Key / Peters 2014

Written By: - Date published: 9:21 am, September 27th, 2012 - 50 comments
Categories: election 2014, Ethics, john key, winston peters - Tags: , ,

A couple of days ago Duncan Garner did a bit of stirring. Noting the obvious, that the Nats are in trouble for the 2014 election and their obvious coalition partners are dog tucker, Garner speculated on the prospect of a Key / Peters coalition.

Key is refusing to rule out a deal with Peters in 2014. After quoting back some of the many negative and pretentious comments that Key has made about Peters over the years, Garner asked:

“But surely Key is too principled for that. Surely he won’t trade his past principles in the pursuit of power?”.

Ha hah. Yeah Duncan has his tongue firmly in his cheek. The Banks scandal has wiped out any last pretension Key ever had to “principles”. Kim Dotcom has him pegged:

“It’s a very fragile majority, the balance of power is threatened by the John Banks affair so I think the prime minister has had to make a choice: am I going to uphold high ethical standards or do I want to remain in power?”

Key and the Nats will choose “remain in power” every time. As Bill English said: “despite the highly principled statements … winning is everything my man”.

The Nats are perfectly predictable. But I wondered how Peters might react. Question answered:

Peters welcomes National coalition

Winston Peters has welcomed moves from Prime Minister John Key about working together after the 2014 election.

It would almost be worth it to watch Peters extract his price on the govelling Nats. Almost – but not quite. Labour / Greens need to get so far ahead that the nightmare Nat / NZF coalition isn’t possible. Otherwise it’s Deputy PM Peters anyone?

50 comments on “Key / Peters 2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    27 September 2012 at 9:42 am

    Thanks for this r0b. The left needs to stop relying on the idea that NZF would support a L/G government. Not only has Peters repeatedly shown himself to be unreliable in terms of being honest about who he will go into govt with, he has also in the past made it clear he will not go into govt with the Greens. Should we really be waiting until after the next election to find out if that is still true? Does the left think a L/G/NZF govt is even viable?

     
    “Labour / Greens need to get so far ahead that the nightmare Nat / NZF coalition isn’t possible”

    This is what we need to be focussing on. Now. Every poll that comes out should be looked at in terms of seats and coalition partners, not just percentages of the vote. 

    • Jokerman 1.1
      27 September 2012 at 9:11 pm

      Let Us Not Forget; Mr peters record on the “yellow peril” He is not very welcoming to our South East Asian Neighbours, regretably. (which looking at the colour of his complexion, is a little ironic)

  2. higherstandard 2
    27 September 2012 at 9:48 am

    It is far more likely that there will be cast of fools from Green/Lab/Winstonfirst/Mana/Maori government led by Norman than a cast of fools forming a Nat/Winston first government.

    What ever happens after the election you can be sure of two things

    1. All and sundry will sell and promise whatever they need to in order to get control of the treasury benches
    2. Sweet FA will change for Joe and Josephine public while the politicians and their associated hangers on continue to prove themselves to be contemptible turds.

    • Dr Terry 2.1
      27 September 2012 at 9:57 am

      Make no mistake, duplicity is the trade of many politicians.

    • King Kong 2.2
      27 September 2012 at 9:59 am

      How dare you be so cynical. I have been led to believe that a Cunliffe led Labour government could cure cancer.

      [lprent: We can only wish. But what would we do without you? :twisted:]

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1
        27 September 2012 at 10:05 am

        Oh, that’s just your gullibility.

        • King Kong 2.2.1.1
          27 September 2012 at 10:12 am

          I guess we will never know CV as you must be quite close to having made the finishing touches to your army of revolution which will shoot all the rich and provide decades of magnificant egalitarian rule.

          • millsy 2.2.1.1.1
            27 September 2012 at 10:16 am

            Yeah well, the poor are having to live in trailer parks because the rich begrudge paying more taxes, so perhaps they should be shot.

          • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.2
            27 September 2012 at 10:19 am

            Shoot the rich or starve the poor. Great political economic options you give us King Kong.

            • King Kong 2.2.1.1.2.1
              27 September 2012 at 10:26 am

              Unfortunately your plan involves shooting the rich then as a consequence, starving everyone.

              • Tiger Mountain …
                27 September 2012 at 10:42 am

                The Wolfie Smith (Tooting Popular Front) approach “up against the wall mate, bop! bop! bop!” offers only swift gratification, far more satisfying to put the rich in tiny apartments with busted washing machines and no vehicle on a relevant benefit income with a teen payment card for expenditure.

