Do you remember back in 2017, when Winston announced that he was going with Labour? I sure as heck do, I had tears of joy at the fact we were finally rid of a National government that had caused such an expansion of inequality in our country.
But a lot of people, National supporters, NZ Herald reporters, etc, couldn’t get their heads around it. Not after their party had won more seats than Labour. They howled their outrage, which only made some of us even happier.
I posted the following to try and explain what had happened to the non-understanders:
Imagine there were some children, classmates, who wanted to bid for a rugby ball with a reserve of $50. One of the kids, who was used to winning everything, said there is only $100 available and I’ve got $44 so the rugby ball is clearly mine, while fist pumping at the end of the auction.
Many of the kids nodded their approval, and the school magazine wrote a dozen articles supporting the moral right of that kid to own the rugby ball even though it was passed in at auction.
After the auction some of the other kids got together and agreed - hey guys we have enough money to actually pay the reserve price for the ball – we should buy it together! But many kids were outraged – that’s not fair they said, that kid has the most money, he should be allowed to buy the ball – and besides none of his mates have any money any more, except for that one weird kid that he gives 50 cents to every three years.
But the three mates who had more than $50 between them bought the ball. And although many kids complained and said you can’t sell that ball for more than $50, it’s not fair – this kid here has offered you $44 – the sale went through. And the three mates took their newly acquired ball and walked off into the sunset.
I’m sure you can work out who the weird kid was, not to mention the “school magazine”.
A while after that someone independently posted a similar, but simpler analogy, using the purchase of a Mince and Cheese pie. That one went viral and I remember feeling a bit embarrassed lest anyone think I’d copied it.
Back to 2023 and last night I had a few messages back and forth with Nick’s Kōrero reader Alison on the possibility of a left wing deal this time. It got me thinking about the scenario and remembering that time. I posted the following on Facebook and Twitter as a laugh:
Do you remember that? Some people spent months or even years in denial that Labour had won the election, repeating again and again that Jacinda was only the Prime Minister because Winston had picked her. Well guess what?
What a lot of the same people seem to find hard to comprehend is that much as they deny it we’re actually in a similar situation now.
In 2017, after the final votes, the two blocs had the following number of seats:
National + ACT = 57
Labour + Greens = 54
NZF held the balance of power with 9 seats, and opted to go with the left bloc.
Compare that with 2023:
National + ACT = 59
Labour + Greens + TPM = 55
NZF holds the balance of power with 8 seats and could give either bloc a majority.
If we compare the two in a graph it’s hard to claim that we’re not in a similar situation.
But what about NZF and Labour ruling each other out? Well they did say that on the campaign trail, but they weren’t the only ones to have something to say about who they would, and wouldn’t, work with.
The media seem quite happy to forget that “ACT Party leader David Seymour has said he won't work with New Zealand First after this year's general election.” Simultaneously basing their reporting on the fact that Labour and NZF ruled each other out.
In the article that accompanied the headline above, David Seymour had the following to say about the man he is supposedly about to jump into bed with:
"Think about how many chances this guy has had already…He's ultimately the person that created all these problems by putting Labour into government…The same person now selling themselves as the solution to that problem? I don't think that's credible."
Ahh credibility, that’s important isn’t it David? Sticking by the things you said on the campaign trail, and not just abandoning your principles the first time they become inconvenient?
Wow, that was subtle. At 2pm on the 3rd of November the special votes were announced, by 5pm that very same day Seymour had cast off his ideals and declared he was ready to do anything. Pay no mind to things he said before the votes were counted.
In that article David says doing so would not be breaking a promise to the public “because ultimately what people want is better results from policy, they want solutions to their various challenges ... that's what we're committed to delivering”.
So I guess with old Seymour a promise isn’t so much a commitment as a vague statement of intent, to be ignored if it restricts his ability to gain power. David confirmed that ACT has “reached out” to New Zealand First - but is yet to receive a response. Which is one way of describing that someone isn’t taking your calls.
So if Seymour can just abandon his commitment to Kiwis, not to do a deal with his dreaded rival, then why the heck shouldn’t Labour and New Zealand First reconsider their positions?
Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori all showed Winston far more respect during the campaign that David Seymour did. Are our media such poor students of history that they cannot contemplate NZF doing something different than people thought they’d do before an election?
I’m not suggesting Chippy and Winston will be picking up the blower today or anything. But the fact that it would be possible for Winston to put either side into a majority certainly strengthens his hand in negotiations. It also allows him the option down the line of standing in front of the nation and explaining that he simply could not reach an agreement with National and ACT, and so has done a deal with the left.
I can already imagine some of the comments people will make. Chippy would never do that. He ruled Winston out on principle. I was glad when he did and it would irreparably harm his reputation if he abandoned his integrity.
To which I would say - well no one seems to be saying Seymour has abandoned his. Maybe people had lower expectations to start with of David?
Some of you might be familiar with the word Realpolitik, which is “the approach of conducting diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises.” That’s what is happening with ACT, and I see no reason why the parties of the left shouldn’t do so as well.
The people the left need to help most cannot clothe, house, and feed themselves on principles.
Look I get it. I too felt pride when Chippy ruled out a deal with Winston, it was the right thing to do - in many ways. Not least of which might have been the objective of discouraging those who voted for Labour in 2020 from voting for NZF.
Don’t get me wrong, a coalition of NZF and the left wing bloc would be chaotic, and require enormous discipline and goodwill, which doesn’t appear to exist. But that is equally true of a coalition on the right.
I’m not saying such an arrangement would be a good idea for the left. Realistically it’d probably mean they’d probably get slaughtered at the ballot box the next time around.
But for those on low wages, on income support, public sector workers about to lose their jobs, would-be first home buyers who will be priced out of the market, renters who will lose protections, or anyone likely to be impacted by climate change, a chaotic coalition on the left would still be a much better option than one on the right - and isn’t that more important?
Surely the most important consideration should be what is best for the people.
Those who discount such a prospect out of hand would do well to learn a little history.
Winston First was a handbrake to progress during the 2017 - 2020 coalition government. Most of the real societal progress, wage rises for nurses, teachers, free prescriptions, 1/2 price transport etc etc happened during Labours second term despite the costs of Covid which were ginormous. Let Winston First be a handbrake to National and Act - it's the least they deserve for their arrogance and early joy, thinking they are the countries rightful rulers.
Certainly the clash of mega egos will be interesting. Seymour will consider himself the bigger bit player than Winston, ACT has more seats. Winston has the memory of an elephant and I can't see him forgetting all Seymour has said about him recently and he will hold all the aces - a direct poke in the eye to Seymour. He will also remember the Nats dirty leaking of his Superannuation overpayments and it cost him serious money in litigation costs. And Peters is unlikely to allow a rise in the pension age - a punch directly to the nose of Luxon. ( No I don't condone violence, pokes to the eyes or punches on the nose, but the analogies I do enjoy ).
Would love to be a fly on the wall when and if the fly in the ointment deal is thrashed out and some self thrashing by Luxon and Seymour won't go down prettily.
Lastly, and I don't enjoy the idea of a Nat run coalition ruining this country again, the voters caused this unholy mess and sometimes you get what you deserve. Pity the rest of us have to suffer the foolish actions of people who couldn't be bothered using the vital piece of equipment between their ears.
It appears that the “left” holds its leaders to a higher standard than the”right.” To us, principles are more important than power for powers sake. Which is the Nat’s only reason for existence. At least with the coalition of chaos, we could be back in 2026.