If all the lefties had not tactically voted NZ First to get them over 5%, then National would have 63 seats and not need ACT and United Future to govern, and hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools. When the main party *needs* you, you will get far more wins than when they simply *want* you.What's wrong with this analysis?
- "All the lefties". NZ First got 6.8% of the vote. How many of those people were "lefties?" I'd be guessing, but maybe half at most. So that's maybe 5-10% of those "lefties" who voted. Most "lefties" have little time for Peters.
- "hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools." That assumes National reluctantly conceded to ACT's demands and was not in fact a willing participant.
- If John Key and his proxies had not spent the fortnight before the election shrilly denouncing Winston Peters and all his evils, we might have had a majority National government. Even if we assume National is being forced to concede anything it doesn't really want, it's an own-goal. Farrar can't really blame the left for the horrendous tactical blunder he and others made in giving Peters publicity.
- If charter schools really were unpalatable to National they could have said "no deal" and just given John Banks a win with something else. It's not as if ACT campaigned on charter schools, so I'm guessing it was never going to be a deal-breaker.