Right leaning NZ First voters may be disappointed

Going by comments here, at Kiwiblog and at Whale Oil during the campaign there may be a few right leaners who voted for NZ First who may be more than a little disappointed with their choice.

Most notably Cameron Slater promoted voting for NZ First heavily, thinking they would push National right on selected issues (despite most NZ First policies being far more to the left).

Winston Peters is very experienced at pandering to potential voters on populist issues, knowing that as a smaller party he will never be able to deliver. This looks especially true by the look of the Labour-NZ First coalition agreement.

Not with National

It was common to see people saying they would vote NZ First to reduce National’s clout in a right leaning government.That NZ First decided not to do a deal with National is neither surprising nor good news for right leaning  supporters.

Maori seats referendum

One of Winston’s bottom lines/promises was to have a referendum on the Maori seats to ‘eliminate them’.  This policy was eliminated by Labour, who couldn’t countenance losing their grip on all seven Maori seats..

Immigration

Winston has campaigned for years on drastically lowering immigration numbers, often erroneously and deceitfully describing what we had as ‘mass immigration’. Jacinda Ardern has stated that Labour immigration policy remains intact, that will mean some reduction in numbers but nowhere as drastically as Winston promised.

The UN resolution on Israel

This was an issue pushed hard at Whale Oil but no one else cared about it, but has made it into the coalition agreement:

Record a Cabinet minute regarding the lack of process followed prior to the National-led government’s sponsorship of UNSC2334

This is just a criticism of the process used, of not referring the decision to sponsor the resolution to Cabinet. It does nothing to criticise or oppose the resolution.

Smacking referendum

Family First press release on 28 september: Anti-Smacking Law On Coalition Table

In a speech in March in Northland, leader Winston Peters said; “We are going to repeal the anti-smacking law which doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children.” He then further clarified his position in an interview on Newstalk ZB saying that this matter should go to a referendum with New Zealand people who are “far more reliable and trustworthy on these matters, rather than a bunch of temporarily empowered parliamentarians. This position was backed up by senior MP Tracey Martin.

It may or may not have ever got onto the negotiating table, but neither Labour nor Greens would have supported it.

Climate change

All of NZ First, Labour and greens supported much stronger action on climate change, and it was included in both the Labour-Green deal and also the Labour-NZ First agreement:

Introduce a Zero Carbon Act and an independent Climate Commission, based on therecommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

If the Climate Commission determines that agriculture is to be included in the ETS, then upon entry, the free allocation to agriculture will be 95% but with all revenues from this source recycled back into agriculture in order to encourage agricultural innovation,mitigation and additional planting of forestry.

It even allows for agriculture to be included in the ETS.

Anyone thinking that a vote for NZ First would deliver a more right leaning government may now be ruing their judgement. However the outcome was fairly predictable so they shouldn’t be surprised.

58 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  25th October 2017

    ”Anyone thinking that a vote for NZ First would deliver a more right leaning government may now be ruing their judgement. However the outcome was fairly predictable so they shouldn’t be surprised.”

    Yep, pity so many disillusioned talk-back callers didn’t have a cuppa first and give some thought about what voting for Winston would mean.

    • Fight4NZ

       /  25th October 2017

      Pretty much more delivered than the NZ First voter might have expected. They will be stoked.
      Any neo liberals amongst them were probably meant to vote Act but so stupid they marked the ballot wrong

      • Corky

         /  25th October 2017

        Not according to the talkback callers I have heard. Admittedly, they would have been in the minority of NZ1 voters. But they are still voters who wont be voting Winston come the next election.

        ”Any neo liberals amongst them were probably meant to vote Act but were so stupid they marked the ballot wrong.”

        Oxymoron of day.

      • David

         /  25th October 2017

        “Any neo liberals amongst them were probably meant to vote Act but so stupid they marked the ballot wrong”

        Given no Labour or NZF policy really makes the slightest difference to the fact New Zealand is a neo-liberal economy, I wonder who the stupid ones are?

        • Patzcuaro

           /  25th October 2017

          From memory NZ First was positioned to the left of centre economically and neutral or slightly conservative socially on vote compass. So on balance they have gone with the Labour lead coalition.