                • King Kong …
                  27 September 2012 at 11:26 am

                  Problem with that is they wouldn’t be there long as they are not moaning, lazy, drug adled morons and would do something about improving their lot.

                  • Shona …
                    27 September 2012 at 12:39 pm

                    every rich person I have known has had a substance abuse/addiction problem. More than half of them were allergic to work few of them had marketable skills and as for IQ money has yet to equate with intellect in my experience.
                    Oh and I know far too many of these Tory twats due to my old age.

  3. millsy 3
    27 September 2012 at 9:59 am

    Its very easy to say that NZ First will never go with National, but I thought that before I sat in the living room and watch him give that speech that seemed to go for ages before finally declaring that he would go with National back in 96. I hope Labour learnt learnt from that year, and not rely too much on WF….

    And another thing. Peters has this thing about being all radical in opposition, but becoming all establishment in government. He showed that during his tenure as Treasurer. He was the one who deregulated ACC, removed the last of the car tariffs, sold off CEL and AIA (think about that before you oppose asset sales, mate), started to kill off the producer boards, and so on and so forth.

  4. Matthew Hooton 4
    27 September 2012 at 10:44 am

    I don’t like to break this to you, but the likelihood of a Key/Peters axis is old news: see http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/review-report-hands-key-third-term-ck-125700

    • tc 4.1
      27 September 2012 at 10:47 am

      But you do like it matthew, and shouting down people rather than let them have their say on radio, you seem to like that to.

    • Te Reo Putake 4.2
      27 September 2012 at 11:00 am

      Funnily enough, not many Standard readers have NBR subscriptions, so your prescient article may have passed us all by. But thanks for the link, the honest analysis of Key’s dwindling chances in the article has made my day.
       

      • lprent 4.2.1
        27 September 2012 at 11:35 am

        …not many Standard readers have NBR subscriptions…

        I used to have one for nearly 15 years. But they got too damn boring to read over time. There are only so many times you can hear the same doctrinaire messages without a reference to and at least a cursory (albeit derisive) look at the alternatives. It got so bad that it just read like an Act manifesto for our local plunderers.

        Dropped them at the end of the 90’s. Spend the subscription on something that was a bit more rational. But I guess I’m not your average reader of the Standard 😈

        • Te Reo Putake 4.2.1.1
          27 September 2012 at 12:39 pm

          I gave up on the NBR a few years when they defamed me. But it was fun getting the editor to go into grovelling retraction mode!

    • gobsmacked 4.3
      27 September 2012 at 11:37 am

      Key/Peters has been an option for 2014 since about 11 pm on election night, 2011. You don’t need to be some Machiavellian maestro, some self-important “pundit”. You just need a memory and a calculator.

      Are there still people who believe in the empty phrase “rule out”? Have they forgotten Peters and Bolger in 1996? Or Peters’ phone pantomime in 2005? It’s a “dinnamic envirmnt”, and everything is null and void from the moment the polls close and the votes are counted.

      Labour / Greens need to get so far ahead that the nightmare Nat / NZF coalition isn’t possible.

      This basic truth should be tattoed on every Labour MP’s forehead. They don’t have to “rule out” NZ First (meaninglessly), they just have to work their butts off making them irrelevant.

      • Matthew Hooton 4.3.1
        27 September 2012 at 11:40 am

        Exactly right. Key wants a third term. He can’t get one with Act/UF/MP. Therefore he needs Peters. Peters wants to be deputy PM or something similar. Labour can’t offer that because of the Greens. QED

        • Te Reo Putake 4.3.1.1
          27 September 2012 at 12:37 pm

          ” Labour can’t offer that because of the Greens.”
           
          Not so. I don’t think the Greens will seek the deputy leadership because it would elevate one of the co-leaders above the other in the pecking order. The door will remain open for Winston to ask for that job, even if Labour would prefer to have him somewhere further down the chain.

          • gobsmacked 4.3.1.1.1
            27 September 2012 at 12:59 pm

            In fact, the “hydra-headed monster” (Key’s words) is more likely to be National-led than Labour. The best chance of a simple two-party deal is Green/Labour. It’s Key who wants Banks and Dunne and Turia and Sharples and Peters and Craig and whoever else.

