- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Friday, February 04, 2011

Hone and a New Left Party trigger points

Harawira accuses 'dickheads' of trying to get rid of him
Hone Harawira doesn't seem to be in a mood to reconcile his differences with the Maori Party, saying today "dickheads" within it were trying to get rid of him.

"It looks like these dickheads only have expulsion on their mind, if that's their plan then we may need to refocus," he said on his Facebook page.

So as things start to come to a head with the Maori Party under immense pressure from National to dump Hone so they can rely on the Maori Party as a coalition partner because Rodney's chances of bringing in any extra list seats look zero, the leadership are now on the verge of expelling their most dynamic member all because he had the temerity of speaking the truth about their relationship with an anti-beneficary, anti-worker, anti-environment National Party.

Adding to the problems for National are NZ Firsts Big 3 right wing policies which will chew into National's rump and which led to John Key's extraordinary announcement of the election date 10 months out with the statement that he would not go into coalition with NZ First in an attempt to shut down any momentum Winston might create with such right wing policy.

NZ First's lurch to the right means National can not allow Hone to be in the Maori Party because if he was it would make Winston's raid into their voter pool even deeper. NZ First's lurch to the right also means the Greens, the Maori Party AND Labour would have a bloody hard time getting along with him as well.

Which now gives extra impetus to a New Left Party who can bring extra numbers into the MMP math, especially in the week Unemployment rose to 6.8%

So what are the trigger points for a New Left Party?

The first is the Maori Party expelling Hone. Only once Hone has been expelled from the Maori Party would the possibility for a New Left Party open, and only if Hone believed the best way to fight an anti-worker, anti-benneficary, anti-environmental Party was in a new Party as opposed to remaining an independent.

As an Independent he would be one vote. As a new Party and with his electorate seat, he could create 3-4 votes.

The second trigger point will be the release this month of the ideologically stacked Welfare Razor Gangs deep cuts to benefits. Once the severity of the coming austerity plans against beneficiaries are made public, the welfare and minimum wage electorate will dictate the need for a New Left Party with their concerns primary in any future Government.

John Key may have taken the opportunity to reject some of the ideologically stacked Welfare Razor Gangs more punitive garbage, but with NZ First's Big 3 Policy announcement looming, he will be under pressure to respond with some raw meat policy of his own to counter and blunt NZ First's appeal, so while he may have reigned in the ideologically stacked Welfare Razor Gang, he has to feed the rednecks because Winston will have them drooling.

The third trigger point would be a public meeting where Sue, Matt and Hone spoke and a motion put to the floor that a New Party should form.

Fascinating times ahead with a perfect storm brewing. Imagine the following scenario, National go for John Key's all in poker strategy to gain 50% of the vote with a reliance on the Maori Party as the coalition partner if they don't gain 50% meaning no quarter is given Rodney or Peter Dunne, wiping both Parties out, while a right wing pandering NZ First who have been ruled out by National as a coalition Partner suck up National Party protest vote but crucially just fall shy of the 5% threshold leaving Labour, the Greens and a New Left Party to coax the Maori Party away from their Stockholm Syndrome.

2011 will be one hell of an election.


At 4/2/11 3:03 pm, Blogger sdm said...

National dont need 50%

Because of the wasted votes of those parties who didnt make 5%, esp NZ first, National got a higher percentage of seats than it did votes

National got 44.9% of the votes, but 58/122 seats (47.5%)

Similarly labour got 33.9% of votes but got 43/122 seats (35.2%)

In 2008 there was 6.51% of the vote than got redistributed. National picked up 44.9% of that vote. Lets say the same applies in the next election. It would mean National would only need 47% to govern alone.

The maths isnt as simple as National needing 50%.

At 4/2/11 3:10 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Good point - so they need a full 2% higher than they were able to gain in 2008, which was an incredibly high percentage in the first place - can he get that high in 2011 with 6.8% unemployment, NZ First going to the right and the announcement of state asset sales?

