Government NACTered

Written By: - Date published: 2:11 pm, August 19th, 2010 - 35 comments
Categories: Satire - Tags:

Kingmaker Winston Peters today dashed the second term chances of the troubled NACT government:

Asked if he would consider joining a National-ACT coalition if his party got enough votes next year [Winston Peters] said; “That’s not going to be a possibility at the next election.”

Having earlier expressed his willingness to work with Peters, this latest development comes as a stinging rebuke to beleaguered PM John Key. Tarnished by multiple scandals and desperately clinging to power as the coalition implodes around him, clueless Key seemed unable to comment on anything at all. National spokesblogger DPF was reduced to pathetically chastising the media for sharing his infatuation with the rising Peters star.

Political commentator Q Werty describes this as a gutsy move by the principled Peters. “Should the Key regime manage to steal an election win, Peters has ruled himself out of government. That’s a risky move, but likely to pay off with the electorate big time. These days no one wants to be associated with the incompetent Key regime and perk-Luster Rodney Hide”.

35 comments on “Government NACTered ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. marsman 1
    19 August 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Rob,I don’t think that Peters has categorically ruled out going with National though,unfortunately.
    I believe he qualified the above quote with the statement that ACT will be defunct. Here’s hoping though that he has ruled out Clueless altogether. But he needs to also change his attitude to the Green Party and all play nicely with Labour then we can start cleaning up the mess these clowns have created already in just two short years.

    • Outofbed 1.1
      19 August 2010 at 5:01 pm

      The Greens won’t want to be in any coalition that involves Peters
      Interesting times

  2. comedy 2
    19 August 2010 at 2:37 pm

    I think the post might be quite prophetic but you’d need to change “second term chances” to “third term chances” and replace Key with some other twat he’ll potter off half way through his second term.

  3. mickysavage 3
    19 August 2010 at 2:41 pm

    I wonder if the Government is thinking of a snap election?

    ACT does appear to be nackered, the gap in the polls is starting to close, and it is likely the economy will again go into recession.

    Perfect time for John to jump. Then he will be closer to the day that he can tick off his new CV …

    • blacksand 3.1
      20 August 2010 at 4:35 pm

      also the sooner they’re no longer in their first term either; if Rodney did hold on to Epsom then there’s a whole lot of policies no longer off the table for National. Also hasn’t been very long for the impacts of the changes they have made to really sink in; sooner the better as far as the right’s aspirations are concerned. I think John Key’s in it for more than a single term, for one thing once they’re into the second term he can make it up to all the people he really cares about without the shackles of ‘not in the first term’. They’ve been so terribly upset with him that National haven’t been doing all the stuff that they had to say they wouldn’t do…

      just like Muldoon said, just a (faux) jump to the left… and a step to the right!

      Not that I actually think a snap election’s in the offing, just a thought. This is more of the usual for Act, and I don’t think they’re under much threat so long as they are a reservoir for the nutcase policies that core National supporters would quite like to see implimented! As long as the Act caucus can agree on that sort of thing, all the stuff that looks like them flying apart is piffle.

      Sorta like how many NZ First core voters really care if Winston Peters is a populist hypocrite?

  4. just saying 4
    19 August 2010 at 2:43 pm

    You do remember a previous occasion when Peters ruled out working with National?

    Though Peters denied it repeatedly after he actually chose to join a coalition National government.

    • blacksand 4.1
      20 August 2010 at 4:38 pm

      gonna do a Winston here; you’re completely misrepresenting what he said; all that he said was that he wouldn’t have anything to do with a government that included Bolger, Birch and Shipley.

      and of course he eventually made good on this by taking half of his party out of the deal…

  5. the pinkpostman 5
    19 August 2010 at 3:06 pm

    I am never happy accomodating NZF. Over the years they have made some very racist comments. On the hustlings many of their members have made personal racist statements.
    I have no doubt Peters will make some sort of come back but we don’t have to join him.
    If we are to have a real decent Social Democratic Government then we will have to have a real working relationship with the Greens.
    We will have to have a binding agreement on election strategy including seat preference. A truly co-operative arrangement would win us not only the election but a truly democratic Socialist Government.

    • mcflock 5.1
      19 August 2010 at 4:11 pm

      When you say “we” do you mean “Labour”?

      The biggest barrier to Labour being part of a truly social democratic government is Phil Goff.

  6. Bill 6
    19 August 2010 at 4:08 pm

    I’m with ‘marsman’ and ‘just saying’ on the ruling out/ not ruling out front.

    The words “That’s not going to be a possibility at the next election.’ will be looked back on and explained away as a bad election prediction should the situation arise where Peter’s is kingmaker in a hung parliament.

  7. tc 7
    19 August 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Peters is like a moth attracted to the light, that light being POWER so I wouldn’t rule out him forming an alliance with Bozo the wonder dog if it got him some position to rule us common folk from.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      19 August 2010 at 5:07 pm

      Haha

      Capcha: Front!!

    • bbfloyd 7.2
      19 August 2010 at 5:25 pm

      except that bozo has ruled out working with him..

    • Bob Stanforth 7.3
      19 August 2010 at 6:57 pm

      What that man said: WP would form an alliance with a week old dog turd if it gained him power, and whilst all the time decrying the baubles of office, be out shopping for them. The sort of guy who shakes your hand, check to see if youve got your watch…

  8. tea 8
    19 August 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Laughing in the aisles…

    C’mon really? Do you all have such short memories? Before 1996 (I think??) he repeatedly said he’d never work with National and then went with them.

    Plus what’s he actually said? Won’t be in a coalition with National and Act? So he’d have a confidence and supply arrangement? Or a party outside government? Or if Act only had a confidence and supply arrangement, he’d be in the government?

