Helen to Winston: no, thanks

by frog

Labour is making it clear, in bolder language than National, that it will only deal with Winston Peters after the election if it absolutely has to. Helen Clark said in her post-Cabinet press conference yesterday:

I have a feeling that one party has already overplayed its hand by juggling two phones and reminding people of the nine weeks of apprehension which followed the 1996 election… My advice to voters… is that they should look very carefully at what the small parties are saying they will do with the votes they get from the public. And if they can’t be absolutely sure that a small party will cast its vote in a direction they’re comfortable with, they shouldn’t vote for it.

Labour has quite successfully coaxed back left-leaning voters flirting with Winston by arguing, “a vote for Winston could be a vote for Don Brash”. It would be wonderful if Don Brash could do the same, in reverse

I actually agree that third parties ought to give the public a clear steer about where they intend to take their votes post-election, as only Act and the Greens have done so far. If voters have a general preference for a Labour or a National led government, why would they entrust their party votes with United, the Maori Party or NZ First?

I’m not arguing that, say, United or NZ First should always coalesce with the same party. I am arguing, however, that these parties should, as the campaign begins, take a look at the political landscape and decide whether they want a change of government or not. If they aren’t prepared to make that decision, they don’t deserve Kiwis’ votes.