MMP was not designed for major party weakness

Back in 2012, in its Review of MMP, the Electoral Commission identified a significant flaw in the system: the number of electorate seats was increasing, while the total number of seats was capped, meaning fewer list seats. If the ratio got too bad - somewhere around 75 electorates to 45 list seats, something expected to happen around 2026 - this would lead to an increasing chance of disproportionate outcomes. To prevent this and preserve proportionality, the Electoral Commission recommended fixing the ratio of electorate to list seats at 60:40.

That didn't happen, of course, as the major parties bickered and refused to implement the Electoral Commission's recommendations for partisan political reasons. Meanwhile, changes in population distribution delayed the predicted armageddon: we currently have 72 electorates, the ratio the Commission recommended, and it will shrink to 71 at the election. But we still face the problem, from the other direction. Why? Because everyone hates Chris.

Most electorates are won by the major parties. Effectively, give or take the Māori seats and a general seat here or there, the electorates are reserved for the major parties. National and Labour won 60 of the 65 general electorates last election, though only one of the seven Māori seats. Worse, electorate results are massively disproportional. While Aotearoa is a multi-party system, our electorate results between the two major parties still roughly follow the cube-rule, which sees small differences in electorate vote share magnified to huge differences in seat share. So last election, Labour won 31% of the electorate vote and 17 seats, while National won 43% of the electorate vote and 43 seats. This election the polls are closer, but an e.g. 37:33 electorate vote split is likely to mean a 1.4:1 split in the share of electorates (so 35 seats to 25, assuming major party electorate share is retained), and even 36:34 leads to 1.2:1 (so 32 seats to 28). None of which mattered when the "major" parties were big and collectively winning 75% of the vote. But when everyone hates Chris, and the major parties are polling 57% between them, it is going to cause problems.

We're aware of the "danger" of National not getting any list seats because its vote share is so low. But its not just National, because both "major" parties are polling in the shitter. A 28% party is only entitled to 34 seats in Parliament. it takes only a slight preference in the electorate races to get more than that, and if a major party expands its lead over its rival while the overall purple vote remains static, the problem gets worse. A 30% party is entitled to 36 seats, but a 38:32 electorate vote split will probably see it win 38.

Basically: major party weakness is a recipe for disproportionality. And disproportionality isn't just undemocratic: if it matters, if it keeps or puts people in power, then it is a recipe for government and state illegitimacy.

How can we fix this? The problem is due to electorates, but we probably can't eliminate them and move to a pure list system. Electorate service is one of the things Aotearoa's MPs have traditionally done well, and retaining it is worthwhile. So we're left with the Electoral Commission's solution: fixing the ratio of electorate to list seats and expanding the size of parliament to fit. The Commission's suggested 60:40 ratio is already problematic, so we need to go lower - to 50:50, or even 40:60 to allow room for growth. On the latter point, expanding Parliament to its optimum size of ~175 MPs while retaining current electorates gives us close to 40:60, while giving all the other advantages of a larger parliament. And it should protect us from electorate shitfuckery for a long time to come.

Bottom lines

Another poll was released last night, confirming the same story as previous polls: everyone hates Chris, and TOP gets to choose the next government if it makes it over the threshold. And today the party has laid out its bottom lines, giving some indication of how it will make that choice. It wants lobbying regulation, a ban on bottom trawling, a ten-year funding plan to fix the health system, a full commitment to the Paris agreement and protection of He Pou a Rangi's independence, and a Commerce Commission crackdown on supermarkets.

Its a pretty moderate list for a party which hopes to enter parliament for the first time, though the absence of even a study of their big bang land tax / UBI tax switch is a bit unusual. But it bodes well for the left, because there's nothing on that list that Labour and the Greens would disagree with, and much of it is already in their policy platforms. Its another sign that, in terms of policy, the parties are natural allies.

Meanwhile, its very bad news for the right bloc. The right parties collectively oppose lobbying regulation, support the pillage of nature, and oppose health spending (because they'd rather have tax cuts for the rich). Both ACT and NZ First explicitly want to withdraw from Paris, and ACT wants to disestablish he Pou a Rangi (National merely wants to nobble it). And ACT thinks regulating supermarkets is "unethical" (they're fine with price gouging duopolies screwing us over). In other words, any arrangement will be a mess of vetoes and counter-vetoes, and seething resentment over that. Which is not a recipe for a deal, or for a stable government afterward. But then, if TOP's board would rather keep the regime in power, that's what will happen, and all their policy positions will be revealed as just so much hot air...

Which is one of the reasons I'm not voting for Opportunity. That, and the fact that everything they offer is already being offered by the Greens, often better, and with more certainty that that is where they actually stand. But I'll be happy to see them as part of a left coalition, and they should be a useful hammer to beat Labour with and pull them to the left.

Good riddance to LNG

Back in February, in an effort to keep gas prices (and gas retailer profits) high, National announced a mad plan for an LNG import terminal, to be fast-tracked by a special law, with contracts signed before the election. It was a stupid plan, locking us into high-cost, highly vulnerable, highly polluting energy for decades, right when we are on the verge of eradicating it from our local energy mix. Fortunately, it now looks like its just not going to happen, with both of National's coalition partners vetoing the idea:

The Government’s hopes of signing a contract for an LNG terminal before the election appear in tatters after NZ First leader Winston Peters revealed Cabinet “decided not make a decision today” and the ACT Party voiced objections.

