Increasingly it looks like National/ACT and Labour/Greens/Maori party
will not be able to command the confidence of the house - and all
because NZF is back with just over 5% party-vote support.

The popular myth is that given Labour and NZF have both ruled each
other out from working together, National must stay onside with ACT
and suck up to NZF. Unlike 2017, NZF have no-where else to go but
with National. That gives National bargaining power with NZF.

If National/ACT do get more seats than Labour/Greens/Maori (as seems
likely) then to me the right thing to do is offer coalition with ACT
and confidence-and-supply to NZF. If NZF don't like this then call
their bluff - tough it out - because if no-one can 'command the
confidence of the house' (assemble a government with 61 seats) then it
is the fault of NZF that a new election has to be called and NZF will
not want this at all. Peters is used to holding all the cards. I
hope Luxon has some mongrel left in him from his roles prior to
Parliament to tell Peters what his role will be in a National/ACT/NZF government.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 07 Oct 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

The popular myth is that given Labour and NZF have both ruled each
other out from working together, National must stay onside with ACT
and suck up to NZF. Unlike 2017, NZF have no-where else to go but
with National. That gives National bargaining power with NZF.

Nah, Seymour has f'd it up with his raising-the-super-age and other
topics about which he has been honest but failed to appreciate that
he's losing huge votes because of it. His own people will be very
hacked off at him because of it, especially those list-members who
will now fail to get in because of his pronouncements.

Have you noticed that ACT is down 3 points and Seymour is down to 4%
(down from 8%) in the preferred PM stakes? Everybody hates Seymour
now -- expect him to get rolled after the election.

So where is the fleeing ACT support going to? Not the Nats, erstwhile
ACT supporters know that Luxon cannot be trusted. They're going to NZ
First, now at 6.9% and rising. Don't be surprised if NZ First
outpolls ACT in the end, similar to 1996 when they got 13% and blew
all the journo's minds. We may be looking at a National-NZ First
coalition with ACT (with a different leader) on the outside giving
supply & confidence.

What's in it for you, Crash? Buy a fine whisky, and like Bolger,
learn to enjoy your whisky with Peters. (this is a less onerous
requirement than you think, after a few glugs)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 22:28:12 GMT, willynilly@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

The popular myth is that given Labour and NZF have both ruled each
other out from working together, National must stay onside with ACT
and suck up to NZF. Unlike 2017, NZF have no-where else to go but
with National. That gives National bargaining power with NZF.

Nah, Seymour has f'd it up with his raising-the-super-age and other
topics about which he has been honest but failed to appreciate that
he's losing huge votes because of it. His own people will be very
hacked off at him because of it, especially those list-members who
will now fail to get in because of his pronouncements.

Have you noticed that ACT is down 3 points and Seymour is down to 4%
(down from 8%) in the preferred PM stakes? Everybody hates Seymour
now -- expect him to get rolled after the election.

So where is the fleeing ACT support going to? Not the Nats, erstwhile
ACT supporters know that Luxon cannot be trusted. They're going to NZ
First, now at 6.9% and rising. Don't be surprised if NZ First
outpolls ACT in the end, similar to 1996 when they got 13% and blew
all the journo's minds. We may be looking at a National-NZ First
coalition with ACT (with a different leader) on the outside giving
supply & confidence.

What's in it for you, Crash? Buy a fine whisky, and like Bolger,
learn to enjoy your whisky with Peters. (this is a less onerous
requirement than you think, after a few glugs)

He he - no chance. Winston is a charlatan through and through. I got
to meet him driving for Corporate Cabs from time to time over a few
years and I would never vote for either the party or any of its
candidates. NZF policies can be made with the safety of never
actually having a snowballs chance in Hell of being held to account
over them. Its all about Winston. I could back this up with many
anecdotes from those in-cab experiences.

I take your point about ACT, but I am still hoping that Luxon will
stick with ACT and deal to Winston on his (Luxon's) terms.

If Winston takes say 8 seats, with National/ACT on 58 and the left on
54, Luxon picks up the phone to Winston with an offer for confidence
and supply. If Winston says no he can then be blamed as the
instigator of another election. This assumes Hipkins would be up for
another election in preference to doing a deal with Winston.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash wrote:

Increasingly it looks like National/ACT and Labour/Greens/Maori party
will not be able to command the confidence of the house - and all
because NZF is back with just over 5% party-vote support.

