Agree entirely. He’ll hopefully go the way of the UKs blatant liar & political charlatan (Johnson) - leave parliament with his tail between his legs.
It’s not good enough for Luxon to simply ignore commenting on this fiasco. In fact, if he had any credibility, he’d quit coalition talks with NZ First & pick up the phone to the Greens. After all, they got a higher vote than NZ First (and Act), so have more of a mandate from the voters to be in government in some form.
Thank you for this fine analysis Grant. May I question one thing: you write about Luxon - "He’s now cobbling together a majority from a base of only 38% of the party vote." This is an incomplete figure as it's based on the vote tally on election night, and disregards the 20% of the entire vote (the special votes) still to come. One statistic that has been under-reported is that on election night, with 20% of the regular vote to go, National sat at 43.3%. When those last 20% were counted National had slipped to 38.1% - a drop of over three per cent in just a few hours. The 20% of the vote still to be counted is a bigger number, being a proportion of a greater total. The specials tend to favour a more progressive vote. If the declining trend of National continues at just this rate (even it if doesn't accelerate), National could wind up with around 35% of the vote. And so would lead a very-much minority government after receiving its lowest party vote percentage since 2005. Hardly the 'mandate' that so many political pundits have been punting. Luxon and National have always wanted to go into coalition with ACT. In the context of the Christchurch massacre, let's remember that in the immediate aftermath, David Seymour and some ACT party MPs were willing to vote for the machine guns. And now Winston Peters have done this despicable thing on the same subject - turning the massacre notice period into a political football. And Luxon and National are prepared to negotiate with this unholy alliance, just to keep out of government the good people who would never do such awful things. Add into this volatile mix Seymour's insistence on a referendum that is predicted to produce street violence in this country. Perhaps a cleaner, more stable, more experienced two-party coalition (which would have a clear majority) with Labour and National should be considered for the good of everyone in the country. After all, Labour and National are not that far apart - both with fiscal policies resolutely based on free-market neo-liberal capitalism. Both opposing a capital gains tax. They only differ on the nuances of social welfare investment as a parallel to this overarching economic system. And at least we will have some honourable, experienced cabinet minsters in government. Remember the Luxon-Peters-Seymour leadership team will have none.
Hi Alex. Thanks for those great comments. Fair point about special votes. Others have speculated that, this time, they may go rightwards. But I'll wait and see. I'd already discounted National a bit by saying 38% (not 38.95). And let's recall that Ardern formed a coalition with NZF on 36.9%. I do see your point about a Nat/Lab coalition. Another possibility could be Nats coalescing with ACT but approaching Labour or Greens for an abstention agreement (with some policy concessions, like perhaps maintaining the ban on MSSAs and no Treaty referendum). BTW I don't take threats of violence over a referendum seriously, although there must be better ways than a referendum of seeking a general consensus on what the principles of the Treaty are, for future constitutional and administrative purposes. I don't think it's all that hard to write them down, if one keeps it simple. I've done it every year for my classes! Doing so in law could actually work to the advantage of Maori. We need to look outside of the entrenched positions. Cheers, Grant
Enjoyed the analysis of Peters’s appalling statements on X - perhaps a post-political career for him as a conspiracy theorist? But following that story with a poll on his fitness for cabinet seems … prejudicial. I suggest he has the obtuseness to be a typical cabinet minister - well qualified - interesting challenge for some weary departmental secretary.
Hi Kai. The poll is indeed influenced by what precedes it. It's more for reader interaction than assessment of popular opinions. Hipkins had worked with Peters in cabinet and declared he'd not do so again. But Peters is experienced, and did ok as foreign minister. Perhaps he should be sent upstairs to be a High Commissioner or Ambassador somewhere! G
Peters is nothing less than a blatant liar.
No one should be surprised as he also holds the award for being our greatest political charlatan ever.
Hopefully, both he and his party sycophants will not be part of the National/ACT coalition.
Agree entirely. He’ll hopefully go the way of the UKs blatant liar & political charlatan (Johnson) - leave parliament with his tail between his legs.
It’s not good enough for Luxon to simply ignore commenting on this fiasco. In fact, if he had any credibility, he’d quit coalition talks with NZ First & pick up the phone to the Greens. After all, they got a higher vote than NZ First (and Act), so have more of a mandate from the voters to be in government in some form.
Thank you for this fine analysis Grant. May I question one thing: you write about Luxon - "He’s now cobbling together a majority from a base of only 38% of the party vote." This is an incomplete figure as it's based on the vote tally on election night, and disregards the 20% of the entire vote (the special votes) still to come. One statistic that has been under-reported is that on election night, with 20% of the regular vote to go, National sat at 43.3%. When those last 20% were counted National had slipped to 38.1% - a drop of over three per cent in just a few hours. The 20% of the vote still to be counted is a bigger number, being a proportion of a greater total. The specials tend to favour a more progressive vote. If the declining trend of National continues at just this rate (even it if doesn't accelerate), National could wind up with around 35% of the vote. And so would lead a very-much minority government after receiving its lowest party vote percentage since 2005. Hardly the 'mandate' that so many political pundits have been punting. Luxon and National have always wanted to go into coalition with ACT. In the context of the Christchurch massacre, let's remember that in the immediate aftermath, David Seymour and some ACT party MPs were willing to vote for the machine guns. And now Winston Peters have done this despicable thing on the same subject - turning the massacre notice period into a political football. And Luxon and National are prepared to negotiate with this unholy alliance, just to keep out of government the good people who would never do such awful things. Add into this volatile mix Seymour's insistence on a referendum that is predicted to produce street violence in this country. Perhaps a cleaner, more stable, more experienced two-party coalition (which would have a clear majority) with Labour and National should be considered for the good of everyone in the country. After all, Labour and National are not that far apart - both with fiscal policies resolutely based on free-market neo-liberal capitalism. Both opposing a capital gains tax. They only differ on the nuances of social welfare investment as a parallel to this overarching economic system. And at least we will have some honourable, experienced cabinet minsters in government. Remember the Luxon-Peters-Seymour leadership team will have none.
Hi Alex. Thanks for those great comments. Fair point about special votes. Others have speculated that, this time, they may go rightwards. But I'll wait and see. I'd already discounted National a bit by saying 38% (not 38.95). And let's recall that Ardern formed a coalition with NZF on 36.9%. I do see your point about a Nat/Lab coalition. Another possibility could be Nats coalescing with ACT but approaching Labour or Greens for an abstention agreement (with some policy concessions, like perhaps maintaining the ban on MSSAs and no Treaty referendum). BTW I don't take threats of violence over a referendum seriously, although there must be better ways than a referendum of seeking a general consensus on what the principles of the Treaty are, for future constitutional and administrative purposes. I don't think it's all that hard to write them down, if one keeps it simple. I've done it every year for my classes! Doing so in law could actually work to the advantage of Maori. We need to look outside of the entrenched positions. Cheers, Grant
Enjoyed the analysis of Peters’s appalling statements on X - perhaps a post-political career for him as a conspiracy theorist? But following that story with a poll on his fitness for cabinet seems … prejudicial. I suggest he has the obtuseness to be a typical cabinet minister - well qualified - interesting challenge for some weary departmental secretary.
Hi Kai. The poll is indeed influenced by what precedes it. It's more for reader interaction than assessment of popular opinions. Hipkins had worked with Peters in cabinet and declared he'd not do so again. But Peters is experienced, and did ok as foreign minister. Perhaps he should be sent upstairs to be a High Commissioner or Ambassador somewhere! G
Regards Chris Luxon, a deodorant salesman can't admit it only masks the stink for a while.