Judith Collins rules out NZ First, rules in ACT

National leader Judith Collins has already confirmed that National will not consider doing a governing deal with NZ First after the election, but has now strongly endorsed the ACT party and specifically David Seymour in the Epsom electorate.

ODT (NZH): Collins rules out working with NZ First

National leader Judith Collins appears to have ruled out working with NZ First after the election – and says Winston Peters and his party are probably on the way out anyway.

…Collins has slammed the door shut on the chances of reversing the decision not to work with NZ First.

“We have made that very plain as a caucus and as a party, and I know a lot of our party supporters and voters certainly wanted us to do that,” she said today.

“I’m pretty clear – the caucus has decided it. That’s the caucus view.”

“It’s really important to understand the caucus has said that they don’t want to do a deal with Winston Peters. There is no reason that I know that we are going to change that.”

Yesterday from Stuff: Judith Collins calls for Epsom voters to back ACT’s David Seymour

Judith Collins has explicitly asked voters in Epsom to back the ACT party’s David Seymour, sidelining her own finance spokesperson as part of a longstanding arrangement with the libertarian party.

Collins, the National leader, on Monday said she was asking voters in the Auckland electorate should to vote for Seymour for their electorate MP, saying she would “welcome him being part of a National-ACT Government”.

“I don’t need to have little cups of tea or anything, because everybody knows that David Seymour and I work very well together”

“I’m asking the people of Epsom”.

“I think it’s always important to be respectful of people and their votes, and I’m very, explicitly saying that I believe that a National-led Government is going to be best served with ACT as our partner.”

“I’m very happy to say that we want the party vote, please, in Epsom, please, and in this particular electorate you can give the first tick, for the electorate, to David Seymour.”

This was fairly obvious but at least this is explicit and open National support for Seymour in Epsom and for the ACT Party as a governing partner, far better than the charades and signalling of past elections.

National’s passive Epsom candidate since 2011 Paul Goldsmith said:

“It’s the party vote that counts. That’s my focus”.

He has always had to avoid campaigning for the electorate vote while seeking the party vote.

There has been reports that electorate polls show Seymour looks comfortable and should retain the seat.

Seymour, leader of the ACT party, said the media could focus on such endorsements, but he was “listening to the voters”.

“What they’re telling me is that the world has changed and we need a plan for a faster recovery with lower taxes and less debt,” he said in a statement provided by a spokesman.

Asked if Collins’ endorsement guaranteed ACT would work with National, Seymour said: “National is the only party ACT could work with right now.”

That’s stating the obvious. None of Labour, Greens or NZ First would consider doing a governing deal with ACT.

“We can’t work with a Labour Party that has the most disastrous public policy record in living memory.”

Seymour has feuded with Winston Peters through the term, who a couple of weeks ago challenged him to a fist fight – it was lame and never going to happen but Seymour has kept getting under Winston’s skin. It won’t help that ACT is getting double the support of NZ First in polls.

So as expected one option for the next Government is a two party National + ACT coalition. ACT are currently doing well in polls and should get several MPs in Parliament this time, but National are struggling, polling 20-30% behind Labour.

I think that is likely to close up a bit but the gap looks far to big to close for National unless there is some significant development, like Ardern resigning and Phil Twyford taking over the Labour leadership.

Leave a comment

16 Comments

  1. John J Harrison

     /  11th August 2020

    Great, look forward to a right thinking ACT / National government post 19/09.

    Reply
    • Two for the price of one.

      Were you there when Jim Hopkins was introducing David Caygill as one of the guest speakers and the following exchange took place ?

      JH: ‘You’ll know David Caygill, he looks like Brad Pitt.’

      DC (instantly) ‘That’s Brad Pitt the Younger.’

      Loud and appreciative laughter from those of us who understood thisr reference….

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  11th August 2020

        ‘Loud and appreciative laughter from those of us -who have no idea what Brad Pitt looks like.’ 😉

        Reply
        • No, [deleted], it was those who know their English history. There were two 18th century PMs called William Pitt, father and son, who became known as Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger.

          It was a witty word play that assumed that people would know this very well-known historical reference (most did, of course; these were intelligent educated people as it was an ACT meeting) Pitt the Younger was PM at the age of 24.He was the youngest ever to hold this office.

          It would fall flat on the ignorant who only know Pitt as the name of the modern film star, of course.

          Now do you understand it ?

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  11th August 2020

            No I don’t…it says Brad not William….and ACT supporters are definately not that au fait with history or humanity.

            Reply
            • Most people in the audience did understand the historical reference; it wouldn’t have seemed funny to people like you who haven’t heard of the c.18 Pitts and only know of Brad Pitt. A few didn’t, I must admit.

              Of course he said BRAD Pitt, It was a play on words. Brad Pitt the Younger instead of William Pitt the Younger.

              Oh, never mind. Explaining it in simple terms spoils the point of it and you probably still wouldn’t get it.

              It’s hard to believe that anyone would need to have this wordplay explained to them. If you can’t understand it, there is no point in trying to make you see that it’s lateral thinking rather than literal thinking.

              As you are not an ACT supporter, your silly statement about what they are likely to be au fait with is meaningless.

            • You are totally missing the point, but that’s your problem. not mine.

              No matter how many times this wordplay was explained, you wouldn’t understand it, I fear. It assumes lateral thinking.

            • Blazer

               /  11th August 2020

              The reason I would never be an ACT supporter is BECAUSE I am au fait with their ‘values’.-hopeless.

          • The deleted word was a term of endearment. 🙂

            Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  11th August 2020
    Reply
    • Defamation is actionable and has been for a long time. The story was untrue and misleading.

      Did you not realise that defamation is against the law ?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  11th August 2020

        If you can read ,you will ascertain that no defamation occurred.

        In NZ defamation is a rich persons …plaything.

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  11th August 2020

        ” not realise that defamation is against the law ”
        Not if its True , you can defame all you like…. in the sense injure their reputation.

        Think of one “Merv from Manurewa” who has had his reputation trashed…. but its true.

        Another National personage had a QC send letters to people who she felt were damaging her reputation with a ‘fitness photo’, trouble is the media got hold of the legal letter and it made headlines about ‘imputations she was a stripper’ …own goal there
        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12354580

        Reply
      • duperez

         /  11th August 2020

        Which parts are untrue and misleading?

        Is there anything wrong in being ‘misleading’?

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  11th August 2020

          “However, Newsroom is satisfied the story accurately reflects DoC’s change of conditions for the rehabilitation and that the remaining matters it required to be done by NZG, other than yet-to-be-completed weeding over a 12-month period, had been done. No retraction or apology are warranted.”

          I have a feeling a follow on story was coming, Mr Wong Tung resigned from his directorship 2 weeks after the story was published.

          Reply
  3. Brian Johnston

     /  11th August 2020

    The Pitt joke wasn’t funny.
    I was never a Caygill fan.
    National teaming up with ACT is crazy stuff. It is a deal that did not need to happen
    Labour will win
    I would prefer to see NZ First, ACT and Greens to disappear.
    It doesn’t really matter. The power is behind the curtain, if you get my drift.

    I remember back in the early 80’s the Queen said “There are very powerful and dark forces at work in this world”. Or something similar.

    Woodrow Wilson – not a fan – said something to the effect of “Some of the biggest men in the US know there is a power so great they had better not speaker above a whisper”.

    This is not conspiracy jargon.

    The corridors of power.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s