Under the First Past The Post (FPTP) system we had prior to 1996 at least half of the country usually felt that the government didn’t represent them. They hadn’t voted for it, and unless you lived in a swing electorate your vote was essentially meaningless.
MMP was supposed to fix that by allocating seats based on all the votes. Everybody’s vote would have a bearing on the composition of parliament, and a government would have to contain parties that at least half the population had voted for.
Some imagined new parties that made sense with a proportional system. You might remember the United NZ party which was formed by a group of centrist National and Labour MPs in 1995, anticipating that people would want a centre party who could form a coalition with either the parties on the left or those on the right.
It failed dismally and for six of the seven MPs that first MMP election was the end of their career. Only Peter Dunne remained and he hung around for another 21 years, spending a total of 33 years as an MP. Much of that time many of us wondered why on earth he was still there, much as we do with his media engagements today.
An incredibly pompous man whose only achievements I can ascertain were extending daylight savings, and making bow ties seem even more ridiculous. David Lange once described Dunne as “a man whose life is so boring that if it flashed past he wouldn't be in it”. Which is a pretty good line, the sort Dunne himself could never come up with.
Our left and right blocs today are not dissimilar from the two party system we had under FPTP. There are no possible coalitions spanning the divide between left and right. So that’s meant that Winston, as the only swinger around, has been pretty much the only game in town, ever since 1996. Unless either the left or right bloc hold an outright majority then he holds an absurd amount of power and influence.
Since Chris Hipkins ruled out Winston, and more so since the election, a number of people have asked me - why can’t Labour and National just get together?
In some ways it makes a great deal of sense. A clear majority of Kiwis voted for National or Labour, and on the face of it many of the policies they ran in the election were quite similar.
Maybe one wanted more roads, the other more tunnels, one wanted free Dental, the other wanted to lay off thousands of public sector workers. Small differences for sure, but when it came to the big ticket items like not having a Capital Gains Tax, and not having a Wealth Tax, they were in lockstep.
Cynicism aside, in times of crisis it is not uncommon for major political parties to come together, to call a political ceasefire and work together in a Grand Coalition, in the interests of the country.
Some suggest that utilising the best ideas, and experience, of the people in our parliament might not be a bad idea regardless. To my mind there are two main issues. One to do with the interests of the public, the other rather more politically driven.
In terms of the public interest, the role of the opposition is to provide checks and balances against the government. If the two major parties team up that would be jeopardised. Although to be fair after what we’ve seen from National in opposition it’s hard to place too much value on such a role.
Constantly complaining that the government was going too fast, or two slow, or both at the same time. Few alternative ideas and pretty much opposing everything for the sake of opposing it, rather than on merit. However I suspect that the next parliament will see an opposition that asks a lot of tough questions, with less of the silly games, gotcha questions, or fictional personas we saw from National.
For me the big impediment to such a Grand Coalition has always been the self interest of the parties. Neither major party would consider it, other than in an emergency. They would cease to be the major party as voters that felt disenfranchised would move left or right to other parties.
But is party self interest enough of a reason to rule out what seems like an obvious solution to Winston’s disproportionate power?
I received a letter this morning from Alex Stone, you might recall I posted this newsletter from him before the election:
In his email this morning he picked up on a line from my newsletter yesterday, which discussed different coalition arrangements to those the media are talking about. Noting my comment that “Surely the most important consideration should be what is best for the people” he said “Well, how's this for what’s best for everyone?”
Here’s what he said…
To Chris and Christopher. Please consider…
To two New Zealand political leaders, a call to responsible democratic leadership.
Chris, this is not about your ‘captains call’ which you made against the advice of your most senior cabinet ministers, that got you into this pickle.
And Christopher, please for a moment put your CEO ego aside; for that is not your role here.
We’re talking about what is good for all people of this country, not just party faithful or shareholders or donors requiring payback. Everyone, all citizens and permanent residents including children, disabled folk, refugees, seasonal workers, people who did not vote, and older New Zealanders.
We’re asking you to listen (as you both promised you would) and with a measure of Christian charity (as Christopher, you claim to have).
