Clark’s poor advice

Even if voters’ choice were simply a Labour-led government or a National-led government Helen Clark’s ‘advice‘ yesterday would be patently false given the Greens’ preference announcement last week:

When she was asked at a meeting with Foodstuffs workers if they should vote strategically to ensure a Labour coalition, she said the best way was to vote for Labour.

But the choice many Labour voters face is not just National vs Labour, but Labour-NZ First vs Labour-Green.  Which means that strategically, the best thing they can do is vote for the support partner they want for Labour, not for Labour itself. The relative strength of those two parties is likely to decide which one has the most bargaining power to shape the type of government that Labour might be able to put together. Labour has said it is an election about trust, and many former Labour voters don’t trust Winston Peters and New Zealand First. They will see the logic on voting Green.

Or, as Audrey Young noted yesterday:

I have lost count of the former Labour voters I know who are voting Green this election. They trust Labour, but only as far as they can kick them.

frog says

13 Responses to “Clark’s poor advice”

  1. samiam Says:

    Only to have the brown party hold everyone to ransom to entrench rights for one class of New Zealanders over another…

  2. frog Says:

    Samiam - and what if the Maori seats were given just the equivalent protection under the law, where it required a 75% majority to kill them rather than a simple majority? Would that be a road too far? Is it that scary that tangata whenua are recognised?

  3. samiam Says:

    I’m a born New Zealander = I am Tangata Whenua. That’s not scary, oh but wait, then we don’t have race as a criteria to be a ‘real’ kiwi and we don’t have racist seats.

  4. panda Says:

    oww, toad that hurt

    It the left Cobble together a coalition it will be the death Nell for MMP in this country
    and there would be another election in under 18 months

    I kind of hope it happens

  5. big bro Says:

    Frog

    “Would that be a road too far? Is it that scary that tangata whenua are recognised?”

    What is scary is the desire of the Greens to inflict their guilty conscious on the rest of us.

  6. Gerrit Says:

    frog,

    Is it that scary that tangata whenua are recognised?</blockquote

    No not al all, in fact all factions should celebrate their status.

    What is scary is that your interpretation of recognition bestows priviledge and benefits to one sector of the population. Based on past grievences and guilt trips. Will the Greens publish a plan on how all treaty claims can be settled and the Maori seats actually be abolished?

    One question you may be able to answer is this

    If Maori sovereignty was to be realised and incorporated in a seperatist parliament. Would you see the abolition of the Maori seats in this current “others” parliament?

  7. The Optimist Says:

    Helen Clark is probably trying to maximise the labour vote. It is all very well for Labour to form a government with only 35% support, but I doubt the electorate would stand for it, particularly given the mood for change that people keep talking about.

    So the environmentalists should not take too much of Labour’s vote…

  8. Valis Says:

    National formed a govt in 1996 with 33.8%, Labour in 1999 with 38.7. Yes, they were the largest party, but coalitions are what matter in MMP. That is the entire point. You’re still thinking FFP. Overseas there have been stable governments where the largest party is not in govt. What matters is what majority is formed. This is also why the Greens feel it is important to state a preference before the election, so that people know what they are likely to get.

  9. big bro Says:

    Valis

    The people might know that the Greens are going to go with Labour but that is years away from “knowing what they are likely to get”

    For some reason the MSM have always avoided any in depth analysis of the Greens, one can only hope that their rise in the polls will see the blow torch applied and the many myth’s behind the Greens are exposed.

  10. frog Says:

    Bring on the blow torch I say. I would love the MSM to take a serious look at the Greens and their policies instead of the myopic name calling that they (and you BB) engage in. Bring it on I say!!!!

  11. big bro Says:

    Be careful what you wish for Frog.

    The first question they will ask is “how can you afford this”, the answer must be “to raise taxes”.
    I am sure that the voters need to know that Sue B plans to substantially raise the dole and DPB benefits.

    I am sure they public need to know just how badly our economy will be hammered if we ever embrace the Greens version of the ETS.

    You guys might even be asked to cost a policy or two.

  12. Valis Says:

    No one claims that that the state of the economy will not influence what we’d do next term. And just like us, the other parties have programmes larger than they can afford. The main difference is what our relative priorities are. Even if we have to move at 10% of the pace we’d like, this is still better than heading in the opposite direction.

  13. Ari Says:

    Actually, people should vote for the member of the coalition that would take a potential government in the direction they want. For some people who want a Labour-led coalition, that will be Labour. For others it will be the Greens. For some it will be the Progressives, even. And for some it may just be New Zealand First.

    And for those on the Maori roll, it could well be the Maori Party :)

    Big Bro- the MSM have avoided in-depth analysis of ANY party. They’re not interested if it doesn’t involve shifts of allegiance. One suspects they view politics more like a soap opera than an actual contest for where to take our country for the next few years.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.