Peters posturing

Written By: - Date published: 8:54 am, July 10th, 2017 - 95 comments
Categories: election 2017, nz first, racism, winston peters - Tags: , , ,

A minor blip on the electoral radar this weekend as Metiria Turei called out Peters’ “very racist approach to immigration”, and Peters responded with denials and warnings of “consequences”.

Before anyone gets too excited about this friction between possible coalition partners, do recall that in the last few weeks Winston Peters has laid a Parliamentary complaint against Bill English, and called on him to resign. In his turn English has called Peters “irresponsible” and “misleading”.

No one should read too much of anything into anything that Peters says or does. As usual he is posturing left and right in attempt to maximise the vote from those who don’t know or don’t care which party he supports in government. No one should count on Peters for anything.

95 comments on “Peters posturing ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Enough is Enough 1
    10 July 2017 at 9:02 am

    Well said r0b.

    Not only shoud no one count on Peters for anything, we should be aiming towards not needing to work with him.

    Metiria was100% correct. His racist approach to immigration is abhorent. He should be called out on this at every opportunity so that people know a left government will not tolerate it.

    We need a Green/Labour Government. Anything less will not deliver the changes we need.

    • tc 1.1
      10 July 2017 at 9:29 am

      Yes however whats the chances of that when both parties aren’t laying on the easy hits nact have offered in health, education, housing, water quality etc right now.

      Shonkys power flog offs are a classic example of their bs being able to be exposed against the pain households feel with increased bills now and right up to the GE.

      Winnies taking up the space lab/greens should be owning at their peril.

    • Penny Bright 1.2
      10 July 2017 at 7:44 pm

      In the interests of fair play and ‘seeking truth from FACTS’ here is NZ First’s STATED POLICY on immigration:

      http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/immigration

      New Zealand First is committed to a rigorous and strictly applied immigration policy that serves New Zealand’s interests.

      Immigration should not be used as a source of cheap labour to undermine New Zealanders’ pay and conditions.

      There have been numerous instances of administrative failure to apply immigration rules and standards.

      New Zealand First will strengthen Immigration New Zealand to give it the capacity to apply immigration policy effectively.

      New Zealand First will:

      Make sure that Kiwi workers are at the front of the job queue.

      Ensure that immigration policy is based on New Zealand’s interests and the main focus is on meeting critical skills gaps.

      Ensure family reunion members are strictly controlled and capped and there is fairness across all nationalities.

      Ensure that there is effective labour market testing to ensure New Zealanders have first call on New Zealand jobs.

      Introduce a cap on the number of older immigrants because of the impact on health and other services.

      Make sure effective measures are put in place to stop the exploitation of migrant workers with respect to wages, safety and work conditions. In Christchurch and elsewhere there is evidence of exploitation of migrant workers.

      Develop strategies to encourage the regional dispersion of immigration to places other than Auckland. Auckland’s infrastructure is overloaded.

      Remove the ability to purchase a pre-paid English lesson voucher to bypass the minimum English entry requirements.
      _________________________

      Where EXACTLY is this NZ First policy on immigration ‘racist’?

      Serious question.

    • Labour_Voter 1.3
      10 July 2017 at 10:05 pm

      Enough is Enough – I hope you have seen today’s One news poll. Without Peters how can we form a Green/Labour Government? We are not even close to National’s 47%. Green+Labour is only 38%. We need Peters.

  2. garibaldi 2
    10 July 2017 at 9:07 am

    Winston the kingmaker. What a show pony. Best not to vote for him or his crazy team.
    More pertinent is Labour’s poll and what to do about it.

    • Gristle 2.1
      10 July 2017 at 9:49 am

      I am amazed that people allow Winston Peters not to say who NZF will support in Government, or even give a framework for the decision making process. What’s the point in voting for a “Kingmaker” if it becomes an arbitrary decision that he (or maybe a small group of people) make.

      Winston Peters keeps doing the dance of he seven veils: teasing his possible voters and parties with a miasma of uncertainty. And this lack of substance is what makes him attractive to the potential NZF voters, but damaging to democracy.