Thing is, 95% of adult New Zealanders say that Winston Peters is a destructive force and should not be in government ever again. Remember he also gave aid and comfort to the violent anti-vax occupiers of the Parliament grounds. His actions this last week, when he tried to turn the timing of warnings about the Christchurch massacre into a political football, have clearly demonstrated he is not fit for office.
In the same context we must remember that immediately after the Christchurch massacre, David Seymour the leader of the ACT Party was willing to vote for the machine guns. He is also promoting a referendum that many New Zealanders have said will lead to violence in this country. We need to take any threats of violence very seriously; and do all we can to avoid that.
Christopher, you have all along indicated that you want to enter into a coalition with David Seymour and ACT; and that you are willing to do this with Winston Peters and New Zealand First also.
This unholy alliance, allowing Peters and Seymour pivotal and possibly steering roles in the New Zealand government, all to deny people who would never think in this awful way a place in the governance of our nation. Peters, who is supported by around 5% of the population, and whose policies include withdrawing from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); and Seymour supported by less than 10% demanding significant policy concessions in a minority-led government. What part of democracy do we not understand here?
Consider too, Christopher, now with your self-claimed ‘business acumen’ in place, that you have a very inexperienced senior leadership team which does not include a single person with an honorable track record as a cabinet minister. Your ‘chief financial officer’ has never written a nation-wide fiscal policy or budget before. And on her first attempt, clearly came up with numbers that are definitely not ‘rock solid’ – despite your show of confidence in attempting to mask this obvious lack of competence. Would you hire such a person to a senior role in a large corporation (putting aside political ideology and simply focusing on professional ability)?
Chris and Christopher, consider a coalition Labour with National. Please don’t react with a stock response of shock-horror will-never-do-that. Your two parties are not that different in their present incarnations; both resolutely centrist, favouring a neo-liberal capitalist economic system. Both refusing to consider a capital gains tax. Despite 70% of New Zealanders thinking it is necessary – but let’s address that later, when we reassess this pesky democracy thing.
Your parties are both the winners of the two biggest vote sectors in this election.
The positives of this coalition-to-be-considered are
A simple two-part coalition with a clear majority of seats in the house.
Safe from an inevitable loss of a few MPs, due to usual human foibles. These happen; and you two would be better placed to deal with this.
Continuation of most of the fiscal policies that have served New Zealand well from an international perspective – if not for the poorer working and younger people of the nation. But again, we can continue to address those challenges together.
The input of the experienced team that led New Zealand to the best Covid response and recovery in the world.
Proven experience in foreign policy and Pacific natural disaster matters.
Two stable, major parties, both avowedly against violence, each with a long heritage in leading New Zealand.
Christopher, please reflect on this privately, and quietly, and without the input or influence of your major donors.
Chris, this is the one way to continue with your unfinished business politically.
Surely this is the best thing for the future of all the people of New Zealand?
Alex Stone is an artist, inventor, marketing manager, poet, sailor, sculptor and writer based on Te Motu Ara-i-roa Waiheke Island. For 25 years he wrote a weekly column for the island's feisty wee newspaper Gulf News.
www.alexstonethinkingstrings.com
Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts Alex. They make a lot of sense to me 🙂
Thanks Alex. A genuine proposal that Luxon is incapable of entertaining.
His bluster during the genuine emergency of the covid pandemic indicates the shallowness of Luxon.
He could not and would not support the governmentand even worse, he actively undermined its every move. He whined about every aspect of covid measures designed TO SAVE LIVES.
He claimed the covid traffic light
system was 'too hard'.
Luxon is a glove puppet of the moneymen that bought the election.
Luxon is a nowhere man.
Some really good points Alex, and on paper a much better solution for Aotearoa than the hellscape which awaits us. But I think it too quickly dismisses the underlying and background contexts, including the influence of moneyed property investors, the gambling industry and a plethora of racist dinosaurs. On the left side, personally, I think the "captains call" decision is one that needs to be revisited by Labour, in earnest korero with Greens and TPM. There's an opportunity to reset and re-create on the left that I don't think should be compromised for 3 years of uneasy government. The next 3, or possibly less, years will be awful but also represent an opportunity for a more equitable, diverse, socially and environmentally just phoenix to arise from the ashes. And I think this will benefit future generations than a morally questionable "grand coalition".