ACT leader David Seymour said the Government should leave the decision on whether to underwrite an LNG import terminal until after the election. Signing a contract before then would be “irresponsible”, he said.

NZ First deputy leader Shane Jones, who has referred to potential misgivings over a quick decision on LNG, hinted that was also NZ First’s view, but said he would leave it to Peters to make any announcement.

And hopefully that will be the end of it. When even corrupt, fossil-mad NZ First and ecocidal arsonists ACT can recognise its a stupid idea (in addition to every other party along the political spectrum bar National), then its a strong suggestion that it really is stupid. And hopefully after the election we'll have a new government which will end this stupid plan for good, and the gas industry can die a quiet death.

Empty, entitled, arrogant, and exploitative

Another day, another piece about the problems of Labour's "small target" strategy. Today its The Spinoff's Joel MacManus, who argues that Chris Hipkins is batting for a draw. Stripped of the sporting metaphor, the basic argument is that Hipkins has "been so focused on negating the case against Labour that he never built a cohesive argument for Labour." His popularity has declined since he was defeated in 2023 because he's been too afraid to say why he should be in charge. And rather than fighting to win the election, Labour is relying on its prospective coalition partners to win it for them - which is going to create problems:

With Labour batting for the draw, the responsibility of playing for the win (and proposing an actual alternative policy suite) has fallen to its potential coalition partners. Opportunity has been picking up disaffected National voters in recent polling, the Greens are rallying progressives, and Te Pāti Māori’s overhang strategy is tilting the maths in the left bloc’s favour. Labour is just…. there.

[...]

If the left bloc manages to form a government after this election, it will be because Hipkins played a heroically disciplined innings. Labour could snatch a draw from the jaws of defeat. But that may be all it is – a draw. When you take the reins of government without any plan for what you’ll do, is that really a victory at all?

So, basically what happened in the UK with Keir Starmer.

But the UK had FPP and we have MMP, which means any future Labour-led government will be a coalition. McManus (like Daalder before him) points out that Labour "could end up in the same trap as National, with minor coalition parties setting the agenda because they’re the only ones who have one." Labour of course will try and deny this, and are already purporting to veto their partners policies. Which, from a party which is bringing no policies of its own to a coalition, which refuses to fight for victory, and is effectively demanding other parties win the election for them and put them in power, shows a certain level of entitlement and arrogance.

In fact, once you start looking at it like that, it leads to some unpleasant conclusions. Labour is demanding that its potential coalition partners do all the hard work in the election. Claiming the right to set and veto policy is effectively claiming all the profit from that work, while denying the people who did it the fruits of their labour. Which is exactly the sort of exploitative relationship the "labour" party was founded to destroy.

Why I'm not voting for Opportunity

This morning one of my bleeps took one for the team and asked to be convinced not to vote for Opportunity. Like me, they're a long-time Green voter. Like me, they see Opportunity as having some attractive policies on land taxes, the environment, and Te Tiriti. And with the party now consistently polling over 5%, but not so high that we can be sure they'll make it, is it worth left voters to lend their votes to get them over the line?

It was a really useful discussion, and you should read the whole thing. If you're that interested, you should probably read Josh Drummond's take on it from last month as well. Meanwhile, here's my thoughts.

I have a lot of problems with TOP. Their origins as the vehicle for rich prick Gareth Morgan's political ideas around taxation and UBI. Their past arsehole behaviour under both Morgan and later leaders. Their undemocratic and completely top-down party structure. Their dodgy techbro funders. I also have some problems with their political philosophy - a naive-to-arrogant technocratic rationalism which fails to consider or simply does not think it is important that other people might not see their conclusions as "obvious", or might even disagree with them, and so struggles to deal with that fact. I'm somewhat sympathetic here, because you need idealists in any productive political coalition, to drive things forward - but TOP's demonstrated inability to cope when their ideas met opposition in the past (see: TOP 2017 and the Gareth Morgan / Sean Plunket shitshow) is not a good sign, and suggests a party culture problem as well.

But fundamentally, it comes down to one simple fact: I do not know these people. Not in a personal sense - I don't hang around with politicians - but in the sense that without a demonstrated track record, I do not know if they are serious about their policies, and I do not know what their values are.

As a contrast, I know the Greens. They've been in Parliament for 30 years, and around for over 50 (if you count Values, and they do). They've been demonstrating their policies and values for long enough that one any issue I can reasonably predict which way they'll go. I know what they stand for, and I know what I am voting for when I vote for them. What would I be voting for if I voted for TOP? Their candidate lineup is pretty good, a collection of public servants, environmentalists, many of whom would fit in very well in Labour or the Greens, plus some startup bros (Eww). Many of them would be an asset to parliament. Against that, they're complete political naifs, and there are a bunch of failure modes here, both in coalition talks and later, which are waiting to eat them. The collapse of NZ First in 1998 and the problems with United Future in its 2002 term are instructive here.

