Political commentators speculate on outcomes, and that is all well and good. However, speculation should be based on known facts and similar situations from the past. While I would like to tell you all that National has a path to victory next year, I cannot tell you that because currently, they don’t.
Matthew Hooton has stated publicly that Simon Bridges will be PM after the election but he has failed to back up his speculation with facts and relevant examples from the past. He also has failed to explain how under an MMP system Simon Bridges could possibly snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
By allowing her Government to drift under the shadow of alleged scandal for that long will almost guarantee Simon Bridges will attend Apec 2020 in Malaysia as Prime Minister of a National-led government.
There is a gaping flaw in Hooton’s logic here as he is saying that the “scandal” whipped up by the media about NZ First (about something that he repeatedly describes as “legal”) will hand the Prime Ministership to Simon Bridges.
The foundation and how it operates are almost certainly legal. The Spencer Trust, remember, was never found to have broken the law by the relevant authorities including the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Winston Peters and his closest confidants are very careful and act only with the benefit of legal advice.
The meat of Hooton’s argument is that the story has legs and, even though nothing illegal has occurred, it will damage the government so severely that it will cost Jacinda Ardern the election. This is the same rationale used by the Democrats in America. Even though they know that their attempts to impeach President Trump cannot possibly succeed, they are counting on it doing such significant damage to his reputation that it will cost him re-election.
[…] While agencies such as the SFO will inevitably fail to find evidence of anything illegal, the whole saga and the speculation behind it will drain the Government’s legitimacy.
At this point, Hooton points out what happened in the past under an MMP system as the justification for his view that Simon Bridges will benefit from the scandal.
Back in 2008, Clark publicly supported her Foreign Minister Winston Peters through the early stages of the Spencer Trust scandal, before distancing herself from him and then announcing that he had himself decided to stand aside pending the SFO investigation.
It was too late for both of them, with the relentless news coverage eroding both NZ First and more importantly Labour’s public standing ahead of the 2008 election which saw John Key narrowly elected to power.
Today, Ardern faces what appears to be a very similar situation.
Ardern’s Labour-led coalition government has only had one-term in power and therefore is likely to be given a second chance by voters to implement all its promises. Helen Clark, on the other hand, when dealing with a scandal involving NZ First, was at the end of nine long years in power. Clark also had very different coalition partners. She negotiated a coalition with Jim Anderton, leader of the Alliance Party and later the Progressive Party and with New Zealand First.
Hooton has recommended that Ardern hold a snap election to solve the problem but he has not outlined what the path for victory would be for Labour if she did that; let alone how not calling a snap election will help Simon Bridges into the top job. He also ignores that a snap election is very much a FPP tactic that has never properly been deployed in the MMP environment.
BOTH Labour and National currently need NZ First to become the government. If we remove NZ First from the mix (as some unrealistic commentators want us to do) then one of two things needs to happen.
- The Green party would have to massively increase its share of the party vote to make up for the loss of NZ First in order to enable Labour to form a government. That is highly unlikely as history tells us that minority parties lose support after being in government. The Maori party is a perfect example.
2. If the Greens managed this unlikely feat, co-leader James Shaw has made it very clear that the Greens will never form a coalition with National so they can only be a path to victory for the Labour party.
So what would have to happen for National to have a path to victory if NZ First is magically taken out of the mix?
- They would need the Green vote to all transfer over to the new made-to-order coalition partner, the Sustainable NZ Party.
2. The ACT party would need to attract all the former NZ First votes along with the New Conservative party so that together they could partner with National.
Hooton however, seems to think that by ruling out NZ first and calling a snap election we would magically have a first past the post type election.
There is no doubt National would provide Labour will the necessary votes in Parliament to allow for an election on Saturday 14 or Saturday 21 December, ahead of Christmas.
It would be rushed but, as in 1984, there is no doubt the Electoral Commission would do whatever it took to ensure it was conducted as professionally as possible.
With both Ardern and Bridges ruling out working with NZ First afterwards, a December election would be a straight drag race between Labour and the Greens in the left lane and National and Act in the right.
Hooton believes that a snap election will result in a Labour-Green coalition with NZ First out in the cold. We can only assume then (as he doesn’t explain his reasoning) that he thinks that the other option (if a snap election isn’t called) will be a National-ACT coalition.
I would love a National-ACT or National-ACT-New Conservative coalition to form a government but, even if ACT continues to increase it’s share of the vote as I am confident it will, I cannot see ACT and the New Conservatives gaining enough to replace NZ First. I cannot see the Green vote moving to the Sustainable NZ Party and, even if both Labour and National were to rule out forming a government with NZ First, I cannot see NZ First supporters all meekly saying, “OK then I will vote elsewhere.” They are more likely to give the big finger to National and Labour by voting for NZ First with a “what are you going to do now huh?” attitude.
Imagine what would happen if both Labour and National publicly had stated that they wouldn’t do a deal with NZ First and, after the election, neither party is able to form a government without NZ First. The idea that National and Labour can tell NZ First supporters not to vote for NZ First and that they will listen, strikes me as incredibly naive. NZ First voters know how MMP works. The major parties can draw lines in the sand as much as they like but at the end of the day, Winston Peters, if he has the votes, will still be the King/Queen maker, like it or not.
Imagine what a strong deck of cards he will be holding if both Labour and National have stated that they will not work with him. There will be lashings of humble pie and bags full of rats to consume all round.