Act for example seem very keen on a vote over the Treaty, and almost on cue the Willie Jacksons and Marama Davidsons leap up and down with threats of upset and civil disobedience.
Can I ask a simple question?
What is wrong with a vote?
What is wrong with democracy?
What is wrong in testing a view?
Have a look at the Talbot Mills polling around contentious policies and you will find two very obvious issues that fire debate. One, whether men who identify as women should be allowed to compete in sport, and two, race; whether it be Māori wards on councils or separate policies and facilities for Māori.
We don’t like it and we don’t want it, and my bet is that if we had a vote on it, it wouldn’t look good for the views of your Jacksons or Davidsons, and they know it, hence their alarm.
But although Luxon has said it wouldn’t be helpful, is that the sort of thing you can give away to a party because one, it’s easy, two, it’s not your policy, and three, you can argue it’s good to see democracy in action.
Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Photo / NZME
Also from the optimism file is the fact Luxon is right when he says, broadly speaking, there is much the three can agree on in terms of the economy and moving New Zealand forward. But to the negative, although National won the election and they get the opportunity to put together a deal given the cards they have been dealt, they run a very real risk of losing whatever goodwill they gained during the campaign by not being true to themselves, their supporters and their manifesto.
Having been stitched up before by Peters, who got what many would argue was an outsized slice of the action, it is up to Luxon to deal out whatever he deals out in appropriate measure.
New Zealand First does not hold the balance of power in the previously understood sense. This is not 2017 or anywhere close.
He has eight seats, three of them are needed by the Nats.
Yes you can argue around the edges as to what that may look like in terms of policy and jobs, but it must never be forgotten National have a reputation to protect, and a legacy to build, and an election to go to in under three years.
They need to look like they know how to run a country and the first part of running a country is running a government.
Seymour is, at his heart, a professional and genuinely wants a better country.
Peters is not the same. The phone call/text game played last weekend is what I expect of Peters; childish, petty, self indulgent.
Read Steven Joyce’s book, and the stories about coalition negotiations and how Peters wants to relitigate the past until you are bored witless.
As much as I would like to think Peters at last wants to build a legacy, repair his reputation, hang around more than one term, actually look like a team player, the miserable persona he has put on so far isn’t promising.
Hopefully it’s an act, and he and Chris are best buds.
But the ball isn’t in Peters’ court, it’s in Luxon’s. Luxon is here for the right reasons, and wants to deliver for his party and his country. But he must do it in a way that makes sense, not in a way that makes him look desperate.
If I were him, I would have a bottom line and if it’s breached, not be afraid to govern in minority, detail what Peters wanted and why he didn’t get it, send him to the cross benches and place the pressure on him to explain it to the country each time he threatens to blow it all up.
No, not ideal or even close. But co-operation and collegiality in this case is a three-way street ... not two and Winston.
