Editorial: Voters' verdict against Greens

Common sense has won. The country has voted to give Labour more than one possible coalition partner and by doing so it has effectively neutered the Greens. Realistically, there could not have been a better outcome of the election on Saturday. Among other things, it is now less likely that the country will be rushed headlong into Kyoto commitments before its competitors, less likely that Auckland road construction will be held up by ideological resistance to private-sector initiatives and, of course, less likely that our farm and food science will be handicapped by unreasonable opposition to genetic modification.

The Greens, by their ultimatum to the Government, turned this election into a referendum on their own philosophy, along with their ability to work with Labour and the right of a tail to wag the dog. The public gave its verdict on all counts on Saturday. The party that began the campaign with high hopes of winning 10 per cent or more of the vote ended with just 6.5 per cent, trailing New Zealand First, Act and United Future in the minor placings.

It is plain from the seats where United Future collected its highest tallies that a great many of National's usual supporters cast their votes this time for a party that might remove the Green threat. National's vote consequently plummeted to a historic low but, while the party's campaign was abysmal, its result can be exaggerated. It has been the victim of a tactical election in which the fate of minor parties became more important in any calculation of the country's welfare.

The voters have not only rescued Labour, the only likely winner, from dependence on the Greens but they have clipped Labour's wings too, denying it a majority in its own right. The approval ratings long enjoyed by Labour, and by the Prime Minister in particular, did not survive the rigours of the campaign.

Too often, perhaps, especially after the "contaminated" corn scare, Helen Clark lost her composure and seemed to regard the election as an annoyance. The result will have reminded her of the perils of hubris.

She may not have the comfortable majority with Jim Anderton that she hoped for when she called the election early, but she has the luxury today of talking to at least two potential partners: the Greens to her left and United Future to her right. The Greens hurriedly changed their attitude to coalition when they saw the way the votes were falling on Saturday night. Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons declared that Labour would be guilty of a "betrayal of its supporters" if it aligned with any party but hers.

Well, hardly. If Labour and former Alliance supporters were that anxious to see a left-leaning coalition, the Green vote would have been considerably higher. The Greens seem to have picked up few of the 7.7 per cent who voted Alliance last time. If the Prime Minister is to be guilty of "betrayal" it will be of those who left National this time and voted United Future confident that she would prefer a more moderate and sensible partner.

For political reasons she will probably prefer to make an arrangement with the Greens. She wants Labour to be the party of the centre in a centre-left Government. To align with United Future would cast Labour as the left-wing element. She can bargain with the Greens from a position of greater strength than she had over them in the first term.

In fact, the Greens now need a coalition with her more than she does with them. They need a formal agreement in which they might tie Labour down to a couple of Green policies at the outset, because they cannot now hold a gun to the Government's head in Parliament. All they have to offer Labour in return is guaranteed support for the life of the next Parliament

Helen Clark should insist on that. It would require the Greens to recant on their threat to withdraw support if the GM moratorium is lifted. They ought to rescind that threat now. The election has given them no mandate for that sort of demand.

In fact, the election has given Labour no mandate to deal with a party to its left at all. The combined left - Labour, Mr Anderton and the Greens - have returned with two fewer seats than Labour and the Alliance held before. The electorate has attempted to pull the Government a little more to the right. That is the message Helen Clark should heed when she considers her next move.

It ought to lead her to a proper coalition with United Future. That would give her a stable majority in line with the electorate's intention. Much as she might prefer to play off her two suitors, the Greens and United Future, it would be a short-sighted indulgence on her part. It is a strategy that assumes Labour will remain popular enough through a second term to have less to fear of another election than do its suitors.

With economic clouds gathering over farm incomes and world stockmarkets, the Government's charmed ride is unlikely to last much longer. Labour now needs United Future for a sound majority. A Government ignores the need for consistent policy and predictable stability at its cost and the country's ultimate peril.

Full election coverage

Graphic: Seats in the 47th Parliament

Full election results

Election links:
The parties, policies, electoral information, and more