What your math does highlight however is that John Key's 'all in' strategy is exactly what they are aiming for at the cost of Dunne and Rodney.

At 4/2/11 3:58 pm, Blogger sdm said...

but remember ontop of the 44.9% you have 3.7% who voted Act. If Rodney doesnt look like wining Epsom, one would imagine that the majority of those voters would go national (as opposed to NZ first - because its a case of vote winston get goff - act voters wont like that). So given that assumption, if national holds its ground and picks up Act supporters, it should be there.

Unemployment. In 1993 National retained power with 9.5% unemployment. In 96 it was mid 6%'s and power was retained. Its an issue sure, but its not a game changer at 6.8%

At 4/2/11 4:26 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Here is why I disagree with your analysis.

ACT Party vote will drop but will it be collapse so that a straight 3.6% transfer to National Party vote will occur? Unlikely.

Will the 45% National gained still be that high after state asset sales? Key's smile and wave political capital hasn't been tested yet, but his election of 'change' without knowing what that change was can't be used again, especially now the labour-lite policy regime is over.

I agree National will pick up some ACT party vote but not all of it and the enthusiasm Key was greeted with 3 years ago won't be what he faces this time around.

You also leave out that the last election was one of the lowest turn outs, I would suggest with the policy Key is pushing now, disaffected left voters who didn't bother voting last time have every reason to vote this time.

Your use of election results in 93 and 96 don't stack up. 93 was FPP and in 96 voters who thought Winston was joining Labour under the first ever MMP election were bitterly disappointed when he shocked everyone and joined National.

At 5/2/11 12:16 pm, Blogger sdm said...

My comment re unemployment numbers relate to the fact that the incumbent government is not always punished solely on the grounds of high unemployment - and 6.8%, whilst being high, is not extremely high - it could go there.

Look I think we can agree that National will be the highest polling party. Labour will be a distant second, probably at least 10% behind. Therefore National will get the majority of "wasted" votes.

The question I have to ask you is, do you really think Key is less popular than he was 3 years ago? As I have said before, NZ doesnt toss out 1 term governments often (the last two were because of the death of a PM and the black budget). Most get a 2nd term.....

Even if the recession starts to bite again, the likelihood is that it will be caused primarily by offshore factors - whether Key/National is held responsible is to be seen.

At 5/2/11 4:35 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

And my comment re unemployment numbers is that you can't use the examples you have because the first one was won under the draconian fpp and the second occurred because Winston Peters cheated the electorate.

Yes we can agree on National being the highest polling party, but that wasted vote will be spread out amongst all parties in Parliament, not just National.

For the first two years Key didn't do anything controversial (other than lie about GST and wanting to mine conservation land) he played as safe as he could, now he has 10 months of trying to sell privatization, a policy that even you would have to agree is deeply divisive in NZ society.

Yes most get second terms, but they don't get them under MMP by pursuing policy as divisive as state asset sales, and that is the big unknown.

National told us the GST tax rise to fund tax cuts for the rich would - what were the words Scott? 'Turbo Charge' the economy - the actual result? $2 billion deficit.

Now the right wing have been crowing about a cake walk for John Key, let's see how much of a cake walk it is shall we?

At 6/2/11 9:26 am, Blogger sdm said...

The wasted vote will be spread, but my point was that the highest polling party will benefit the most.

Actually the tax change was sensible, given the report of the savings working group. We have to move away from consumption to savings, and as such it was a step in the right direction. And the rich didnt recieve a tax cut to the extent that you suggest, given that most were paying 30% anyway by channeling their income through trusts, companies, laqc's etc. But this isnt the forum for that topic.

Privitisation is deeply divisive, mainly because of the way it was done in the 1980s. This is a different proposal, and Key has 10 months to make the case.

The election wont be a cake walk, but I think the odds are 80%+ that National is returned to power. Would you agree with those odds?


Post a Comment

<< Home