          • David

             /  25th October 2017

            Yes, they are left of center, however not a single policy proposed by either Labour or NZF challenges the fundamentals of NZ’s economy. It will remain an open market, capitalist, economy, the very definition of neo-liberal.

            • Blazer

               /  25th October 2017

              How about preventing foreign buyers in the property market?

            • Patzcuaro

               /  25th October 2017

              I don’t think many voted against capitalism, they just voted for a more compassionate capitalism.

            • David

               /  25th October 2017

              “compassionate capitalism”

              Meaningless catch phrase with no more depth to it that ‘let’s do it!’.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  25th October 2017

              @David I disagree, we actually live in a mixed economy, some based on the market and some provided by the state. Education, health, security and a lot of infra structure are provided predominantly by the state. Plus we have the social welfare safety net which is where the compassion comes in.

      • PDB

         /  25th October 2017

        Winston’s left-wing support left him in droves once Ardern was made Labour leader. Most likely the remaining NZL First support was largely made up of centre-right/right-wing supporters wanting National in govt but with Winston pushing them in a slightly different direction.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  25th October 2017

          If they were centre right voters they should have voted National if that is what they wanted. If they were right-wing they should have voted ACT. Then they would have been more likely to get what they wanted.

          • PDB

             /  25th October 2017

            Too simplistic – people can still want a National led govt but not be 100% happy with National so vote for a smaller party to have some changes made especially on policies like immigration. It’s like saying if the Greens wanted a Labour-led progressive govt they should have all just voted Labour.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  25th October 2017

              It is but going back to vote compass most of the parties are clustered in the top left quadrant, economically to the left of centre and socially liberal, all to varying degrees.

              Only two parties, 3 if you count the conservatives are in the bottom right or right wing economically and socially conservative quadrant. Both The ACT and the Conservative parties are walking dead. So in reality National is alone on the right. To get into power they have keep moving left to attract enough support to govern.

              Voters on the left can afford to vote Green because they are going to get over the 5% threshold, so It is not a wasted vote. At present National’s options are limited.

          • David

             /  25th October 2017

            “If they were centre right voters they should have voted National if that is what they wanted. If they were right-wing they should have voted ACT. ”

            There is a significant centre right vote that is largely anti-immigration. That is Winston’s base. He has no compunction selling them down the river for his last chance at power.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  25th October 2017

              Voting for a party based on one or a couple of policies or even bottom lines I find problematic. I prefer to cast my vote based on which party is closest to my values overall. Then I’m not disappoint if a bottom line or policy has to be traded off in coalition negotiations. Voting NZ First based on immigration solely can easily lead to disappointment.

  2. Tipene

     /  25th October 2017

    I would say that anyone thinking that a vote for National would deliver a more right leaning government may now be ruing their judgement. However the outcome was fairly predictable so they shouldn’t be surprised.

    Whichever way NZ First went, we were in for a left-leaning Govt.

    The only choice really was what size brake could NZ First apply, and upon who.

    National arrogantly played the “take it or leave it” game in the negotiations, NZ First left it,and here we are.

    When you consistently work to burn off your support partners, as National has tried to do since 2008 (“cut out the middle man”) in an MMP environment, there comes a day when you have been successful in your endeavor, and then face the consequence of doing so.

    I voted NZ First because one way or another, National needed to be bought to heel.

    This outcome (National out of Govt), has exceeded my wildest expectations.

    I recognise that Labour and the Greens will now bring their own issues into play, but first things first.

    • “I voted NZ First because one way or another, National needed to be bought to heel.”

      Resulting in NZ First kicking up their heels along with Labour and the Greens as they rollick leftwards.

      I have trouble understanding your logic.

    • Missy

       /  25th October 2017

      “National arrogantly played the “take it or leave it” game in the negotiations, NZ First left it,and here we are.”

      As opposed to Labour who took at ‘take it’ game in order for power, so desperate is Jacinda for power.

      I am glad National didn’t give in to Winston, it will be toxic for the Government, and I will not be surprised if it turns into a one term Government.

      • Trevors_elbow

         /  25th October 2017

        Strategically letting Labour form a government was in Nationals interested.. . But only if they have an effective strategy to splinter the 3 parties running the show…..should be a fun three years

        • Missy

           /  25th October 2017

          Agree, sometimes the long game is more important than the short term win.

