On Monday morning, National Party leader Christopher Luxon ended the speculation and announced that, while he’d much prefer to lead a two-party National–ACT coalition government, he will, if necessary, call Winston Peters after the election about joining in. Later, a new Newshub–Reid Research poll put NZ First just over the threshold on 5.2% – in line with some other recent polls – while ACT’s support declined to 8.8%.
The Reid poll also asked: ‘Do you think a three-party National, ACT, New Zealand First Government would be a stable or a chaotic Government?’
59.1% said ‘chaotic’, and only 26.4% ‘stable’.
Those who said ‘chaotic’, by preferred party, were: National 47.8%, ACT 60.8% and NZ First 48.2%. Many of the supporters of the three parties to this (for now hypothetical) arrangement lack confidence in it.
This reminds me of a question I put in the 2017 Stuff online pre-election survey. (Note: the Stuff surveys attracted large numbers, but were reader-initiated and hence not representative samples.) We asked, ‘What is your view on a possible Labour-NZ First-Green coalition government?’
54.2% chose ‘a political shambles that won’t last long’; 25.5% called it ‘an awkward but workable arrangement’; and only 20.3% thought it would be ‘a strong alternative to the present [then National-led] government’. Results were slanted according to which party the respondent supported. Only about 12% of Labour and Green supporters rated it a ‘shambles’, but 54.4% of NZ First supporters chose that option. Close to half of NZ First supporters at that time wanted a coalition with National, not Labour.
As it happened, a Labour–NZ First coalition, supported by the Greens, was formed after the 2017 election – and it lasted the full three-year term.
Those online surveys can’t be treated as ‘accurate’, but we can conclude that there was deep pre-election scepticism about the stability of a three-party Labour-led government, as subsequently formed under Jacinda Ardern’s leadership: the government that got us through the first phase of the pandemic lockdown.
‘Coalition of chaos’ was, I believe, coined by the UK Conservative Party’s David Cameron more than a decade ago. It’s become the catch-phrase of the present NZ election campaign. Each side is trying to strike fear into voters’ hearts about what might happen if their opponents win.
A National–NZ First coalition did break up, with much drama, in 1998. The National Party had to recompose the government mid-term, but they saw out the remainder of the three-years. These past events remind us, then, about the risk of instability.
Winston Peters copped most of the blame for the 1998 fiasco and was punished at the next election. NZ First’s party vote plummeted from 13.4% in 1996 to 4.3% in 1999, but they returned with five seats as Peters had narrowly won Tauranga.
The lesson is that, once in office, there are strong political incentives for not rocking the boat too much and for keeping the government stable.
Many National supporters may be wishing that Luxon had done what John Key did before the 2008 election: deliver a knock-out blow to NZ First by refusing to work with them at all. NZ First had been ‘tainted’ by their role in government since 2005, and a vote for them couldn’t be a vote for change following Key’s categorical rejection. So they were banished to the wilderness for three years.
This time it’s different. People haven’t forgotten NZ First’s 2017–20 coalition with Labour, but now Winston’s on the up, coming back from another spell in the wilderness. If National were to reject NZ First altogether this time it could well backfire: it might boost sympathy for Peters and result in Luxon having to do a deal with him anyway. And that would be cringeworthy.
Some left-wing voters may even fancy Winston ‘Handbrake’ Peters to moderate the Luxon–Seymour pas de deux.
I need to correct a statement made in my last newsletter.
I recalled how Peters had alleged that National’s leader, Bill English, in their first post-election conversation in 2017, had revealed that his caucus was out to roll him. Then I observed that that was only Winston’s version, but ‘I doubt that Bill is going to confirm or deny’.
Since then, I’ve caught up with a report published on Friday by Tim Murphy and Mark Jennings (Newsroom) who did the good journalistic work of asking Bill English for his reaction. Mr English has denied Mr Peters’ claim as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘a fabrication’. And I’m more inclined to believe Mr English.