            The “commentators” (and Right spinners) have got it arse-about-face, but that’s because Labour are letting them. Labour should simply announce that they want a Lab/Grn government – to take the initiative. If they don’t, then they (especially Shearer) constantly sound confused and defensive. Sure, they’ll take any party’s support – anybody would – but they don’t have to make it look that way.

            “I intend to form a Labour/Green government.” Say it loud and clear and throw down the gauntlet.

        • mike e 4.3.1.2
          27 September 2012 at 10:48 pm

          Mad Hatter The greens won’t form a coalition with labour instead they will just vote with labour on confidence and supply! Then sort out what Policy they have in common then push for concessions on green policy!
          Being in coalition with any govt is the death nail for any party look at your Act party!

      • fatty 4.3.2
        27 September 2012 at 11:41 am

        “This basic truth should be tattoed on every Labour MP’s forehead. They don’t have to “rule out” NZ First (meaninglessly), they just have to work their butts off making them irrelevant.”

        You are right gobsmacked…I would also add that Shearer will probably lose about 10 points in the pre-election debates. So the Lab/greens etc need a substantial lead, and they need to do it soon.
        A change in Labour leadership would mean that a 10 point cushion would not be required, because any other possible leader would be fine in a pre-election debate.

        • gobsmacked 4.3.2.1
          27 September 2012 at 12:04 pm

          Shearer will probably lose about 10 points in the pre-election debates.

          Tough but fair. Many people aren’t immersed in daily politics and will only pay attention during the full-on “presidential” campaign. Shearer is nowhere near ready for that.

    • David H 4.4
      27 September 2012 at 8:59 pm

      And the comments are so for this.

      #4 by NeillR 1 month ago in reply to John Morrison

      Agreed. In fact, i would rather vote Greens than for National if they are going to do deals with Peters and/or Craig.

      They too appreciate comedy too.

    • mike e 4.5
      27 September 2012 at 10:39 pm

      How many rats can Key swallow!
      Given Craig and Peters both are against asset sales!
      Craig is a Gaffe prone idiot!
      How many times has National stabbed Peters in the back!
      Who said the Maori party was going with National !

  5. ak 5
    27 September 2012 at 10:50 am

    “Now he’s been found out because he has no more friends,” says Mr Peters.

    “He lied about me. He simply lied about me.”

    “It just shows you how flexible his so-called standards are,” says Mr Peters

    Hmmmm…..called him a liar with no standards.

    Yes, he’s welcoming the free (and forced) respect and kudos given by this desperate Natz gambit – like the supremely canny populist he’s always been – but they nearly killed him. Literally.

    Winnie doesn’t forget little things like that; and if he’s giving the nat chooks the odd little scrap of encouragement, be assured it’s with a steely eye and a very sharp knife whetted for 2014.

    • Jim Nald 5.1
      27 September 2012 at 12:44 pm

      Dear darling Winston must be running out of all available political kama sutra positions with various members in the House? By now, he ought to deserve a big clap.

  6. OneTrack 6
    27 September 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Yes it’s so shocking that Key should even consider going into a coalition with someone like Winston Peters.

    By the way, what position will Peters have in the ardently hoped for 2014 coalition of NZF, Mana, UF, Green and Labour?

  7. jack 7
    27 September 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Winston isn’t going with National. Duncan Gardner is shit stiring and of course trying to loose NZ first votes. Most who voted for Winston detest National. Winston just said on his Q&A web site that he wold not support any party but go by bill by bill basis. He said this in 2011 and so far has stuck by it.

  8. karol 8
    27 September 2012 at 4:30 pm

    I could see Winston going with a Key government if the numbers fall that way.

    But Peters certainly laid into Key and his cavalier approach to government and GCSB oversight in the Urgent Debate today.

    Peters described Key as a typical Merrill Lynch “wideboy”, all flash and little substance; liking the high profile of a PM, but taking little responsibility; mincing on the catwalk, 3-way handshakes; flying off to Hawaii or down the road for coffee surrounded by a big contingent of minders.

    Lacking the oversight required by his office that others have done well before him: Hollyoak, Muldoon, Kirk, Clark etc. All so much better at taking responsibility than Key.

    And Peters said, come the next election, it’ll be “Good nigh, nurse” for Key.

    But, I agree, in the end, for Peters, it’ll all depend how the numbers fall at election time.