        • Corky

           /  25th October 2017

          Agree. They need to get any unsavoury National business out of the way early in this term. Then it’s oppose, split and provide a decidedly negative view of the government to the public.

      • ” so desperate is Jacinda for power.”
        Was Bill not desperate for power? Why was he leading the National Party then? Wishy-washy doesn’t cut it when winning is the game.
        As for “Strategically letting Labour form a government was in Nationals interest”
        Letting? Letting ???
        Bwahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
        Nice one, Trev!

        • Missy

           /  25th October 2017

          Obviously Bill was not as desperate for power as Jacinda as he didn’t cave into all of Winston’s demands. Yes, he would have liked to be PM I would be disappointed if he didn’t, but the fact that he rejected some of NZ First’s demands shows he wasn’t willing to have power at any cost, Jacinda on the other hand looks a bit like she did want power at any cost.

          Sometimes winning is not worth the price, this is one of those times.

          • Blazer

             /  25th October 2017

            everybodys happy then.The National Party strategy worked a treat.Their supporters must be ecstatic.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  25th October 2017

              You’d be surprised how may are Blazer. They remember Winston’s effect on every other Government he has been a part of.

          • robertguyton

             /  25th October 2017

            Bill would have “liked” to be PM?
            Not so much fire in his belly then, as smoke?
            Jacinda doesn’t appear to have “caved” – in fact, she looks as though she’s brokered a very, very good deal. For one thing, she’s PM. Bill, otoh, is in … Opposition, along with his pals. Maybe Bill needs some of Jacinda’s steel?

            • David

               /  25th October 2017

              “For one thing, she’s PM. Bill, otoh, is in … Opposition, along with his pals. ”

              Funny. For a guy who a few weeks ago was all about ‘principles’ and not selling out, you seem to have transformed into something of a power monster, power! POWER! POWER!

              The truth is you did sell out, and very cheaply indeed, for nothing more than the illusion of power.

            • Missy

               /  25th October 2017

              “Maybe Bill needs some of Jacinda’s steel?”

              Or maybe Jacinda needs some of Bills integrity and not sell out for power….

            • PDB

               /  25th October 2017

              Gareth Morgan will be ecstatic! He got exactly the same amount of cabinet ministers as the Greens and isn’t even part of the new govt!

            • Patzcuaro

               /  25th October 2017

              @PDB that is nonsense.

            • PDB

               /  25th October 2017

              Is it not factually correct that Gareth Morgan got as many cabinet ministers as the Greens?

            • Patzcuaro

               /  25th October 2017

              @PDB yes it is factually correct but the Greens are in parliament and while not in cabinet they are having input into decisions. Morgan spent a lot of money to achieve no MPs and beyond shouting from the sideline is having no input into decisions. I imagine he is frustrated by the process whereas the Greens by being part of the government,are cementing their place in the politics of NZ.

          • PDB

             /  25th October 2017

            The fact Winston took from Ardern her lifetime dream ‘children’ portfolio tells you all you need to know as to who is the real boss in the new govt.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  25th October 2017

              I think being PM trumps being Minister for children.

            • Patzcuaro – PDB is relentlessly critical of every detail of the new Government, so let those snipes flutter harmlessly past without giving them any more attention than you would a passing mosquito. The Jacinda-led Labour/NZF/Green Government is a huge thorn in his/her side and will inflame him/her for the next 9 years!

            • robertguyton

               /  25th October 2017

              “Bill English will be ecstatic! He got exactly the same amount of cabinet ministers as the Greens and isn’t even part of the new govt!”

        • Trevors_elbow

           /  25th October 2017

          You’re obviously light on comprehendion skills Robert. But I’ll humour you.

          English and co knew in 2014 they needed Winston to govern after the 2017 election. But they spent 3 years slamming him…..

          So they knew negotiation with him in 2017 would be a problem requiring a huge back down to achieve a fourth term
          …. and they CHOSE not to pay that price.

          Instead they let Labour have him… and all he brings with him…tiger by the tail and a bumpy road ahead for the Labour party and their spaded/neutered poodle The Greens….

    • NOEL

       /  25th October 2017

      I’m not convinced that immigration was a give away by Winston.
      Whilst the numbers reduced are less “As per Labour’s policy, pursue Labour and New Zealand First’s shared priorities to: Ensure work visas issued reflect genuine skills shortages and cut down on low quality international education courses,” the agreement said.”
      was wanted by many voters.

