Post mortem #3: The Maori Party
.
This is when politicians really break out in sweat,
.
“The Maori Party leadership has met in Auckland today but is yet to decide on a future relationship with National.
Co-leader Tariana Turia said the party would discuss the issue with supporters after meeting with Prime Minister John Key tomorrow.
A reduced Maori Party caucus gathered in Auckland this morning to discuss possible coalition deals.
The party suffered a serious dent in its support last night. It lost Rahui Katene’s Te Tai Tonga seat and saw reduced margins in its remaining three electorates.
Co-leader Pita Sharples was visibly deflated last night and admitted to being disappointed with his own result and that of the whole party.
He said the party’s poor performance showed supporters did not like the party siding with National over the past three years.”
.
Co-leader Pita Sharples said “the party’s poor performance showed supporters did not like the party siding with National over the past three years“.
Well now, that’s an understatement if I ever heard one.
It may seem like a Big Ask, but maori appear to want contradictory things for the Maori Party; independent representation with their own political movement – and a voice in government. But not in coalition – Maori Party voters seem overtly hostile to coalescing with National.
Anything else? Would you like fries with that?!
I don’t envy Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia one jot. They have conflicting messages from their constituents, and have already been punished with the loss of one of their number, and reduced votes. This is critical support that no small Party can afford. The next step would be a one-man band Party (a-la Peter Dunne, John Banks, and Jim Anderton) followed by political extinction.
On top of expectations from their constituents is a new thorn in their sides; state asset sales. The proposed sales are deeply unpopular with the majority of the public (or so they tell the pollsters) and no less so with maori.
Sharples has consistently stated that the Maori Party are opposed to asset sales – though with the caveat that if the sales do proceed, they want Iwi Inc. to have first options to buy.
National, of course, would never have a bar of such a proposal.
On top of all this is the convention of providing Confidence and Supply to the government.
Budgets are presented to the House for voting by all MPs. If the Budget passes, then government is assured of Supply – at least until the next Budget. In all likelihood, National will make asset sales a central pillar of their first Budget.
If the Budget is voted down – the government falls. If the Opposition cannot form a new government, then a snap election is called.
Is essence, if Sharples goes ahead with his promise to oppose asset sales, he is effectively voting down the government’s Budget.
With National’s majority only a slim margin, the Maori Party would be playing a risky game of high-stakes, political poker. Excluding Maori Party support, National will have only a one seat majority in the House once the Speaker’s role is taken into account,
.
.
With Labour a couple of seats short of being able to form a Labour-Greens-NZF-Mana-Maori Party Coalition – a fresh election is inevitable.
At best, the Maori Party could only abstain from voting for Supply for the government. That would mean National relying on Peter Dunne and John Banks to make up the numbers. Just barely.
Not exactly voting for asset sales – and not exactly opposing it, either. And all the while having to satisfy their constituents – or face an even greater voter back-lash in 2014.
At this stage, joining Winston Peters on the cross-benches; voting on legislation issue-by-issue; and hoping that Tariana Turia’s “pet-project” Whanau Ora is not canned – seems their likely option.
This may work. Until the first by-election happens – and last year there were four such by-elections.
To coalesce or not to coalesce – that is the question. Classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t, for a small party in Parliament.
.
.
New MPs
National Party:
Scott Simpson
Maggie Barry
Mike Sabin
Ian McKelvie
Mark Mitchell
Jian Yang
Alfred Ngaro
Paul Goldsmith
Labour Party:
Andrew Little
David Clark
Megan Woods
Rino Tirikatene.
Green Party:
Eugenie Sage
Jan Logie
Steffan Browning
Denise Roche
Holly Walker
Julie Anne Genter
New Zealand First
Tracey Martin
Andrew Williams
Richard Prosser
Brendan Horan
Denis O’Rourke
Asenati Taylor
Harry – thank you for that. Saves me having to ferret out thwe info myself.
Frank, for someone who has been self admittedly around for a reasonable length of time you do make a number of false assumptions. On current numbers National doesn’t need the Maori party even for confidence and supply. The Speakers vote isn’t lost to them either. Finally By-elections won’t change the make up of Parliament unless it involves onr of the individual MP’s.
