greens leader fitzsimons says the greens would not be part of any government that contained nz first..
fitzsimons says the xenophobic, divisive, racist policies of nz first rule out any possibility of the greens co-existing in a government with them..
given other party leaders’, except brash, publicly stated qualms about working with peters, the pairing of national and nz first as one clearly defined option for voters is coming more and more into focus
such clarity of choice as to what a vote for nz first will mean will aid the voters in their choice between the progressive policies of labour/greens and the reactionary policies of national/nz first..
in 1996 peters was able to run the “i’ll go with anyone” line so successfully that 70% of those who voted for nz first in that election, did so with the expectation peters would go with labour..
the clear distinctions/opposing camps in this election will mean that voters will know a vote for peters is a voter for brash..and brownlee..and henare..et.al….
national of course, are horrified at being so closely yoked to peters and will be spinning the opposite line all the way up to the election..
(see david farrars’ eponymous rightwing blog for evidence of that already happening..)
so, despite peters’ claims this election is a three horse race, it is fast becoming clear that it is in fact almost a return to pre-mmp, in that there is no doubt the election of 2005 is a two horse race..labour/greens vs national/nz first..