Post by CrashPost by Rich80105Post by Rich80105Post by CrashThis makes interesting reading.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrong-ardern-must-grow-backbone-and-remind-peters-whos-boss
I find this a compelling analysis.
I would throw in just one more hypothesis. If Ardern believes that
standing Winston down is a threat to the coalition, how about National
agreeing to a confidence-and-supply agreement until the election?
There is no evidence that she does believe this other than idle
speculation by National supporters.
Post by CrashThis
would see this years budget passed with National's support, but in
every other respect National is free from any obligation to support
Labour.
This would completely neuter Winston while the current SFO
investigation proceeds.
Why wuold anyone want him neutered? Are you concerned that his
virility compares to well to that of Bridges?
Post by CrashWhile National would be unable to oppose
budget and payment-related legislation, it would gain National huge
support for ensuring stable government until the election.
What incentive is there for Labour to want such an outcome, assuming
it did not give a huge reduction in support for the Labour Party?
Post by CrashEqually it
would dispel Ardern's reputation as a gutless leader which she could
legitimately leverage into a leader who makes the hard decisions.
I doubt that very many except die-hard National supporters think that
Jacinda Ardern has such a reputation, so the argument is of no value.
Post by CrashMy pick though is that Ardern and her advisers have yet to consider
such an idea.
Why would they consider a hypothetical offer that has not been
offered. I am sure however that Labour, NZ First and the Green Party
would consider it seriously if offered. Do you think it likely to be
offered, Tony?
I apologise again, Crash - I mistakenly saw the post as being from
Tony. I was wrong.
No problem Rich, and in this case apology accepted. However I would
counsel that greater care be taken before posting in the future. As
you responded to the OP, it is difficult to understand why you were
mistaken.
I find it hard to understand myself - perhaps I have been responding
to Tony too much.
Post by CrashIn respect of who approaches whom, it is Ardern that is in a pickle
with the travails of Winston and the appearance that Ardern is
powerless to deal with Winston when the SFO is investigating serious
allegations against Winston as a result of referral from the Electoral
Commission.
I am not clear as to what make you feel that Ardern is powerless to
deal with Winston. In what way does she need to 'deal with' Wnston?
It is clear that there are some potential problems for Winston ahead -
whether the investigation finds anything that results in charges
remains to be seen, but I doubt they are very interested in whether
Winston arranged for a photo to be taken, or are upset that Winston
changed his story about that. If there are criminal charges then the
situation may change. At this stage I cannot see what Winston is
doing regarding the business of government that is any different to
how he has been since he entered into government.
Certainly NZ First is more vulnerable in public opinion - the latest
poll is no very conclusive (17% undecided makes any predictions
somewhat suspect), but with the SFO investigation, NZ First needs to
remain part of government more than they did before.
Post by CrashHelen Clark, in a situation involving donations to NZF from Owen Glenn
stood Winston down but NZF were not a coalition partner so Labour then
were not quite as dependent on NZF as Labour now are.
National is not involved in the current NZF allegations so in no way
should initiate anything. Should Ardern feel politically threatened
by the myriad of credible calls such as those included in the article
I cited in my original post, there is clearly an option available to
Ardern to seek confidence-and-supply from National should the need
arise. This would leave her free to stand Winston down, secure in the
knowledge that the current government will retain 'the confidence of
the house' on confidence-and-supply should Winston pull out of the
current coalition agreement. For both National and Labour this has
the benefit of inflicting a massive blow to Winston's political worth.
I don't think Armstrongs article was particularly credible. Under
current circimstances, NZ First needs Labour more than previously. All
Ardern is doing is being consistent in waiting for evidence, and not
kicking a friend going through the difficulties caused by an SFO
investigation. If anything, NZ First is less likely to publicly
disagree with the other government parties than previously. It is not
clear what Winston has done that requires intervention. Yes he messed
up the response to the photo, and there are unexplained issues about
whether NZ First inexplicably employed some National supporters to
take actions which could only reflect badly on NZ First.
Post by CrashFrom National's point of view, they get kudos only for supporting
government stability in the short-term. From Ardern's perspective it
would massively enhance her nearly-nonexistent reputation for
statesmanship and getting things done in the face of significant
political obstacles.
We will have to disagree re reputation for statesmanship - numerous
international articles attest to the admiration with which she is
held, and the preferred PM poll seems to be strongly on the side of a
good reputation internally. There is certainly no benefit for Labour
to seek to alienate the Green Party or even NZ First with an election
later this year. Longer term however, National's credibility is at
risk, in particular as potential donors will not want to find
themselves charged with an offence. I agree with yor assessment that
National would benefit from granting confidence and supply should
Winston pull out; but such an action is very unlikely even if Winston
has to step back - doing so would confirm prejudices that NZ First
cannot work with anyone, when that really is National's forte.