Any dispassionate survey of Peters' career puts one in mind of the apocryphal mother watching a parade and proudly proclaiming that everyone is out of step except her son.
He has done more than any other single person to bring MMP into disrepute, dawdling through post-election talks in 1996 before going with National - which he had vowed he would never do - and falling out with Jenny Shipley, who sacked him.
After saying he would spurn the baubles of office, he took the Foreign Affairs portfolio in a Labour-led administration. But he proved a liability in that coalition too, and Labour only refused to disown him because he offered them their only chance of political survival in 2008.
He is a skilled practitioner of divisive demagoguery, using alarmist and inflammatory language, in particular to cynically foment feeling against immigrants.
He introduced a vituperative sourness to political discourse which most New Zealanders found distasteful. Last, and by no means least, his hysterical hostility to media scrutiny has always been a bad look for a man who professes a commitment to transparency.
The voters of Tauranga, whose support threw Peters a lifeline in 2002 to drag the party over the five per cent threshold, have since turned their backs on him. Theirs is an example that the electorate as a whole should follow.
We agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. Winston Peters burned his bridges in 2008 with the Owen Glenn fiasco. New Zealand First, he trumpeted, was not like other political parties; it did not accept money from big business. History will now show that New Zealand First, via at least one secret trust did indeed welcome the help of such businesspeople as Sir Robert Jones, the Vela brothers and Owen Glenn.
Peters was exposed as a hypocrite in 2008, and we doubt that anything has changed three years on. He still has a faithful, if diminishing following. He plays on fears and prejudices. But let's not pretent that his political party is anything more than a vehicle for Winston Peters. Most people would struggle to name anyone other than Peters who is standing for election via NZ First, and that suits Peters fine. He does not share the stage willingly.
Winston Peters has been a Minister in three past governments. Not once has he seen out a three-year term as a Minister. John Key is wise to rule out any possibility of working with him.
Will Labour now show the same level of integrity as Key has done? We doubt it. When Winston Peters was censured for misleading Parliament just prior to the 2008 election, the only parties to vote not to censure him were NZ First and Labour. Regular readers will know that we have little time for the Greens, but to their eternal credit, the Greens supported the motion to censure Peters because they believed that it was the right thing to do.
55 comments:
Too late Inv2 - Peters is way ahead of you.
Already he has you very worried about his potential to change what might have seemed like a done deal.
That's his particular talent. In some ways, he's turning out to be as lucky as Key at this unique time.
You are right to feel insecure about developments around Peters.
The interesting thing is, Peters hasn't hasn't even begun the battle yet :-)
He's gping to chew up a lot of your blog-space in the coming months.
Don't let that worry affect your health though Inv2!
"Don't let that worry affect your health though Inv2"
You utter heartless wanker!
Robert, for those of us less familiar than you are with obtuse language, would you mind explaining for us what you mean in your 4.09pm comment?
Whether or not you agree with IV2's comments on Peters, they are presented in clear, intelligible form. But your response (if that is what it is meant to be) is incoherent gibberish.
Well done HoS for mentioning - and Inventory 2 for highlighting - that there are other, more important concerns about a NZF revival than just a bit of rhetoric on immigration; rhetoric unlikely to ever make it into policy concessions by either major party.
The way that NZF enters coalitioon negotiations, with everything on the table and able to be traded for baubles and Ministerial office for clearly incompetent loyalists, exploits a dangerous aspect of MMP.
A small party with a duplicitous and ambitious leader and a handful of people with no principles and unbridled ambition can end up weilding influence well beyond that justified by their share of the vote.
And because they have no moral foundation, they are completely unpredictable. That's not a recipe for principled or stable government.
In order:
Robert Guyton: Peters is only way ahead of his image in the full-length mirror. And thanks for your deep concern as to my welfare!
Suz: Heartless? But Robert's a Greenie; aren't they the ONLY ones with a heart?