      • Enough is Enough 2.1.1
        10 July 2017 at 9:56 am

        I agree. I can’t work it out.

        If you want to change the government, you can’t vote NZ First as Winston is just a likely to go with the Nats.

        Equally from their side, if you want English to stay in charge, why would you vote for NZ First, when he may kick Bill out.

        I get MMP, but after the election it will either be Andrew or BIll who is PM. That is the choice. Ifyou vote Winston, he may chose the one which you don’t want

        • heman 2.1.1.1
          10 July 2017 at 10:08 am

          ZNF said if they are to go into coalition with any1 in Sept, they would be looking to repeal the RMA amendment bill that was passed this year. They said that is a bottom line.
          So while he will not pick a side now, based on this I can’t see him going with Nats. But anything can happen really. But given this and all else I can’t see hime going with nats. I can see greens going with nats more than NZF, but that is justa hunch I have!

          • Enough is Enough 2.1.1.1.1
            10 July 2017 at 10:15 am

            Can you guarantee that?

            • heman 2.1.1.1.1.1
              10 July 2017 at 10:31 am

              No, I can’t, as I tried to say. But if they went against that bottom line that they are on record saying then I would not like it. It’s not very trusting is it?

              But some might say that they would not be surprised if they did go against this bottom line given nzf track record. But I am not familliar enough with that record to comment. And am not sure if it could somehow still be repealled and go with the nats, maybe they could agree to change it in their term. I guess he may have an out of that bottom line, but I am just speculating. On the 1 hand I can’t see them going with nats, but then again its politics and nothing surprises me. Even the green labour MOU is only up till election day, all bets are off after that really.

              • Gristle …
                10 July 2017 at 10:53 am

                Winston Peters also gave another “Bottom Line” about not supporting Neo-Liberalism. Perhaps it would be useful if a list of these bottom lines are tallied and discussed. There are too many people who put opinions forward of what NZF are going to do who don’t provide any real analysis on how they get to those opinions.

                • heman …
                  10 July 2017 at 11:13 am

                  I put forward the bottom line nzf is on record saying. whether they stick to it or not only time will tell.

                  Ron Mark NZF
                  ”
                  I want to start by making it very, very clear to the House that New Zealand First is not going to go through this election talking about bottom lines, except for on this matter. We wish to make it very, very clear as a party that if any party in this House today debating this bill, and voting for it in particular, wishes to be in Government with us post—23 September, they will have to accept that we will repeal this bill. I am saying it again: New Zealand First is making it very, very clear that if this bill passes in this third reading, those parties that vote for it—if they wish to be in Government with New Zealand First post—September 2017—had better accept that this bill will be repealed.
                  ”
                  https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20170406_20170406

                  Not famillar with other bottom lines

                  • Enough is Enough …
                    10 July 2017 at 11:18 am

                    You can’t guarantee it. That’s the point.

                    If you vote ACT you are guaranteed that they won’t support Labour.
                    If you vote Green you are guaranteed that they won’t support National.

                    If you vote NZ First, flip a coin.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    10 July 2017 at 1:26 pm

                    Other bottom lines so far this election:

                    Re-entry into Pike River to recover bodies.
                    Retirement age to remain at 65
                    Rebuild of the Christchurch cathedral

                    Those are just the ones I’ve noticed – he tends to sprinkle them around wherever there are suckers with a single issue he can pitch to, so it’s hard to keep track.

                    One thing we can be sure of: if Peters does end up keeping National in power in exchange for a ministerial salary and limo, he’ll have a barrage of ridicule ready for any journalist who dares to mention those supposed “bottom lines” he was so insistent on before the election.

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      10 July 2017 at 1:43 pm

                      Whoever he goes with it’ll be Winnie as deputy PM for three years plus a guarantee of the job in the UK or Washington for a term.

                      This is his last chance to trough it up big time and he’ll squeeze every last drop out of it.

                    • heman …
                      10 July 2017 at 3:37 pm

                      Thanks for that
                      All opposite views to Nats, except maybe Chch?
                      Based on that wold say he won’t go with nats(can’t confirm) but I will follow with interest.

