John Armstrong: A National-Green alliance? Unlikely, but not impossible

Catherine Delahunty. Photo / APN

Opinion

Over her dead body: that was effectively the response from the no-nonsense Green MP Catherine Delahunty when asked last week whether her party could support a National-led Government.

Delahunty, who is ranked at No 4 on the Greens' list, needed no prompting to say she would resign if that was the outcome of next month's election.

Her uncompromising stance has interrupted the game of footsie that the National and Green leaders have been playing since the Greens accepted Labour will not win enough seats to form a centre-left government.

That left the Greens with no choice but to keep the door ajar to a deal with National, both to remain a relevant force in next month's election campaign and to have some kind of influence on the likely governing party for the next three years.

The Greens' official stance remains that National's current policy settings and track record make it "highly unlikely" they could support a National-led Government on confidence and supply.

However, the Greens' leadership seems to have adopted the attitude that while the flirting will probably go nowhere, they still want to see whether it goes somewhere.

The Greens already have a no-strings-attached memorandum of understanding with National which covers a limited number of areas, such as home insulation, where the two parties can work together without too much hassle.

If National wins the election and is able to govern alone or with the help of Act or the Maori Party, a new memorandum, possibly expanding into many more areas is on the cards.

The question is whether the Greens will consider something more substantial than a memorandum. It would seem likely John Key's inclusive style will prompt him to invite the Greens to take part in post-election negotiations whether he needs their votes in Parliament or not.

Even if agreement on a more substantial working relationship proves impossible to reach, the Greens' mere participation in post-election talks would itself be hugely symbolic and dramatically underline their desire to be seen as a party that is independent of Labour.

The trouble is the Greens' strong push for social justice automatically aligns them with Labour. Moreover, the Greens strongly oppose any part sale of state-owned enterprises as well as welfare reform - two key second- term policies for National.

While some polls surprisingly show a majority of Green supporters favour coalition with National, the conflicting ideologies of the two parties mean any such deal could prove suicidal for the Greens and would anyway struggle to get the necessary stamp of approval from the wider party.

All this suggests that getting the party to work with National can only been done in incremental stages.

The party has already shifted its stance from "extremely unlikely" to "highly unlikely". It has a memorandum of understanding. At some point the Greens might stretch to abstaining on confidence motions to enable National to rule.

For this election, the leaders are ruling nothing in or out, while also saying an arrangement with National remains highly unlikely.

The flexibility is sensible. Regardless of Delahunty, the Greens' leaders need to keep the door ajar to a deal. They can avoid being pinned down during the campaign as to the details. They can afford to wait and see how the numbers fall on November 26.