Siena: When Robert doesn't have a cogent argument he resorts to obfuscation. I'm looking forward to his explanations as to how a coalition of Labour, his beloved, principled Greens and the slightly less principled WRP is a viable option for the electorate.
Rex: Your inside knowledge of WRP sets you apart from the rest of us. Peters is the best advertisement there is to reject MMP.
Obfuscation
incoherent gibberish
What's wrong with you people today?
I've written a perfectly straight comment (bar the gping spelling mistake) about Peters strategies and Inv2's reactions to those and you fly into paroxysms of confusion.
It's clear.
Peters is here.
I don't like it any more than you, but at least I retain my ability to think!
Rex
A small party with a duplicitous and ambitious leader and a handful of people with no principles and unbridled ambition can end up weilding influence well beyond that justified by their share of the vote.
Act?
My elderly mother-in-law thinks he is a "bit of character" and "look at what he's done for the elderly." She's got heaps and still looks for a handout.
"Not much to show for 25+ years as a pollie" I tell her.
So, we don't agree.
RG "at least I retain my ability to think"
Thank God for your superior powers to correct the rest of us stupid shit-heads..we're ever so grateful.
Suz - I can only respectfully suggest that you have grasped the wrong end of the stick over my 'don't let the worry affect your health' comment. You know I sympathise with Inv2's plight. Your 'wanker' response is kinda harsh. Hei aha! Now we have 'shit heads' and I'm wondering if you're drifting from my meaning even further.
Ad hominem is an easy coat to pull on. It's easily mistaken for the macintosh of gentle humour as well.
So here's a question for you Robert; IF Peters is reelected (and it's a big if), will the Greens show the same level of principle as when they voted to censure him in 2008, and refuse to go into a coalition of which he is a part? In other words, would the Greens put principles ahead of the opportunity to govern, or are they as venal as everyone else around the trough?
Robert quoting Rex: "A small party with a duplicitous and ambitious leader and a handful of people with no principles and unbridled ambition can end up weilding influence well beyond that justified by their share of the vote."
Robert's comment: "Act?"
No, Robert, wrong. You conveniently overlook the fact that when ACT wanted Roger Douglas in Cabinet as part of its coalition agreement with National, John Key dismissed that prospect out of hand. And he stuck to his decision.
When Winston Peters demanded the role of Foreign Minister from Helen Clark, he got it. (And he would probably succeed again with Phil Goff.) The difference is principles (Key) v. power at all costs (Clark).
Siena - your response to my suggestion that Act are represented well by Rex's description, is quite disconected from the point I was making.
As to the points you make - I didn't make any comment about either Key or Clark but clearly you could detect some connection or other.
Inv2 - same goes for you - you are demanding answers in fields I've not touched upon, but I don't mind - the answer's simple - of course the Greens will maintain the highest level of principal in everything they do (you know that) and of course they aren't venal like everyone else around the trough - (you know that too).
Interesting though, that you describe your own as 'venal' and 'around the trough!
Refreshing honesty.
@ RG: "the mackintosh of gentle humour"...and that's meant to be of some help to the apoplectic state you put certain middle-aged right-wingers into (such as GD the other day, re: Anzacs).
Note..you need to learn how to spell "disconnected" and "PRINCIPLE'.
@ Suz - the use of the term Macintosh always conjours up the cartoon image of a bloke in a raincoat, with false trouser legs; probably not the mental imagery one needs as bedtime approaches, but who knows what they get up to in the deep south ...
Thanks for the spelling check Suz - I don't always edit as you notice.
As to the Anzac 'reaction' - again, those who got all fizzy about my comments clearly read far more into them than I had written. At no point had I even hinted that I wanted the special date changed or ignored. Grave's massive over-reaction was just that and had no basis in reality at all. I didn't want to quibble as he wasn't at all reasonable(nor is he 'middle aged' btw) I know 'principle' and 'principal' but often double the wrong consonant.
Don't know why.