      When Little first announced it I thought Labour was on a winner.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  25th October 2017

    Slater confirms his reputation as an idiot then.

    The sooner the next election is called, the sooner NZF will lose its disillusioned voters.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  25th October 2017

      Don’t hold your breath, three years is a long time.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  25th October 2017

        A week is a long time in politics, Patz. But breath easy for the moment.

  4. sorethumb

     /  25th October 2017

    Winston has campaigned for years on drastically lowering immigration numbers, often erroneously and deceitfully describing what we had as ‘mass immigration’. Jacinda Ardern has stated that Labour immigration policy remains intact, that will mean some reduction in numbers but nowhere as drastically as Winston promised.
    …………….
    Fantastic piece. Thanks so much.
    Vancouver’s experience is probably like Canada’s on the whole. Trudeau brought in multiculturalism by federal directive in the 70s (“Although there are two founding peoples there is no founding culture…” and that mirrored Laurier before him…) Then in 1982, multiculturalism was enshrined in the Charter. Then in the mid-80s a Conservative PM enacted the “Multiculturalism Act”.
    Now in Canada’s large cities it’s somewhat amusing to hear people speaking English. Fourth generation Canadians are seen as an amusing relic. Do you eat roasts? Do your parents wear sweaters to dinner and talk about classical music, ha ha ha?
    The reality is that in NZ, the hegemony of Anglo Saxon culture refuses to die. The Interfaith dialogue was a fantastic example of that. Also, we never had (much) immigration from Central, Eastern or Southern Europe. We still treat South Africans and Pomps as “one of us”.
    Most people that run this country (wealthy baby boomers) grew up not knowing anyone from different cultures and didn’t travel much when they were young. There is still a serious fear of the unknown. Let’s be honest, we NZers didn’t travel at all until very recently. There were really no coffee shops or restaurants in this country until the 90s for chrissake. How can you expect the political class to suddenly embrace all these different people?
    That MP from Rodney would have had to flee the country in Canada after making jokes about fruit pickers during an election. The current PM didn’t even growl him let alone cut him loose. That would have been hanging offence #1 short of having kiddie porn or eating one’s young.
    The truth is that non-white and non-English speaking immigrants to this country feel no particular sentimental loyalty to NZ. Most of them I speak to, and I speak to many, want to move to Aussie/Canada/USA. On a cynical realpolitik level, they are a somewhat unclaimed cohort of voters.
    The magic that Trudeau created was that almost all of the immigrant communities in Canada became loyal to the Liberals.
    In reality we suffer from the lamest form of racism: we’re kind of embarrassed by their accents and funny foods. At worst, we have Winston. At least Melissa Lee properly slammed Winston in her maiden speech.
    It was on that basis that I felt Shearer’s election was a failure. Helen got the nod and it was a big deal that it went to a woman. Then it reverted to a physically capable, heterosexual, white, educated and wealthy male. Yipdee fucking shit.
    And we struggle to even begin the process of developing an active and inclusive multiculturalism.

    http://publicaddress.net/speaker/what-diversity-dividend/
    So there is a plan: an ethnicless society where no group can say “my country” anymore.We are supposed to appreciate some greater whole than “my country”. We are supposed to love the fact that we now have large numbers of Chinese and indians (“ethnic communities”).
    But the thing is no such thing is happening, All that is happening is that immigrants are increasing our well being economically and socially (“nation building”) while certain sectors make a killing.

    The Potentialities and Politics of Urban Superdiversity

    How does or could a focus on superdiversity destabilise and challenge normative approaches to urban diversity management or national projects in ways that create new spaces and options for an inclusive/progressive politics? And who are they key players? This seminar also explores who is typically included in discussions of superdiversity and those that might be excluded such as hegemonic majority ethnic groups, or corporate and private sector organisations. Settler society superdiversity is used as one example to explore the complex possibilities of emancipatory politics.
    http://www.mmg.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Events/Events_2015/Urban_Super-Diversity/Academy_Masterclasses.pdf

    • sorethumb

       /  25th October 2017

      And I’ve just been at Max Plank in Germany and they ask: “why are you transitioning as you are?”Transitioning quite rapidly and not getting the sort of politics that is hostile to immigration? I’m not quite sure what the answer to that is . I think we are small. I think we are relatively tolerant in most regards, and I suspect we had those debates in the 1970’s around Maori sovereignty and Maori identity.
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018617301/the-changing-face-of-new-zealand
      Of course I’m just a neutral observer; I’m not an agent of change.