Turiana and Pita talk about being at the front table, but they are not there. They sit in the next door room and wait until summoned, and told about Cabinet’s decision. They should force another election – and the result will be a hell of a lot different!!
Learn to count.
You do realise the Speakers vote isn’t lost to the Government do you?
Yes it is.
I think you’re right, Peter. The National-ACT-Dunne coalition numbers only 62. A defection from National (and I have at least one National MP in mind) and/or a by-election – and suddenly John Key’s “majority” will evaporate.
It’s interesting to note that there were four by-elections last term. Like Julia Guillard in Australia, Key can’t afford to lose any MPs this term.
And if the Maori Party go with National – they’re still faced with the prospect of voting against asset sales conflicting with giving the government Supply.
The only By-elections that would impact the shape of the new Parliament will be for the single electorate MP’s. Why do you not know. this Frank? Do you not understand how MMP works?
Don’t be so stupid Gosman. I read everything he wrote and its obvious he knows that. Your being a childish ass.
Sorry just double checked. It looks like By-elections can change the proportionality. However that doesn’t take away the fact that National has enough to govern without the Maori Party and that the Speakers vote isn’t removed from the Government majority. I’d suggest it is unlikely National would lose it’s majoirity this term. It certainly isn’t something any serious media organisation is taking up as a possibility at the moment.
Which National party MP do you think would commit electoral suicide by leaving the caucus?
No it isn’t
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Y7NVT7ZaSloC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=speakers+vote+under+MMP&source=bl&ots=AxH6Rc0mX3&sig=WpfycUnY0lqEX-zhcX9gn4SPCIY&hl=en&ei=L-LTTpX7MK6wiQex4ejMDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=speakers%20vote%20under%20MMP&f=false
since when is this a mandate? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2011/92387/national%27s-success-attributed-to-low-voter-numbers
They got in but that doesn’t give them a mandate. If it was reversed and Labour had 48% of 68% you’d be saying the same thing, no mandate.
People who don’t vote don’t place some sort of veto on Government implementing policy. Government is decided by those who vote, not by those who are too lazy to bother to exercise their democratic rights.
You don’t read what he writes or you stuff it up. And you fill this blog with your rubbish spam. get your facts right for starters or STFU.
I correct myself when I am wrong. You on the other hand ignore areas where you are wrong. Did you read my link about the Speakers vote under MMP?
All of them I hope
So noone in particular then?
By the way do you not think it would be undemocratic for representatives of the people to not serve the voters who elected them to office?
Or is you position that so long as they leave right wing parties it is fine for the results of democratic elections to be ignored?
Are you always so [expletive deleted] naive?
Yay!
On election night, I saw Pita Sharples being interviewed. He said something along the lines of “We [the Maori Party] have no bottom lines.” Rarely does an isolated statement provide such insight into someone’s overall moral bankruptcy. Tip for dealing with the Maori Party – lure Sharples and Turia with promises of kete full of cash and baubles, and they will sell their souls and betray their constituents. Tangata Whenua? Sharples and Turia are more like Tangata Moni.
Gem, I think the Maori Party will pay dearly for going against the wishes of their grass roots support. They’ve lost one MP already and their electoral support has dropped. They don’t seem to have got the message.
Haven’t you wondered why people aren’t voting? Or isn’t that something you feel should concerned us all.
I agree with Gosman on this. It is disgraceful that nearly one million potential voters didn’t bother to vote.
The cliché rings true – if you don’t exercise your right to vote, you cannot legitimately complain. National does have a mandate to proceed with mining, partial privatisation of State assets, etc. This mandate doesn’t come only from voters – those who don’t vote also gave National a mandate by omission. I have blogged about this issue.
Interestingly, there has been a whining backlash against New Zealand First http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769652 I find that hilarious, as the undeniable fact remains – New Zealand First got 6.8% of the votes cast. No amount of kicking and screaming will change that. So, to all you whingers – get over it! New Zealand First has far greater popular support compared to ACT, The Maori Party and United Future.
Red, you’re right that we need to think about WHY people aren’t voting. Political disconnection is a disturbing, worldwide trend, especially for young people.
By the way; if people’s posts are being held up in the system, it’s because of some ‘glitch’ I’ve yet to work out…