pn573. John Armstrong struggles to make Jacinda look like a witch. (Updated P.P.S.by Bryce Edwards)

Semi-retired conservative columnist John Armstrong —usually noted for more robust argument—  strains at his breeches trying to turn Jacinda from a tooth fairy into a witch.  (See update P.P.S., below).

In her talks with the Greens, he says,  she is not magnanimous or motivated by familial loyalty but by "one thing and one thing only - Labour's self-interest, pure and simple." 

His evidence?  She "did not lift a finger ... to help her Government's support partner retain a presence in Parliament by withdrawing the Labour candidate in Auckland Central" (and) by ignored James Shaw's pleas that she do some "messaging" ... to urge Labour supporters to cast their party vote for the Greens."

Why? The wicked witch wanted to keep the Greens "firmly under her thumb" while falsely giving "the impression she is sharing power". Why?  Because "opinion polls show we don't like one-party governments." 

The witch will tell the Greens "in the nicest possible way that they can take it or leave it." James Shaw may be offered his pre-election job as Minister for Climate Change  because  "it would be a means of keeping the Greens inside the tent, rather than them being trouble outside." Nothing more for the Greens. She needs to fill Cabinet seats with her own.

As the wicked witch flies off the horizon it is time to look again for the tooth fairy.

Tooth fairy

1) As leader of the Labour Party Jacinda's job is to work in the best interests of her party. She was confident the Greens would cross the 5% threshold so she had no need to protect them or her flank on the left wing. She wanted Labour to win the most possible seats. And this she did, as the election results showed in spades.

2) As Prime Minister her job is to promote the best possible people to Cabinet. James Shaw proved himself to be a competent Minister of the Environment so he will be in Cabinet, or offering advice from outside. Other Green MPs may also be given some degree of inclusion.  There is nothing devious, sinister or witch-like about these likely alternative outcomes. 

3) Jacinda has repeatedly shown both warmth and her belief in governing inclusively. Witness the Christchurch massacre, Kaikoura earthquake, the Covid-19 pandemic, and her work with NZ First and the Greens in her first term. Why would she act any differently now?  We often have more than one reason we do things and so might Jacinda — but is John seriously suggesting it has all been a sham?

-- ACW

P.S. The latest

P.P.S. Bryce Edwards disagrees with me, saying John Armstrong's article was spot on. I still  think he put the most negative interpretation possible on everything Jacinda did or did not do, and he did so with very little evidence.  However, that aside, the Edwards article spells out what Labour and the Greens stand to gain or lose given different agreement scenarios.  It's well worth a read.  

By Friday we should know what will happen, subject to approval or disapproval by Green party members. We'll see how many of the speculators were on the right track and we'll have a further three years to see which of them were correct about the outcome.