And then there's the big one: coalition options. Or, as we say in Aotearoa, "who are they going to go with?" TOP leader Qiulae Wong says "anyone", and if you're on the left and want to see the regime toppled, its policies repealed, and the earth salted, that is absolutely an issue. Why would I give my vote to someone who might keep the racist, tyrannical, election rigging pricks in power? Why would I risk that, when I can give it to a party who absolutely won't? So that's an absolute deal-breaker for me (and if you don't want the regime toppled, why are you reading this blog?)

So that's why I won't be voting TOP. If they get in, I'll be pleased, because there's clear potential for them to be a valuable part of the left coalition in future. But ATM they're just too uncertain, too big a risk, too untrustworthy to get my vote.

National (still) hates democracy

The National party in Aotearoa has always hated democracy. In the late 70's and early 80's they retained power in the face of majority opposition only by virtue of an unfair electoral system. When popular discontent at that led to a push for MMP, they opposed it. When the people won and imposed it on the traitorous political class who had given us Rogernomics and Ruthanasia, they tried to overturn it. And now, not content with using voter suppression in an effort to rig the next election, they're trying to rig all future ones by going back to the old, unfair system, which reliably delivered absolute power on minority support:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he would hold an MMP referendum if re-elected - but his coalition partner Winston Peters has ruled such a referendum out.

Luxon made the comments on Newstalk ZB.

He had been discussing a long-mooted referendum on whether to bring in a four-year parliamentary term and then started to discuss whether it was appropriate to see if the public was “still supportive of MMP.”

Asked if he would undertake such a referendum if re-elected, Luxon said “Yeah, I think I would.”

Fuck that. We are currently at a historic weak-point for the legacy parties - the latest Roy Morgan poll showed their collective support at less than 60% - and I'd suggest that that alone makes this idea an absolute non-starter. Any regime "elected" under such a system would lack any legitimacy and simply have no mandate to govern.

The good news is that its a non-starter, because Winston says "no". And as any future National government is absolutely reliant on that racist zombie for a majority, that means there's simply no parliamentary majority to pass the legislation required for a referendum, let alone a change. It simply won't happen (and no, Labour isn't going to agree to it either).

Which also makes it a perfect example of how National's "promises" are irrelevant. They can huff, and they can puff, but ultimately they need a majority to act, which means the agreement of multiple coalition partners. And for a lot of what they "promise" that agreement will not for forthcoming. They're simply a party of hot air.

National's "promises" are irrelevant

Over the weekend, National announced its latest election promise: increasing paid parental leave from 26 to 30 weeks. Which sounds good, except that this is the party which over-rode parliament to veto an increase in 2016, which cut Best Start payments, and stole $13 billion from New Zealand women by abolishing pay equity. As with their sudden conversion to solar energy, their own record gives them a huge credibility problem, and creates immediate suspicion about their willingness to actually deliver.

But even if they were willing, it doesn't matter. Because the ugly truth is that, given its preferred coalition arrangements, National's "promises" are irrelevant.

Look at the current coalition. Elected without much of a plan, National signed coalition deals with ACT and NZ First which puts the latter two parties in the policy driving seat and lets them call the shots. And this is only going to get worse. All the polls show National will lose seats in the election, so even if the regime manages to retain power by election rigging, National will have less power in it than they do at present. Which means even more NZ First and ACT policy, and even less of National's.

In short, it doesn't matter what National promises this election. If they retain power, it'll be ACT and NZ First policy they're implementing. National's "promises" are simply irrelevant.

National gets Winstoned

"Reform health and safety law and regulations" is one of the commitments in the National-ACT coalition agreement, and ACT has advanced it with the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill which (somewhat predictably) guts workplace health and safety, letting employers maim at will. The bill is currently up for its second reading, and the plan was clearly to pass it before the election. But there's a problem: Winston Peters:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says he will not vote for the government's health and safety reforms if there are not changes to the legislation, after earlier saying he was hamstrung by the coalition agreement.

Pike River campaigners Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse are in Wellington, hoping to persuade politicians to reject legislation they say risks a workplace disaster.

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill proposes a radical shake up of New Zealand's health and safety laws.

Speaking to RNZ's Checkpoint after meeting with Osborne and Rockhouse, Peters said he did not have confidence in the Bill as it stood.

Winston did a lot of this when he was in coalition with Labour, agreeing to something, then threatening to veto it at a late stage unless changes were made. While its entertaining to see National getting the same treatment, its a sign that he simply cannot be trusted, and there is no good faith in any coalition relationship he is a party to.

He's since changed his tune, saying he can't vote against it and instead promising to fix it after the election. That seems unlikely to satisfy his supporters, who are demanding action. But voting against it won't satisfy his donors, who have given him half a million dollars to keep propping up ACT, so he's kindof fucked either way. Which is exactly what he deserves for being such a duplicitious shit.

If we're lucky, Winston's prevaricating will be enough to stall this bill at the committee stage. Otherwise, its just something else for the Omnibus Repeal Bill, with or without Winston.