The popular myth is that given Labour and NZF have both ruled each
other out from working together, National must stay onside with ACT
and suck up to NZF.

Over half of New Zealanders don’t believe Winston Peters’ commitment not
to work with the Labour Party, according to the latest Taxpayers’ Union
- Curia poll.

Unlike 2017, NZF have no-where else to go but
with National. That gives National bargaining power with NZF.

ACT also have nowhere to go but with National. On your reasoning, that
should also give National bargaining power with ACT. But that has not
stopped ACT from floating the possibility of a confidence-only deal with National, where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

If National/ACT do get more seats than Labour/Greens/Maori (as seems
likely) then to me the right thing to do is offer coalition with ACT
and confidence-and-supply to NZF. If NZF don't like this then call
their bluff - tough it out - because if no-one can 'command the
confidence of the house' (assemble a government with 61 seats) then it
is the fault of NZF that a new election has to be called and NZF will
not want this at all.

Not all voters will share the same view of whose fault it is. It will
not do NZF any harm that ACT has floated idea of a confidence-only deal
where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

Peters is used to holding all the cards. I
hope Luxon has some mongrel left in him from his roles prior to
Parliament to tell Peters what his role will be in a National/ACT/NZF government.

Voters expect a PM to play the hand which the voters have dealt him or
her. Whatever that hand is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 16:27:26 +1300, "Euall B. Tode"
<euser@mail.invalid> wrote:

Crash wrote:

Increasingly it looks like National/ACT and Labour/Greens/Maori party
will not be able to command the confidence of the house - and all
because NZF is back with just over 5% party-vote support.

The popular myth is that given Labour and NZF have both ruled each
other out from working together, National must stay onside with ACT
and suck up to NZF.

Over half of New Zealanders don’t believe Winston Peters’ commitment not
to work with the Labour Party, according to the latest Taxpayers’ Union
- Curia poll.

What NZers believe as outlined in a poll is irrelevant. From recent
comments by PM Hipkins in particular Labour will not consider
governing with NZF.
\

Unlike 2017, NZF have no-where else to go but
with National. That gives National bargaining power with NZF.

ACT also have nowhere to go but with National. On your reasoning, that
should also give National bargaining power with ACT. But that has not
stopped ACT from floating the possibility of a confidence-only deal with >National, where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

ACT have never had any other option. NZF has supported both National
and Labour at various times in the past. National therefore have no
need ever to negotiate with ACT as they might have to with NZF.

If National/ACT do get more seats than Labour/Greens/Maori (as seems
likely) then to me the right thing to do is offer coalition with ACT
and confidence-and-supply to NZF. If NZF don't like this then call
their bluff - tough it out - because if no-one can 'command the
confidence of the house' (assemble a government with 61 seats) then it
is the fault of NZF that a new election has to be called and NZF will
not want this at all.

Not all voters will share the same view of whose fault it is. It will
not do NZF any harm that ACT has floated idea of a confidence-only deal
where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

Since Seymour floated the idea that ACT might be more demanding of
National to form a government, ACT's support in the polls has gone
down substantially. Seymour has shown some wisdom in not mentioning
this again.

Peters is used to holding all the cards. I
hope Luxon has some mongrel left in him from his roles prior to
Parliament to tell Peters what his role will be in a National/ACT/NZF
government.

Voters expect a PM to play the hand which the voters have dealt him or
her. Whatever that hand is.

Correct - but they also recognise that Luxon may reasonably stamp his
authority on Winston by saying Winston's demands are unreasonable. The
voters don't like governments that are run like a dog being wagged by
its tail.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 16:27:26 +1300, "Euall B. Tode"
<euser@mail.invalid> wrote:

Crash wrote:

Increasingly it looks like National/ACT and Labour/Greens/Maori party
will not be able to command the confidence of the house - and all
because NZF is back with just over 5% party-vote support.

The popular myth is that given Labour and NZF have both ruled each
other out from working together, National must stay onside with ACT
and suck up to NZF.

Over half of New Zealanders don’t believe Winston Peters’ commitment not
to work with the Labour Party, according to the latest Taxpayers’ Union
- Curia poll.

Unlike 2017, NZF have no-where else to go but
with National. That gives National bargaining power with NZF.