Inv2 - Ad hominem or gentle chiding? Obviousy the latter but if it had come from me, there'd be foam and froth from many of your regulars.
Suz would be cussing like a trooper!
Ad hominem? Not at all Robert. Merely an observation on a word I hadn't heard used for a long time. Up here, we call them raincoats. Never having had the privilege of visiting your neck of the woods, I don't know if the term you used is common usage, but it was foreign to this North Islander ...
RG, having had a day in the boonies I come back to blog land and find you holding fort and being to this blog what winston has been to this country.
As tidily summarised by the HOS.
Me too Inv...the stuff of nightmares and flashers..must just be us deviant North Islanders?
Inv2 - down here they're raincoats as well.
I've always loved macs though. Started with lime green clamshell (of course!).
Shucks Alex - I hardly know where to look, you old flatterer you!
Must away to bed!
(Kei te haere au ki taku moenga!)
As regards Robert Guyton's comment on Act, I'm tempted to respond "You may very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment" ;-)
However, while my description of NZF may apply to some in Act, I don't think it's a brush with which the entire party can be painted.
I would cheer happily if David Garrett signed a pledge never to utter another word publicly, and every word he does utter, I disagree with. But I can't say he doesn't have principles, even if I find them abhorrent.
On the other side of the equation I've known other Act MPs personally - Ken Shirley and Owen Jennings, for instance - and know that they not only have principles, but even a few with which I agree.
To compare them to, say, Deborah Morris of Robyn McDonald or Ron Mark... no, not fair at all.
@ Rex - comparing ANYBODY with Ron Mark is unfair!
Ron Mark is incomparable?
He is Robert; incomparably nasty, especially where Rex W is concerned - check this out:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/09/rex-widerstrom-exonerated.html
Robert: "As to the points you make - I didn't make any comment about either Key or Clark but clearly you could detect some connection or other."
You are being particularly evasive, so let me explain it to you again. You tried to link ACT with Rex's comment about disproportionate power exercised by a minor party. My response reminded you of how Key had rejected Roger Douglas as a candidate for his first Cabinet, whereas Clark had made Winston Peters her Foreign Minister. The difference was one of principles v. lust for power at all costs.
But I think that you already knew all that.
Siena - you're still well wide of the mark but your monologue will be of interest to someone.
Probably.
Linky eh!
Feeling the heat from the realisation that Peters still has some influence, as shown by the HOS editorial. 'Utter heartless wanker' 'Full-length mirror' 'Venal as everyone else' 'David Garrett' My oh my. Where there's smoke there's fire is an interesting saying. The vitriol of the conservative right is to the fore. I feel sicker than I did when I saw our PM on the catwalk.
Anon - has anyone dubbed him 'The Prime Mincer' yet?
Rex!
http://robertguyton.blogspot.com/2011/02/quick-hide-arthropods.html
Robert,
When you realise that the Greens will throw out their principles in order to get in to government dont come crying to us.
we have tried to remind you that at the end of the day ALL politicians are exactly that POLITICIANS.
When you seemingly dillusional view of the Greens in brought in to reality don't be surprise if you hear a lot of people say, "We told you so"
the fact of the matter is that if the greens are the only thing that stands in the way of a left wing government then they will throw principle out the door, shack up with Goff and Peters and show they are just as desperate for power as the rest.
Anonymous @ 10.05
What a preposterous comment!
You are so far from understanding the Green MPs and their party I can hardly believe you've given them a moments real thought.
Your deep disgust at the other politicians 'at the trough' as Inv2 describes them, is understandable, but transfering that revulsion to the Greens is your mistake.
You have been hanging around with the wrong people, friend, and have lost your faith in other humans. My friends and associates have integrity and can be trusted.
There'll be no crying from me!
That's what Peters' supporters thought in 2005 when he said that NZ First wasn't interested in the "baubles of office"; how wrong THEY were.
WOW Robert
You are truly dillusional.