You don't win elections by telling voters to expect less

Aotearoa is broken. The economy is fucked. The dogshit vandal regime is smashing our democracy, our public services, and our society, while pushing the accelerator on burning the planet to the ground. People are crying out for change. And so Labour, the largest opposition party and so the de facto leader if there is a change of government, is telling them "nope, you won't get that from us!" First, we had finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds promising to continue the NeoLiberal austerity which has gutted our public services and allowed our infrastructure to decay. And now we have party leader Chris Hipkins - the de facto Prime Minister of any new government - telling people to dream smaller:

But the wider public-facing focus of the conference was a presentation of Labour as a very sensible-sounding Government-in-waiting, with small targeted changes to allow for more health spending, but nothing big enough for National to really attack.

[...]

Hipkins told media Labour would need to do more than just critique National to win. Yet despite borrowing the design style of New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani for the posters the party faithful were waving at Hipkins, the new policy he had to offer yesterday was far less ambitious than anything Mamdani would put his name to – a new low-interest loan scheme to let 50 GPs a year set up their own practices. It’s hard to see this being a policy that defines much of the campaign. A small, easily achievable promise is exactly what Labour is eager to put out currently. The party will tell anyone who asks that it was making too many promises that hurt them last time they were in government.

Which will no doubt have the smooth-brained political consultants nodding and stroking their beards and murmuring sagely about "small target strategies". Quite apart from the inherent deceit - a "small target strategy" is one where a party deliberately refuses to say what it plans to do in government, so its lying to voters - its a mistake. In order to regain power, Labour needs to increase its vote share to 40% of the vote (it can get less if it is willing to deal with a three-way coalition situation, but 40% plus 10% from a coalition partner is the basic equation). Its not going to get there by telling people to expect less. While it might avoid offending swinging middle voters, its not going to inspire anyone to actually tick their box rather than shrug and stay home.

Its also a complete failure to read the room. People want change. Not just in people, but in policies. Not just in tone, but in substance. Sure, we want the current regime gone, an end to the regime's weekly attacks on Māori, poor people, parents, children, democracy, and everything else - but we also want the harm caused by those attacks to be undone, insofar as it is possible. We want te Tiriti restored. We want democracy respected. We want pay equity and worker's rights restored. And we want the health and education systems to function. But Labour isn't in any hurry to do that bit. They'll change the faces and the tone and stop the attacks, but they're not promising to fix anything (or at least, anything which might cost money - can't offend the rich, after all). It really is as if their entire critique of government boils down to it simply being a matter of the wrong people being in charge, and things would be infinitely better if only their team were the ones collecting the fat salaries and juicy appointments...

Fortunately there are other left-leaning parties who are actually promising to change things and undo the damage the vandal regime is causing. And because we have MMP, voting for one of them doesn't actually hurt the chances of a left-wing government (you're just contributing to a different part of that equation, while still helping to boost the total). So I'd suggest that if you're a left voter who wants more, who doesn't want to dream smaller and expect less, then vote for one of them and leave Labour to rot.

An utter shambles II

Two weeks ago, the regime rammed through its deeply unpopular Regulatory Standards Act, imposing a radical Libertarian ideological straitjacket on all future actions by the New Zealand state. Just two days after voting to pass it, NZ First was promising to repeal it (or maybe not). And now, National is saying they might campaign on repealing it as well:

The National Party could join coalition partner NZ First and campaign on repealing the Regulatory Standards Act at the next election, deputy leader Nicola Willis says.

This is despite the law, which was pushed by the Act Party during coalition talks, being less than a month old, and having been passed into law with votes from both National and NZ First.

Speaking to Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills on Newstalk ZB, Willis said National had not “come up with what our party position will be after the election”.

“We haven’t ruled out repealing it either. We haven’t taken a position yet, but it’s not impossible that we would go to the campaign trail saying, ‘yes, we met our coalition commitment, we supported that into law, but actually we agree with the concerns of some people, it hasn’t operated as we’d hoped and we want to repeal it’.

“We haven’t come to a position yet, but we haven’t ruled it out.”

So we have a regime effectively campaigning against its own legislative program. I just don't have the words for this.

What I do have the words for is how utterly wasteful this is. The regime spent a year developing this law. It then put it out to public consultation in November last year, got 23,000 people telling them it was a stupid idea, ignored them, and sent it to parliament, where 159,000 people repeated the message. National ignored all those people and passed it anyway. They have wasted the time of public servants, MPs, and the public, at huge expense to everyone. So next time they talk about "waste" or "cost-cutting", we can all remember how they created a whole new ministry to develop and pass a law which they now promise to repeal.

I suppose it is good that National has finally listened, albeit far too late to do any good. But if they think any of the people who they ignored and derided will vote for them for this, I think they are doing an unpleasant bodily function metaphor in an uncomfortable place. As with Winston, only a fool would trust them to do what they say they will - on anything! If you want this dogshit law gone, better to vote for a party which has opposed it all along. Better to vote to throw this entire regime into the sea.

