Greens (because I like the Greens).
But how does the Green Party play in South Auckland? Well, not very well, to be frank. How about marginals, like the Coast or Waimak? Erm. Ah. Maybe there are downsides to being tightly tied to the Greens, as well as upsides? And in this case, given the upside simply isn't that large, the natural tendency of cautious social democrats will be to avoid the risk.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.