ACT also have nowhere to go but with National. On your reasoning, that
should also give National bargaining power with ACT. But that has not
stopped ACT from floating the possibility of a confidence-only deal with >National, where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

If the polls are to be believed (and that is a different subject)
Seymour does appear to have lost support in recent weeks, certainly
that idea will not have endeared him to some who will now support
National, but the clear antipathy between Seymour and Peters at the
televised debate will have lost the ACT/Nat/NZF coalition some votes,
and for some reason Seymour has been particularly adamant about some
very controversial policies which demonstrate that his relationship
with National may be nearly as fraught as his relationship with
Winston Peters

If National/ACT do get more seats than Labour/Greens/Maori (as seems
likely) then to me the right thing to do is offer coalition with ACT
and confidence-and-supply to NZF. If NZF don't like this then call
their bluff - tough it out - because if no-one can 'command the
confidence of the house' (assemble a government with 61 seats) then it
is the fault of NZF that a new election has to be called and NZF will
not want this at all.

Not all voters will share the same view of whose fault it is. It will
not do NZF any harm that ACT has floated idea of a confidence-only deal
where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

Peters is used to holding all the cards. I
hope Luxon has some mongrel left in him from his roles prior to
Parliament to tell Peters what his role will be in a National/ACT/NZF
government.

Voters expect a PM to play the hand which the voters have dealt him or
her. Whatever that hand is.

I agree - If Luxon has the opportunity to lead a government and cannot
get through negotiations with Seymour and Peters he would not win a
second election. both parts of that scenario to appear that they may
be possible.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash wrote:

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 16:27:26 +1300, "Euall B. Tode" <euser@mail.invalid> wrote:

Crash wrote:

Increasingly it looks like National/ACT and Labour/Greens/Maori party
will not be able to command the confidence of the house - and all
because NZF is back with just over 5% party-vote support.

The popular myth is that given Labour and NZF have both ruled each
other out from working together, National must stay onside with ACT
and suck up to NZF.

Over half of New Zealanders don’t believe Winston Peters’ commitment not
to work with the Labour Party, according to the latest Taxpayers’ Union
- Curia poll.

What NZers believe as outlined in a poll is irrelevant. From recent
comments by PM Hipkins in particular Labour will not consider
governing with NZF.

What NZers believe is highly relevant when it influences how NZers will
vote.

Unlike 2017, NZF have no-where else to go but
with National. That gives National bargaining power with NZF.

ACT also have nowhere to go but with National. On your reasoning, that
should also give National bargaining power with ACT. But that has not
stopped ACT from floating the possibility of a confidence-only deal with
National, where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

ACT have never had any other option. NZF has supported both National
and Labour at various times in the past. National therefore have no
need ever to negotiate with ACT as they might have to with NZF.

There are several wide differences between National and ACT policies.
ACT has the numbers and the motivation to get pushy with National.
Negotiation will be required unless one party rolls over and plays
lapdog to the other.

If National/ACT do get more seats than Labour/Greens/Maori (as seems
likely) then to me the right thing to do is offer coalition with ACT
and confidence-and-supply to NZF. If NZF don't like this then call
their bluff - tough it out - because if no-one can 'command the
confidence of the house' (assemble a government with 61 seats) then it
is the fault of NZF that a new election has to be called and NZF will
not want this at all.

Not all voters will share the same view of whose fault it is. It will
not do NZF any harm that ACT has floated idea of a confidence-only deal
where National must meet ACT’s demands to get supply.

Since Seymour floated the idea that ACT might be more demanding of
National to form a government, ACT's support in the polls has gone
down substantially. Seymour has shown some wisdom in not mentioning
this again.

David Seymour appears to have repeated his threat of a confidence-only
deal, this weekend just gone. "https://www.politik.co.nz/seymours-impossible-bottom-line/" "https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/10/09/election-live-act-again-raises-possibility-of-vote-by-vote-coalition/"

But even supposing he had not, what matters for the election is what
NZers believe he may do once the election is over.

Peters is used to holding all the cards. I
hope Luxon has some mongrel left in him from his roles prior to
Parliament to tell Peters what his role will be in a National/ACT/NZF
government.

Voters expect a PM to play the hand which the voters have dealt him or
her. Whatever that hand is.

Correct - but they also recognise that Luxon may reasonably stamp his authority on Winston by saying Winston's demands are unreasonable. The
voters don't like governments that are run like a dog being wagged by
its tail.

There are likely to be two tails each wanting to wag the one dog in a
different direction.

And if NZF were to choose not to join a coalition, Luxon has no more
right to stamp his authority on Winston than he has on any opposition
party. NZers believe NZ is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)