YOur world is going to be shattered.
Better make an appointment with a grief counsellor now in advance for when your make believe world comes crashing down.
Robert,
What happened to the principles of your beloved Greens when they voted for the gerry empowerment bill?
They voted for it. even though they were against it.
What happened to principles then?
If they had any real conviction they would have voted against it despite any public backlash.
That is what REAL principles require.
Something that you will see one day they will compromise at any cost to get some other things they want....including power.
@Anon. You've sullied my name.
@Robert, you contribute a sensible alternative here. There is a potent vacuum of difference filled only by the speech of frustrated conformity by the 'followers' of this train(wreck) of thought.
The right wing is truly flappable, and its flapping wildly.
Inv2, Robert Guyton is a troll. Thwe first rule of the blogosphere is don't feed the trolls. They thrive on it like oxygen.
INV2 showmethetaxcut is a troll. Thwe first rule of the blogosphere is don't feed the trolls. They thrive on it like oxygen.
Oh Dear
robert has gone very quiet hasn't he.
I think i heard his world shattering when he relised that the greens had compromised there principles by voting for the gerry empowerment bill for political survival rather than sticking to their convictions.
Anonymous(on the Right)
I've not gone quiet - I was outside in the sunshine, showing the two French cyclists the wonders of my food-forest permaculture garden in which they are going to spend the next week working. We marveled at the fruitfulness of the apple trees in particular - it's been a spectacular season for fruit - our primary challenge being the blackbirds that seem determined to harvest before we can!
Now, to address your sorry challenge.
I'm well aware of the conflict that the Green MP's decision to vote for the 'gerry empowerment bill' and was part of the discussions on Frogblog around that. You would enjoy the details of that discussion and I suggest you take a look. I regard that action as a learning experience for the 'new' leaders of the Greens and the reaction from rank and file greens will have been instructive for them. I don't however, equate that decision with the possibility you are so happy to suggest - a loss of integrity at coalition-forming time. I can see you wish it to be the case, but your wishes interest me not at all.
Inv2 - your attempt to align the supporters of Winston Peters to those of the Greens is laughable - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - there!
showmethe taxetc... if your claim is correct, then it's way too late! I'm already gulping massive lung'sfull of oxygen and I'm buzzing. Thanks for your contribution!
Inv2 - do you regard me as a troll?
Say yes and I'll depart forever.
Mince your words and I'll likewise flee.
Gainsay anonymous and gimmeegimmeethetaxcut and I'll stay!
Hooray!
Do I regard you as a troll Robert? No; even though some of your posts exasperate me! But it's good to have diversity of opinion here and I respect that your opinions, though different to mine are sincerely held.
As an aside, I did find it a trifle ironic that you said earlier on in this thread "you are demanding answers in fields I've not touched upon" when you're quite adept at doing that yourself ...
You'll also note that I praised the Greens for voting to censure Peters in 2008, when Labour instead supported him. I still hold the belief that this was related to NZF's very lukewarm support of, but more importantly their vital votes for Labour's ETS. If that is the case, Labour and NZF deserve one another.
"Labour and NZF deserve one another."
Agreed Inv2. I wonder what the National Party would do if faced with Peters holding the balance of power with regard who would govern.
I believe they would welcome him aboard in the twinkling of his eye!
Not in a million years would the National Party turn down the chance to govern because of Winstons demands.
I reckon you know this too.
'Arrangements' would be made, concessions offered to Peters - anything for National to be in power. Theyu'd be fools not to. Their 'people' would not allow Key's bravado to force them to concede to Labour.
Tell me I'm wrong!
What part of "If Winston Peters holds the balance of power it will be a Phil Goff-led government." is ambiguous Robert?
I'll take that as a no, the National Party will not govern if Winston Peters holds the balance of power then Inv2.
Key has said many things that his caucus hasn't agreed to.
We sea shell.