An utter shambles

Last week, the regime rammed through its deeply unpopular Regulatory Standards Act, imposing a radical Libertarian ideological straitjacket on all future actions by the New Zealand state. As part of the current regime, NZ First voted for the bill. And now, just a week later, they're promising to repeal it:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has vowed to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) if re-elected next year.

It's prompted the bill's key proponent, ACT leader David Seymour, to warn Peters could be jumping ship to Labour.

Peters told Radio Waatea's Dale Husband he wanted the bill gone earlier on Thursday, having voted it through its third reading this time last week.

"It was their deal, the ACT Party's deal with the National Party. We were opposed to this from the word go but you've only got so many cards you can play.

"We did our best to neutralise its adverse effects and we will campaign at the next election to repeal it."

While its good to see they've decided the law is a bad idea, it would have been better if they'd made their opposition clear last week, when it mattered, rather than this week when it doesn't. But the problem for Winston is that this makes it clear that we just can't trust anything he says. He might promise something in an election campaign or even a coalition agreement, but he might change his mind a week later, or work within government to sabotage the policies he has supposedly pledged to support. No-one can rely on such a party - not the other parties they would need to work with to form a government, and certainly not the voters, who can't be sure what they'll be getting. But then, hasn't that always been the case with Winston?

Meanwhile, I guess we can enjoy watching the current regime slowly collapsing under the weight of its internal hatreds. And the sooner it all falls apart and we can throw them all out on their arses, the better.

A clear message

There's an election next year, and we're already seeing the usual posturing about who will work with who. Today it's Labour refusing to work with Te Pāti Māori in the wake of the latter's victory in the Tāmaki Makaurau byelection - a victory which showed that Māori voters don't want to be represented by Labour and don't want their representatives being constantly over-ruled by Pakeha primarily concerned with pandering to other Pakeha. Which probably sounds "tough" to Chris Hipkins and the Pakeha he is trying to pander to. But there's someone Hipkins seems to have forgotten in all his ruling out: the voters. Because on current polling, Te Pāti Māori is vital to forming a Labour-led government. And that looks like it will be the case unless Labour drags its own vote well into the upper part of the 35 - 40% range (and then assuming that it grows it from National, not at the expense of the Greens). Which seems... unlikely when the party is essentially offering voters nothing, other than that Ministers will wear a different coloured tie while delivering the same old austerity.

In fact, Hipkins' refusal sends voters a clear message: if you want real change, you need to vote for it. And that means voting for the Greens or Te Pāti Māori rather than Labour. If you want wealth taxes, better public services, climate action, a Tiriti-centric government, and the repeal of all National's racist legislation, don't vote Labour. Vote for one of the parties who actually advocates for those things instead. Vote for them to hold a democratic gun to Labour's head and force them to implement those policies - or surrender the power and positions and prestige and salaries which they crave so much.

Labour won't like this. But if they want the votes of people who want change and the support of the parties we elect - rather than taking both for granted - they need to earn them. They do this by offering us something, rather than arrogantly insisting on an obligation to support them, as if they were the only alternative to National. They're not, and they never have been - but they especially haven't been since 1996, when we got MMP. Which was almost 30 years ago. You'd think their brains would have caught up by now...

Hipkins can huff and puff and rule parties out all he likes. But at the end of the day he has to play the hand we deal him. That's our weapon. And we should use it.

The problem is the regime, not MMP

There's an interesting article on The Spinoff, worried that with so many parties ruling out working with each other, MMP is collapsing back into left-right, "winner take all" politics. It points to a shift back to the pre-MMP elected dictatorship model of government by decree, "outsized" influence of small parties, and stronger political alignments between parties as problematic. I'm not so sure.

The first is definitely a problem. But its a problem specifically of this regime, and to a large extent it seems to be a self-correcting one, in that the public has shown little appetite for this government's preferred model of retrospective laws rammed through under urgency without consultation, and seems likely to punish them for it. As for the future, this sort of contempt for democracy seems to be a right-wing problem: in the past, National has always had a greater appetite for abuse than Labour, and the latter has been specifically constrained by coalition partners who denied the use of urgency outside of accepted norms (the budget, end of year wash-up, and the rare cases when things are actually urgent). National has usually not faced such constraints, and this term has had coalition partners who are explicitly anti-democratic and anti-constitutional. The lesson for voters is not to let that happen again, and to punish those parties until they credibly commit to respecting a democratic, consultative style of government.

On the second point, the article notes that

It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one.

Ultimately, it is we voters who are going to decide how much of this we are going to accept - and what we do about it. And on that, I'd note that no parliament can bind its successor, and so what is done can simply be undone. If we don't like radical fringe parties using coalition bargaining and big-party weakness to impose unpopular, radical policies by undemocratic means, we can simply repeal them. And if we are successful in making this a one-term regime (or better yet, a half-term one), then that is exactly what we should do, with an Omnibus Repeal Bill to restore the status quo ante and make it as if this regime never happened.

(And to those crying foul over the threat of such policy ping-pong, I'd point out that its pretty much what the current regime has done; they just took a year and multiple bills to dismantle everything, rather than having the honesty to do it in one go.)