    You can’t be seriously basing the title of this post on what he’s said. Peters is all about anti- government grumbling. That’s what he picks up. Have to wait to see post-election to see what he’s all about!

  9. r0b 9
    19 August 2010 at 5:56 pm

    It scares me that people are taking this post seriously. Apparently I’m the worst satire writer ever!

    • tea 9.1
      19 August 2010 at 7:16 pm

      oops. now i see the satire tag. errrrrmmmmmm…..getting my coat

    • felix 9.2
      19 August 2010 at 7:23 pm

      I’m surprised too r0b, but take it as a compliment to your ability to write satire so good it’s almost indistinguishable from the real thing.

    • BLiP 9.3
      20 August 2010 at 12:42 am

      It scares me that people are taking this post seriously.

      . . . and they all have a vote!

  10. Alwyn 10
    19 August 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Actually R0B you have misinterpreted what Winston was saying. What he meant was that there was no possibility of NZF getting enough votes at the next election to get back into Parliament.
    I have to agree with you here though. Even labelling the post as SATIRE doesn’t appear to register.
    Please don’t stop though. I at least find it funny.

  11. burt 11
    19 August 2010 at 11:18 pm

    Good on ya rOb, keep reminding us that NZ1 might be Labour’s only ticket back and I’m picking you’ll back them all the way for being pragmatic and taking the levers. Goff’s stance was pretty impressive and principled wasn’t it. Some sort of wishy washy Labour has worked with NZ1 before…

    You do however have a bloody good point that having previously ruled Peters out it’s farcical that Key seems to be even considering it. I hope he’s just daring Peters to stand so he can humiliate him by leaving him with Labour as his only choice if he gets over 5% or god forbid wins a seat.

    The flip side of that well made point however is that you keep reminding us about that time when Key ruled him out so we can’t forget how smashingly well NZ1 worked with Labour last time.

    What stance would you prefer Goff took rOb?

    • felix 11.1
      20 August 2010 at 12:35 am

      What do you mean “considering” it?

      You didn’t seriously believe all that shit from Key before the election did you burt? You surely realize that if the numbers necessitated it, Key would be in govt with Peters right now. Don’t you?

      You do remember Peters being in govt with National before, don’t you burt? What on earth makes you think it was ever ruled out from happening again?

      And what’s so awful about the idea anyway? What’s Peters done that upsets you so?

      • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1
        20 August 2010 at 5:31 am

        “What’s Peters done that upsets you so?”

        Backed Labour, who is backed by teh dreaded Unions, who ruined a holiday for burt once, when he was just a wee burt.

        • comedy 11.1.1.1
          20 August 2010 at 7:36 am

          I believe the thing that most outrages Burt is Winston’s welcoming stance to immigrants, although it might be some of the other misdemeanours listed here

      • burt 11.1.2
        20 August 2010 at 11:41 pm

        felix

        I don’t really doubt that if push came to shove that Key would take Winston on board to get the numbers. But in the spirit of defending Winston I need to assume that I can take the honourable member on his word. If he says no he means no… although Key’s currently saying maybe and I thought I made it clear that I think it’s a ridiculous position given the previous stance.

        Where do you stand, do you even take a stand?

        What’s Peters done… An ethical/legal hypothetical; If it was proven that I filed incorrect tax returns but the law prohibited me being prosecuted because sufficient time had passed – am I guilty of tax fraud?

        • felix 11.1.2.1
          21 August 2010 at 1:36 am

          I don’t think I have a “stand” on Peters. I wouldn’t vote for him – is that a stand?

          I wouldn’t vote for Key or Hide either for much the same reasons. Is that a stand too?

        • Maynard J 11.1.2.2
          21 August 2010 at 2:46 am

          “If it was proven that I filed incorrect tax returns but the law prohibited me being prosecuted because sufficient time had passed am I guilty of tax fraud?”

          How could it be ‘proven’ without prosecution? Prosecution is required to ‘prove’ anything; that being the very objective therein.

          That you consider that example a legal hypothetical is a beautiful illustration of the whole Peters scenario from the Right’s POV, isn’t it? ‘Guilty as not charged’ sums it up.

          Sure, hypothetically, you could be considered guilty ethically, by an individual who is determined that their understanding of events is fully and wholly correct, but to say proven is akin to a lynch mob. Funny that.

          • burt 11.1.2.2.1
            21 August 2010 at 2:08 pm

            Maynard J

            You may recall that the privileges committee use to be called the highest court in the land until it found against a member of the Labour-led govt. Keep up the Helen Clark defense, he wasn’t charged so he’s done nothing wrong.

            • felix 11.1.2.2.1.1
              21 August 2010 at 2:17 pm

              All right then fuck it. You go to jail for cheating on your taxes.

              If nothing needs to be proved then why not?

            • burt 11.1.2.2.1.2
              21 August 2010 at 6:40 pm

              It was proven felix, Peters had to re-file three years worth of party returns to include the Vela family and the Owen Glenn donations he accepted via the Spencer Trust and never declared. Sure he wasn’t charged but only because of the statute of limitations.

              • felix …
                21 August 2010 at 6:46 pm

                Funny, I thought he wasn’t charged because he re-filed the returns.

              • burt …
                21 August 2010 at 8:13 pm

                If he wasn’t charged then because he re-filed them then the legislation must say that the punishment for filing incorrect returns is to re-file them. Doooh.

                • felix …
                  21 August 2010 at 8:32 pm

                  It’s not a punishment burt. It’s not unusual to be asked to comply with the law.

                  I did see some idiot on the blogs claiming that the police won’t charge anyone connected with the Labour Party. Maybe that’s true and it applies to the NZ First Party as well.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.