Which of course means that Key would rather the country was turned over to the labour party, which he has derided endlessly and blamed for every ill imaginable, and to Winston Peters, likewise.
What sort of man is willing to condem the whole country to that appalling fate, just because he won't work with a person who has after all, led a popular political party and held responsible roles in Government, like Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I think your ideology is blinding you Inv2.
Again, Key's willing to abandon the country to all those things you despise, doubtless complete collapse and ruin, just because he can't bring himself to work with the leader of NZFirst.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!
So answer me this one Robert; would the Greens breathe deeply, hold their noses, and give Labour confidence and supply if Winston Peters was in any form of coalition or C&S with Labour?
And don't forget Peters' track record before you laud him too much Robert; thrice a Cabinet Minister, and not once has he still been a Minister at the end of three years.
Checkmate INV2. Robert is adept at seeing the opposite side of your counterfeit coin. Key will work with Hide and Garrett when it suits, and not with Winston when it suits. Unfortunately he does what suits him, not the country as a whole. If Peters sneaks in, Key will abandoned ship. A massive gamble. Key is of course a wonderful gambler, but to be honest I'd rather have someone without the characteristics of a shortsighted gambler making social and economic policy.
Inv2 - you think I laud Peters?
Lordy no!
He's one of my least favourite characters, having done the Greens a great deal of harm for a long time now.
I sense hypocrisy in the wind and it has a blue odour to it.
At least we can find agreement on one thing Robert; Winston Peters is one of MY least-favourite characters as well!
Robert says:
"i regard that action as a learning experience for the 'new' leaders of the Greens and the reaction from rank and file greens will have been instructive for them. I don't however, equate that decision with the possibility you are so happy to suggest - a loss of integrity at coalition-forming time."
Robert,
It shows how dillusional you are that you can simply wipe away the Greens lack of principle and integreity for simple avoidance of voter backlash as nothing more than a "learning experience".
You rant about others blindly following their prescribe ideology and parties and yet you are totally blind to the greens selling out on their principles and values over the gerry impowerment bill.
Bring on a new left-wing party. The greens are moving away from their roots to try and fit in with others rather than standing strong to their supposed convictions. All parties do it. When you finally stop dreaming and realise that they are just the same as the rest you might actually have something worth reading Robert.
Wake up robert, this is not the matrix! The greens are as corrupt as the others they just have a better way of trying to hide it from suckers like you.
Robert: You've made a remarkable 19 contributions to this thread. Remarkable in number, that is.
You doubt Key's determination not to work with Peters. Why? Key promised that also before the 2008 election, and there's no evidence at all that he would have reneged on the promise if the renegade Peters had been elected.
You can't come to grips, can you, with the possibility that Key has principles of the type with which you are unfamiliar in other politicians you have experienced. All his comments in 2008 and recently point to Key regarding Peters as duplicitous, unreliable, divisive and unworthy of ministerial office. His 2008 decision on Peters and especially his 2011 decision both have the appearance of being based on principle. I applaud that, whereas you wait cynically for Key to break his word.
What would be so wrong with Key departing politics if Peters did hold the balance of power after the 2011 election? Key has said to NZ: "Vote for a government led by me that I can assure you won't contain a Peters-led NZ First. If you vote for an alternative government that contains Peters, that's your decision but I won't be around to watch the predictable consequences."
Key has set out his stall in a principled way, and well in advance of the election. Why can't you just let the voters decide their position on his proposition, before you mouth off about Key simply "not being able to work with" Peters, as though it's all about a simple personality difference between two individuals.
It's not. It's about Key having principles, however strange that may seem in your muddled thinking.
I just love it how you refer to Key being "willing to condemn the whole country to that appalling fate .." (i.e. a Labour-led government containing Peters and presumably your own Greens lot) while you champion the Green Party. Says a lot, that does.
That's all from this quarter. You have finally exhausted me with your labyrinthine reasoning!
Siena, you are a first class nincompoop.
Post a Comment