On the third point, there's the usual lament about the lack of a "center" party to change sides every election and moderate the demands of the wing parties. The traditional answer to this is to point to the long list of such failed projects in the past, and argue that people don't vote for that (or at least, not enough people; the unfair and undemocratic 5% threshold almost certainly has prevented such a party from gaining a foothold and then demonstrating credibility to potential voters). But I think we've also really already got two such parties, in National and Labour, who are naturally chasing the center voter in competition with each other. Normally this gives them an incentive to push back against demands from their respective wing-parties in coalition, and creates a dynamic where those wanting real change vote for the wings rather than the center. Where there are multiple coalition partners there are also usually competing demands, which means that everyone constrains everyone else. And again, what's unusual about the present regime is that this isn't happening: NZFirst and ACT are largely in policy agreement about racism and environmental destruction, while National, bereft of an agenda of its own, simply accepts the one handed to it by its "partners". So again, the problem is that this is not a normal regime, but that doesn't seem like it'll necessarily be a problem in future (especially if voters kick National out of power at the first opportunity as punishment for their abnormality).

And all of that said: none of this means I disagree with the final conclusion of the article: that our lack of constitutional safeguards means we need to "look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments." Because that is one thing that this debacle of a government has made crystal clear. We need to shift power away from the over-mighty parliament (and the over-mighty executive which pulls its strings and uses it as a rubber-stamp), and move it back to voters, to local government, to the Waitangi Tribunal, and to the courts. As for those demanding we surrender even more power to this abusive institution via a longer parliamentary term, they can get fucked.

Luxon can't be trusted on Te Tiriti

When the new government's coalition agreements were released last year, the most shocking aspect was National's agreement to an explicitly racist campaign to repudiate Te Tiriti o Waitangi, replacing it with some weirdo Libertarian charter. Luxon has spent the last four months trying to say that he was forced to agree to this as the price of power (that is, he has no moral character and was happy to throw Māori under the bus so he could call himself "Right Honourable" for a few years), and that he had only agreed to support it to select committee. As the unpopularity of destroying the foundation of the New Zealand state has become apparent, he has focused more and more on the latter, saying that it was unlikely that National would support the bill any further. And yesterday, after his disastrous performance at Waitangi, he went further, ruling it out completely. The problem? Rimmer doesn't believe him:

ACT leader David Seymour is refusing to back down on his controversial Treaty Principles Bill, saying he believes the Prime Minister's opinion can be changed.

Seymour believes Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was "nervous" after Waitangi and could still back his Treaty Principles Bill despite ruling out doing so.

[...]

But Seymour is undeterred by Luxon's comments and came out with fighting words when he joined AM on Thursday morning.

"I mean, last week, he wouldn't rule out supporting it further, yesterday he would. I think perhaps he got a bit nervous after Waitangi," he told AM co-host Lloyd Burr.

But there was one part of Luxon's comments that Seymour said he didn't believe.

"But ultimately the bit I don't believe is he won't change his mind if the public really wants it," he said.

Rimmer is quite clear that he is trying to twist Luxon's arm on this. And it seems likely that he will get away with it. Because no matter what Luxon says, at the end of the day, Rimmer gets to decide whether he remains Prime Minister or not. And he has already shown a willingness to use that to impose a racist, white supremacist agenda on Aotearoa, and Luxon has already grovelled in the face of it. Given that, it is likely that he will do so again.

So here is what will happen: National will make a lot of noise opposing the bill at first reading, while voting it to select committee "as part of the coalition agreement". It may even order its MPs to issue a negative report on it at select committee. And then Rimmer will threaten to roll the government unless he gets his way and the bill is passed. And the question then is whether Luxon, a man who has already backed down to this once, will show some moral character and stand up against Rimmer's divisive racism, or whether he will meekly roll over and in effect allow Rimmer to dictate to his whole government. And unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that one.

National's arrogant and contemptuous attitude

Last month, National Party leader Chris Luxon proudly declared that he would work with Winston to oust Labour. Today, his party is trying to threaten another election if he's forced to do what he said he would do:

The National Party has ramped up its efforts to try to stop NZ First holding the balance of power by raising the prospect of a second election, warning there was “a very real and growing possibility” National could not get a deal done, or of a hung parliament.

It comes as polls show it is increasingly likely National will need both NZ First and Act to form a government, despite National leader Christopher Luxon’s pleas to voters to deliver a clear two-party hand to him.

National’s campaign chair Chris Bishop said there was a scenario in which the left and right blocs got 60 seats all - “that chance is a real one and growing.”

“The second scenario is when there is essentially a hung Parliament and NZ First is in the middle, but it is just impossible to do a deal between National, Act and NZ First. That is a very real and growing possibility and that would necessitate, essentially, a second election.”

"Necessitate" is doing a lot of work there. Because it seems there's plenty of negotiation space on all sides for deals to form a government which don't require that at all. But National here is basicly demanding a do-over unless it gets exactly the sort of government it wants, as if the views of voters - and in particular, other voters, which they are forced to consider because MMP requires coalitions - didn't matter at all. It's as if they were saying "no coalitions; we'll go back to the polls unless you give us majority government".