  5. sorethumb

     /  25th October 2017

    People may be getting quite a sense of dysfunction in our politics.
    On the one hand RNZ and TVNZ decide we must learn Te reo (despite Maori language channels and radio stations): “it is an editorial decision.
    Since Brexit they have decided they must double down on the anti-nationalist rhetoric.

    In politics you have factionisation and control. I joined NZ First expecting (at least) to be contacted by a local member, but nothing happened. An NZ First member has as much contact with NZ First as a non-member. If you look at other populist parties they started outside parliament by genuinely motivated individuals.

    Of course the Greens are watermelons. Scrape the surface and you find the worst examples of left-wing intolerance the standard has to offer.

    National these days represents those who are either insulated from and/or benefit from high migration.

    The Labour Party epitomises the statement that: “elites are not subject to the consequences of the Utopian dream”.

    Chinese have their own news networks and interests etc. Ethnics have their own interests.

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  25th October 2017

    NZ$ continues to fall. Enjoy your dearer petrol and everything that depends on it courtesy of your new Government folks. And that’s before they have to increase your tax to pay for all their new paper-pushers and vote-catchers.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11936472

  7. Zedd

     /  25th October 2017

    methinks the issue (as Ive said several times) its MMP.. to vote NZF assuming they are going with Natz, is ridiculous. If you want Natz to win then why vote for another party ?! crazy man..

    a bit like a pro-cannabis supporter voting Natz, expecting a change.. not bloody likely

    so now we see the light……. 😀

  8. Phil

     /  25th October 2017

    When National hacks state Bill didn’t do something for his Integrity / Honesty , HAHA really this National Party has shown repeatedly over the last nine years that Integrity and Honesty are not part of their make up ..

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  25th October 2017

      Enjoy working with Winston, Phil. We’ll enjoy watching.

  9. Ok. I dislike it when I hear people talking about anecdotal incidents but I’ve just had one. Just talked to a friend. I’d always suspected she was a shy NZ Firster. She told me she’s devastated as she thoroughly believed Peters go with Nats. She feels betrayed.
    Paddy Gower says Nats are in a dark place , but I have no doubt the Nats will find their 4% in 2020.

    • robertguyton

       /  25th October 2017

      Gower added,
      “Put aside all the talk about National being a “strong Opposition” and the “biggest Opposition ever” – the real issue is that it failed to capitalise on its election result and is now totally boxed out electorally.

      Look at it this way – National’s 44.4 percent of the vote is the centre-right vote virtually maxed out.

      National got there by turning out virtually every centre-right voter thanks to a scare campaign (that relied on lies) and a sublime performance on the trail by Mr English.

      Even by adding in ACT (0.5 percent) and even the Conservatives (0.2 percent) the centre-right vote is at best 45.1 percent.

      And that’s it. The centre-right has 45.1 percent and no more – there are no future coalition options for it now New Zealand First has gone with Labour.”

      He doubts National will ever find your mythical 4%

      • Zedd

         /  25th October 2017

        too true robert ! 🙂
        “Power to the people” ya losers…

      • David

         /  25th October 2017

        “And that’s it. The centre-right has 45.1 percent and no more – there are no future coalition options for it now New Zealand First has gone with Labour”

        Let’s see how that works out in 2020 shall we?

      • If a week is a long time in politics try 3 years. Smug is not a good look and it’ll send you downstairs rather than up. God 😇😇😇

  10. Gezza

     /  25th October 2017

    Although I thought on balance Rt Hon Winston Raymond Peters PC would probably go with National as the fastest way to a well-deserved gong & happy retirement with one or more lucrative sinecures, for
    1. looking after the elderly who had no idea how they’d struggle
    2. being superb at discovering & trumpeting the odd genuine rortish behaviours of people in or associated with the government of the day (also, possibly, demonstrating how it SHOULD be done if you want to get away with it)
    3. sheer bloody cheek & comedy throughout a lengthy political career
    he has otherwise delivered for his poor, foolish, supporters about what I would have expected.