    • ianmac 8.1
      27 September 2012 at 4:55 pm

      I wish Mr Peters had come out and said clearly what he thinks during the Urgent Debate. Pretty wishywashy eh? (Kidding.) Grant Robertson was pretty explicit on those items of Key ignorance which trouble many of us.

      Just heard part of Farrar on the Moira show explaining why it is of no matter and just a simple misunderstanding, and there is no need to look closer. I think that that was what he was saying. Anyway wasn’t it great that he happened to be on the Panel on this day. Fortuitous.

      • karol 8.1.1
        27 September 2012 at 4:58 pm

        Ah, yes. I think Chauvel said in the urgent debate that the government held on to the report while it prepared the way it spun the story, and lined up its tame bloggers. Well done RNZ – channeling the government’s blog meisters.

  9. karol 9
    27 September 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Just looking at NZ First’s website. I have always thought of this party as old style conservative – right wing. But looking at their statement of what they stand for….. how is it different from a centre left party?

    http://nzfirst.org.nz/what-we-stand-for

    New Zealand First was set up to arrest the social and economic decline of this country and to restore its status as a land of fairness and opportunity. We believe in the dignity of work and adequate reward for labour. The basic needs of adequate food, shelter, healthcare and education must be met. The state must also protect its citizens and ensure their wellbeing is not threatened by reckless trade and defence alliances. We believe society should protect those most vulnerable. New Zealand First wants to attack the appalling level of poverty and the lack of fairness in economic and social policies. As a country we have to use our resources and our ingenuity to earn more

    Though, it may all be in the interpretation of social decline , which I imagine comes from a socially conservative position.

    And comparing this with National’s “vision and values”, which seems to have an Orwellian gloss to me:

    http://www.national.org.nz/About/vision.aspx

    National’s Vision For New Zealand

    The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.

    We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values:

    • Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as Head of State
    • National and personal security
    • Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
    • Individual freedom and choice
    • Personal responsibility
    • Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
    • Limited government
    • Strong families and caring communities
    • Sustainable development of our environment

    Well I know what they mean by “personal responsibility” and “individual freedom and choice” competition and rewards.

    For a lot of the rest my response is

    yeah, right

    Limited government for them: Nanny Paula state for us.

    National security, caring communities, democracy, sustainable development 🙄

  10. xtasy 10
    27 September 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Come on, get back to your senses, please, this is idiotic.

    Peters most strongly resents Key, he hates him! As long as Key is leading National, he will never work with that lot. Key and English were instrumental in dismantling Peters, when questions arose about his donations by Owen Glenn, when Peters was still supporting the previous, last Labour government.

    Winston will NEVER work with Key, but to be fair, he may consider to talk to and perhaps to some degree work with another National leader. Yet I cannot see Peters get on with English, Joyce or any other male Natiaonal leader of the closer ranks. He may though feel to be able to work with a Nat Party led by Collins, if she would ever manage to take over the lead.

    That is all so hypothetical stuff, by the time this may be considered, there will be another election, which will shake up the landscape considerably. Expect a new right wing party replacing ACT. This may well be the Conservatives. Expect that Labour gains a few more votes again, and Greens also will maintain their strenght, maybe even gain votes.

    Maori Party, certainly UF, ACT, will have to worry being in there again.

    Hone will sadly not gain, due to particular issues I rather not disclose.

    What NZ needs is a new, left of centre party, that adheres to progressive, social, yet economically sensible, fair, education focussed, neutral and cross culture policies. Labour is no longer “left”, the Greens are “socially responsible”, but not really “left”, and Mana on its own lacks resources and personnel to get more foothold.

    If the Alliance had not stuffed up years ago, things may look better. But I suggest a new start, for a true worker, socially deprived and social justice focused party, which at the same time is prepared to offer sensible educational, training and employment approaches, which will mean procreative-economic planning that NZ could well do with.

    • David H 10.1
      27 September 2012 at 9:04 pm

      And the other thing is Winston is getting on in years, So who leads the party when he’s gone? The same with Craig’s mob its all one man bands, with helpers and when the name is gone…..

  11. Fortran 11
    28 September 2012 at 11:03 am

    Garner is only shit stirring – Peters will sell himslf to anybody.

  12. burt 12
    30 September 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Refusing to rule out a deal with Peters; he’s obviously extremely desperate for the levers of power. Who could possibly vote for a political party that isn’t refusing to do a deal with peters….. Dooh.