This is an arrogant and contemptuous attitude, both to democracy and their potential coalition partners. And it conflicts fundamentally with the strong convention in Aotearoa that politicians must accept the election result and try and make it work, no matter how much they dislike it. That may mean a weak government which can't do anything (NZ First or ACT providing confidence and supply and nothing else, hamstringing each others' policy agenda). But if that's what we voted for, that's what we get. And if the politicians want something better, they need to make it work, and find some common ground. Jim Bolger could do that. Helen Clark could as well. So could Jacinda Ardern. Today, Chris Bishop is saying that National can't - or won't.

(And even if they apparently can, he's just signalled an intention to call a new election at the first excuse. I don't think Winston will take kindly to that threat. Demanding UK-style legislation to protect against such abuse unless a supermajority of parliament votes for an early election seems to be an obvious coalition demand).

If National's coalition of chaos negotiations fall apart, and Winston doesn't respond by offering confidence and supply to Labour as a "fuck you", and National gets its way and forces people back to the polls, I doubt people will be happy. Voters punish Prime Ministers who try and game the system by calling a snap election (Muldoon, Clark); I expect the punishment for those who try and game it even more by forcing a do-over because they don't like our choices to be even more severe.

The duopoly's contempt for voters

Over the weekend we learned that Chris Hipkins has Covid, and so would not be able to participate in The Press's leader's debate (which was scheduled for last night). Labour and national then proceeded to bicker over rescheduling and substitutes, with Chris Luxon desperately trying to avoid another appearance (since he came off so badly in the last one). The Press meanwhile read the room, said "screw this", and invited all party leaders for a proper debate, so that voters could see all the options, as well as how they got along. So naturally, the status quo duopoly refused to participate:

After postponing, The Press invited the leaders of every party tracking to return to Parliament to a debate next week.

Leaders of NZ First, the Greens, ACT and Te Pāti Māori have accepted.

They will face The Press and a crowd of more than 2000 people at the Christchurch Town Hall, on Tuesday, October 10. This will be the final power brokers debate before polling day.

Hipkins, who said he wanted to debate Luxon at The Press debate next week, declined to face the other parties.

[...]

In Christchurch on Tuesday, Luxon stood by his decision not to return for a rescheduled debate with Hipkins. Labour has published photos of Luxon dressed as a chicken, saying he’s trying to wriggle out of debates.

This is simply utter contempt for voters. Hipkins and Luxon supposedly want to be Prime Minister. But they won't front up to face the public - or their potential coalition partners. And the natural conclusion is because they fear being shown up by the far superior offerings (both policywise and of leadership) from the smaller parties. It is arrogant and undemocratic. And then they wonder why people call them a political elite...

And its particularly stupid from Hipkins, who now needs all the exposure he can get. And with Labour polling so low its practically a minor party itself, and looking to lose core MPs, you'd think he'd be trying to save them.

A coalition of racism, cruelty, and chaos

Today's big political news is that after months of wibbling, National's Chris Luxon has finally confirmed that he is willing to work with Winston Peters to become Prime Minister. Which is expected, but I guess it tells us something about which way the polls are going. Which raises the question: what would a National - ACT - NZ First government (or governing arrangement) look like anyway? First, it would be unspeakably awful. Second, it would be total chaos.

On the first front, there are three things National, ACT, and NZ First all agree on: racism, cruelty, and climate denial. They all (with varying degrees of intensity) want to shit on Māori and roll back the real progress we've seen in empowering them. While National might not want to go the full ACT and have a referendum on our founding constitutional document (whose repudiation would mean that Pakeha would literally have no right to be here), they're certainly wanting to roll back co-governance, limit consultation, and generally disempower Māori, because they see all of these things as barriers to rich people getting to do whatever they want "economic growth". On cruelty, all three parties are basicly singing from the same song sheet on "law and order", which means harsher sentences, more criminalisation, and billions wasted on new prisons to cope with the victims (and billions more wasted on the social cleanup of mass criminalisation). And on climate denial, ACT and NZ First are explicitly denier, while National is denier but knows that doesn't sell well to the public, and so merely wants to repeal almost all climate policy and return to the "good old days" of setting targets and doing nothing to meet them. So "repeal and do nothing" will end up being the policy, which will then result in the inevitable criticism from the Climate Commission and lawsuit for failing to follow the Zero Carbon Act, until the government repeals the latter to shut down the legal challenges. At which stage they get to explain themselves to the EU and other trade partners and try and convince them why they shouldn't tear up our FTAs given that we just have...

That's a terrible policy agenda which would be terrible for Aotearoa. Racism and cruelty are Not Good, and ignoring our biggest problem is going to see more people killed and more communities destroyed. We will all suffer under such a government.

The bright side, insofar as there is one, is that they will suffer too. Because while the three parties agree on racism, cruelty and climate denial, they disagree on practically everything else. National plus ACT would mean a radical neoliberal government, slashing taxes, sacking public servants, and privatising everything in an awful rerun of the early 1990's. Winston will veto all that. Ditto raising the superannuation age, benefit cuts, or cuts to the minimum wage. Labour's experience from 2017 to 2020 is a useful guide here: Winston nuked anything that wasn't explicitly agreed in his coalition agreement, often at short notice with no consultation. ACT will hate being thwarted like that. And with Rimmer already making noises about holding the government to ransom over every budget, its likely to end in tears.

