Labour - NZ First Coalition Government

The numbers are in and New Zealand is going to have a new government made up of Labour and NZ First in a formal coalition arrangement with the Greens supporting on confidence and supply. National will be the opposition yet be the largest single bloc of votes with 56 seats in the House of Representatives.

How did this happen? Three things to consider, and please note most pundits have got this completely wrong because, quite simply, they don't know what they're talking about.

The first thing to remember is that both Labour and NZ First campaigned on effecting change. National were seeking a fourth term in office and played an undermining of all others strategy without a support brand of their own to help get them over the line. This was doomed to failure from the start. Simon "Bill" English is a grade A loser as I've said all along. What National needed was National Lite, or Labour Right to help them out, not the largely discredited ACT party.

The second part of the equation lies within NZ First. Contrary to many widely held opinions, NZ First is made up of approximately 60% old-school Labour. At NZ First meetings they can be oft heard using terms like 'what about the workers' or some such. These people joined NZ First as they hate the modern Labour party and its membership of teachers, nurses and social workers. When listening to the modern Labour party all the old-school can hear is flub-flub-flub. So they go to NZ First to join others of like mind then after the meeting head to the Pub to play darts and drink beer. Only about 20% of NZ First are old-Nats, and they are there because the new National party is an undemocratic institution that tells its membership what to think all the time. Policy descends from the top with new-Nats. Then lastly 20% of NZ First are new to politics. They are often Asian, Indians mostly, drawn to NZ First policies of regional development and looking after small businesses.

The NZ First membership is not old either, forget that thinking as National has a much older average age of membership by comparison. Winston Peters would be mindful of his party make-up when deciding who to go with.

Then lastly we have what Labour and National are like to deal with. We have to consider past dealings. National are dishonest in their dealings, they give a lot away up front but then look to undermine and stab their partner in the back. However Labour, while hard to get concessions from, are more likely to honour any arrangement. Compare 1996 with 2005 to see my point from Mr Peters perspective.

It's a no-brainer really and I'm glad I got this right. It's going to be funny seeing Paula Bennett on the AM show with Duncan Garner, no more Princess-waiting-to-be-Queen behaviour from her. That is, if she even shows up again.