No mood for change

screenshot-Whaleoil

[…] Labour leader Jacinda Ardern will be grateful for that as it does strengthen her negotiating position. But spare us the predictable cries from elsewhere on the Left that a “vote for change” won the election.

Yes, please, spare us!

The results of the special votes are unsurprising, but they confirm nothing of the sort.  Labour and the Greens have picked up a seat each, while National has lost two. That means a Labour, Greens and NZ First coalition would have 63 seats, while a National/NZ First coalition would hit 65 seats.

National received 44.4 per cent of the total vote, while the Labour-Greens bloc gained 43.2 per cent of the vote. If we want to get technical, it shows that in a numbers sense the strongest vote, although not a majority vote, went to the status quo. National still has 10 seats more than Labour does in Parliament, and two seats more than Labour and the Greens put together.

But this is MMP and for good reason, nothing can be characterised so simplistically and nor should it be.

The final tally of votes has confirmed what we always suspected: NZ First has a 50-50 call to make. Neither option that would emerge as the final outcome of Government negotiations would be any more or less legitimate than the other.

But there is one thing that’s been kicking around since election night that’s struck me as empirically wrong.

The idea that a specific motivation to change the Government can be attached to every vote that wasn’t for National or ACT is ridiculous.

Finally, someone in the MSM is showing some common sense.

Every vote for Labour and the Greens perhaps.

Those who vote Labour clearly don’t want National and given how much the Green vote collapsed to its base core, then sure. It’s unlikely any voter who wanted a National Government but was sympathetic to Green policies would have voted Greens in this most first-past-the-post of MMP elections either.

But the vigour with which National voters have tried to push the unworkable “teal deal”, would suggest there are some National voters who may have at least flirted with voting Green in the past.

Did I miss something?  I thought it was mooted by a couple of people, but didn’t get much traction.  I would hardly describe it as pushing with vigour.

There is no way that any pundit can knowingly declare that a NZ First voter is ultimately against a fourth-term National Government. Those that do, are talking solely from the left side of their mouths.

Yes, they are, and it seems there are so many of them!

If there truly was a hard vote for change, then the Left would be touting that there was a clear vote for Labour-led Government. Of that, we know there wasn’t.

In this scenario there is no greater “moral” obligation to go with one side or another.

There is a moral obligation to give the most consideration to the party (not parties) that got the greatest number of votes.

NZ First has a decision to make based on a straight weigh-up of policy concessions, portfolio concessions and it’s own party’s longevity.

The “mood” of the nation doesn’t come into it because it simply can’t be known with any level of certainty. Either way, half the country will be annoyed.

It’s anyone’s game now, as it was anyone’s game the day before yesterday.

And anyone who claims to know which way NZ First voters, caucus members or Peters himself, is leaning, is foolish at best.

And so we wait and see.

 

-Sunday Star Times


This post was written by Intern Staff


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

40%