(Note that this analysis applies regardless of what sort of governing arrangement is ultimately agreed between the three parties. Its possible that National tries minority government, with support from the other two, rather than trying to manage two bitter enemies around the cabinet table. It doesn't matter, because this is about what there's a majority to legislate on. And if the numbers are such that they force Luxon into the arms of Winston, it means that there just won't be a parliamentary majority for any of ACTs economic agenda...)

So, it would be awful, and we'd all suffer. But they'd suffer too, and it might not last beyond a term (pre-2020, I'd have said Winston was cursed, in that anyone who went into government with him lost the next election. 2020 was not a normal election though, so the curse may still hold). And if things are going to be awful, I'll take my grim satisfaction where I can. If people really are going to vote for us to all burn to death, I can at least derive some amusement by watching their racist cooker climate denier government tear itself apart.

This is not a "governing" arrangement

The upcoming election is basicly a competition between two broad coalitions: Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori, and National-ACT. Discontent with the status quo parties and their bipartisan policy of austerity and inequality has caused voters to shift to the minor parties, who at least offer change of one sort or another - and there's the usual pre-election posturing around "bottom lines" and threats to "sit on the cross-benches". But even then, its clear that the left coalition could put together a functional government if it had the numbers: even if Labour rejects the policy demands of its partners, the result will be them going it alone as a minority government, with support on confidence and supply, but nothing else. On the right, its a different story, with ACT proposing a new "governing" arrangement:

ACT has floated the possibility of a new kind of governing arrangement if National refuses to cooperate during post-election negotiations.

Party leader David Seymour has threatened to resort to a confidence-only deal, which would require the larger party to seek ACT's backing for all government spending - or "supply" - decisions on a case-by-case basis.

[...]

"I think we'd be able to be clear that, you know, while they have the confidence of the house, if they want to pass Budgets they are going to have to rely on another party," Seymour said.

"I think it would probably be just confidence."

...which might sound good to the constitutional illiterates in ACT. But what happens if a government fails to pass a budget is that they cease to be government any more (see McGee on implied votes of confidence). So what Rimmer is basicly promising here is that unless he is given a line-item veto over every aspect of government spending and is allowed to decide what gets cut and who gets sacked, Aotearoa will face (at best) annual US-style budget standoffs - or another election. Which is not any sort of "governing" arrangement at all, but a recipe for chaos.

I think its fair to say that this is not the style of government that voters expect. But then, the solution is simple: if you don't want chaos, don't vote for it.

No way to run a partnership

Yesterday, in an effort to screw the PREFU and narrow the space for National to promise tax cuts, the government announced a $4 billion austerity program. Part of this was a $226 million raid on the climate emergency response fund - meaning less climate action. You'd think the government would have bothered to tell its Climate Change Minister about that. But of course they didn't:

As part of a $4 billion savings initiative announced on Monday, the Government will cut $236 million from climate policies on agriculture, transport and forestry.

One unusual aspect of the move is that climate funding is supposed to be ring-fenced solely for climate policies, but the savings will instead be returned to the general coffers.

Another unusual aspect is Minister for Climate Change James Shaw wasn't aware it would be happening. He told Newsroom he knew the Government was doing a savings exercise and evaluated a couple of policies he was responsible for, which didn't get cut. He was also briefed on a $10m cut to a waste policy.

But he found out about the remaining $226m in climate cuts at the same time the public did.

Regardless of what you think of the merits of cutting climate action in the middle of a climate crisis, this is a shitty and arrogant way to run a political partnership. And its worse because the Prime Minister thinks its perfectly appropriate. The casual attitude of disrespect displayed does not bode well for any future coalition arrangement between Labour and the Greens.

More petulance from Andrew Little

Back in June, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee reported back on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill, making numerous improvements. But Defence Minister Andrew Little said "fuck transparency" and petulantly undid them. Now it looks like he's going to do a repeat performance. The same committee has reported back on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill, delivering a unanimous report that it was unnecessary and that it not be passed. They recognised that the bill undermined our international obligations under the Refugee Convention and international human rights law, and effectively criminalised seeking asylum. Andrew Little's response? It's the committee and submitters who are wrong:

Little vowed to continue progressing the bill despite the select committee’s concerns. He said classified information, which the committee heard, would explain the need for this law change.

He reprimanded the select committee on Tuesday, saying there was something “seriously wrong” with it.

[...]

Little said the committee had failed to adequately consider “legislation dealing with a pretty serious potential national security risk”.

...Or maybe his bill really was an ill-considered power grab which infringed fundamental human rights without any justification - and one so awful that even the authoritarians in the National Party could see it (you know you're in trouble when the National Party is acting as your conscience...)

Unfortunately, thanks to single-majority government, Little will probably get his way. He'll convince Cabinet, Cabinet will whip the Labour caucus, and that's 61 votes. The actual merits simply don't come into when one party holds a majority. Which means the sooner this aberration is over and we can get back to the checks and balances of normal consensual MMP politics, the better.