A debate involving the leaders of the smaller parties gave us a glimpse into the nature of the chemistry between Act leader David Seymour and NZ First leader Winston Peters.
It had a strong resemblance to the chemistry involved in putting Mentos into a bottle of Coke.
What theyhad to say in that lively Newshub Nation Power Brokers’ debate on Thursday night was they didn’t like each other very much but might just end up having to tolerate each other.
Seymour was particularly clear on both of those points as he watches his hopes start to dwindle of starving NZ First of votes and keeping them out of Parliament.
Unlike National leader Christopher Luxon, Seymour is at least not trying to pretend it isn’t happening.
NZ First has now come in at 5 per cent in two consecutive 1News Verian polls and was very close to it in the recent Newshub Reid Research poll.
In that, there is currently a 95 per cent probability that National will be able to form a government with Act alone. However, a small shift in the vote would bring NZ First into the frame and reduce Act and National’s chances of a clean deal.
The exchanges between Seymour and Peters prompted the moderator, Rebecca Wright, to quip that she was starting to feel sorry for Luxon. She will not be alone in that view.
The debate certainly helped to highlight Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ line in the earlier leaders’ debate that Peters and Seymour would run rings around Luxon. They might not run rings around him, but it would require a pretty intensive 24/7 relationship management regime.
In theory, if NZ First can be part of a government with the Greens, it should certainly be able to tolerate working with the more politically compatible Act. However, theory does not take account of personalities.
Meanwhile, Act should not get too complacent about being National’s number one pick.
The ballot boxes can be fickle.
Illustration / Guy Body
The more natural governing party of a major party has been cuckolded by NZ First before; the Greens found themselves on the periphery in 2017 after Peters ended up kingmaker in that election.
That is not such a great risk this time round, given Peters has only left National or the cross benches to choose between.
The other question that will start to arise is whether National would look at reaching a deal with NZ First in some way, even if it can get a majority with Act alone.
There are a range of options for setting up a governing arrangement: ranging from coalition to abstention agreements. They can be done in a way to keep the minor parties at a great distance from each other.
There will be some in National thinking about that possibility. John Key set up separate agreements with three other parties for each of his three terms in office. The advantages were that it gave him more than one route to get a majority and it gave him a greater pool of partners for future elections. However, he never had to resort to NZ First.
It is little wonder Chris Hipkins is revelling in the potential for Peters to upset the apple cart on the right.
However, the fact so much time and effort is going into working out whether Seymour and Peters can get along is bad news for Labour in another way.
Labour’s biggest problem right now is that nobody is talking about them as a potential government at all.
Instead all the focus has been on what shape a National-led government might take.
That has left Labour trying to fight the ghost of a foregone conclusion.
It is not an easy ghost to fight because it is starting to have some substance: at the moment, The Herald’s poll of polls rates the chances of a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori government at a mere 1.6 per cent.
Nonetheless, Hipkins at least now appears to have risen to the challenge set by Luxon on the campaign trail. He has clearly given himself a talking to, got over his early campaign reticence and is more cheerful and engaging with voters on the campaign trail.
Labour has also seen some green shoots in the latest 1News-Verian poll and its own internal research – or at least some buds it thinks could be tickled into becoming green shoots.
One thing could also still derail National: numbers. Specifically, its own numbers.
National will release its full fiscal plan next week, setting out costings for its overall policy programme, how much it will cut each year, how much it will spend each year and the like.
Its refusal to release the full workings of its costings on tax, despite significant question marks over it, has already given rise to some scepticism. That will mean its full fiscal plan will be subject to the same scrutiny.
It will also open itself to questions as to why it has not trimmed its own policy promise list in a response to the numbers in the pre-election fiscal updates, even as it accuses its rivals of being fast and loose with spending.
National’s line on that has been that it will cut wasteful spending elsewhere and focus what money is left on getting results. That’s a slogan, not a plan.
National’s vote softened to 37 per cent in the most recent 1News-Verian poll, which perhaps indicates some voters remain sceptical and will not swallow its promises hook, line and sinker.
That has given Labour hope that challenging National over its proposed cuts and the affordability of its tax plan is having some effect.
Labour believes a fair chunk of voters don’t believe National’s tax cuts plan adds up, but they also don’t care. National has also been relying on voters not caring; Willis pretty much admitted it when she said New Zealanders didn’t care about spreadsheets, they cared about help with the cost of living.
So Labour’s efforts have gone into trying to make those voters care. It has done that by pushing out ads which question how far National will have to go in cuts to public services to make up any shortfall in its tax costings.
That poll saw National drop two points to 37 per cent after getting up to nearly 40 per cent (although Labour dropped again too). There was a slight improvement in the combined fortunes of the parties on the left. All it would take is a 1 per cent shift in the vote for National to need NZ First.
Hipkins will be more than happy to work with that, but it will take a bigger shift than that for Labour to get back into the game.