        • The Lone Haranguer 2.1.1.2
          13 July 2017 at 2:23 pm

          Enough is Enough

          After the election, Im picking Winston will be the PM and either Andrew or Bill will be the Deputy.

          We all understand that Winston’s support will come at a huge price – and Im picking his price is the ultimate Baubles of Power

      • greywarshark 2.1.2
        10 July 2017 at 10:19 am

        Gristle – ‘dance of the seven veils’. Very apt. Good summary of Peters. I can enjoy the entertainment side of him but when coming to an election at this crucial time, he is so self-serving those with strength of mind and a real interest in NZ, should not vote for him or his Party.

        He has done good things in the past but this year we are in a different place. We have to look to a looming future of extremes in weather, and coping with an extreme lack of commitment to people by the Right Wing politicians whose main daily task seems to be talking, investing for themselves and being an employment agency for those businesspeople who want to tap into government provision. Politicians don’t make anything real, manufacturing only excuses for not giving a shit about the effective running of the country for the benefit of all its citizens.

        It’s a perfect storm, without the option of NZ sheltering any longer in port, those with guts have to sail out and grapple with it. Peters is part of the dockside festivities before the serious journey starts. He will be left singing Sitting on the dock of the bay and entertaining the lookers-on.

        • Ad 2.1.2.1
          10 July 2017 at 6:58 pm

          You mean to tell me you’ve never seen Winston do Karaoke?
          He’s a mean Tom Jones.

      • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.3
        10 July 2017 at 1:20 pm

        To be clear: The media also allows the Māori Party and Dunne to do the same without criticism. (of course, in the case of Dunne, everyone knows he’d go with National first anyway. The MP is a bit more up for debate.)

        It’s worse in the case of Winston and the MP though as polling has vacillated as to which would be kingmaker, so really, the media should be on them both to declare or to be covered as unreliable in terms of who voters want in government.

      • Chris 2.1.4
        10 July 2017 at 9:59 pm

        Why would he play his cards before the election?

    • roadrage 2.2
      11 July 2017 at 3:45 pm

      Greens need to target farmer vote. Lots of Farmers get it. So getwellknow farmers to a photo op with greens. You can party vote Green and vote nat in the constituency and since Nat’s have done so little for waterways why not scare them. It’s not like National aren’t wanting to work with the Greens, so make the connection for farmers to party vote Green.duh

    • MJH 2.3
      11 July 2017 at 8:47 pm

      That’s right, just let National form a government on its own with the usual micro parties… write NZF off. Can you say why? have you even looked at their policies? Reminder: NZF is very willing to sit on the cross benches. It will go with the party which agrees to its policies. Looking at its policies…what do you think? NZ First economic policies, which to me are most crucial are well to the “left” of Labour. What do I mean?
      NZ First wants to stop, reverse and undo the horrific economic policies of the past 30 years! A nation needs to control its economy. “The market” cannot do this. Once you admit this point, there is a LOT of room for debate on how to do this. There are decisions to be made on… reversing income inequality, FULL employment!, climate change policies; helping struggling family farmers [while moving away from dairy intensification], promoting trade that both helps us expand where we can AND allows us to determine our own future.
      OK, I expect I’ll be shot down…but to all of you who are questioning people, undecided people, confused people, and all who say NZ society has been heading down the wrong “market” path…
      isn’t NZ First the only party that overtly says NO to all this! Answer me on the points I’ve raised!

  3. marty mars 3
    10 July 2017 at 9:37 am

    Yep Peter’s clawing for attention after the truth from The Greens. Keep at it – winkusa? Winstoafia? Consequences??? Yelp!

  4. Ad 4
    10 July 2017 at 9:37 am

    Turia did not sound particularly coherent on an extended Morning Report interview this morning.

    Turia could have gone through a whole series of policies – instead she got in just the new one on raw water charging for bottling plants. Not going to expand her vote with that one.

    She should stick with what they can all agree on, because otherwise just like last time they will be successfully exploited as showing that they are not a government in waiting.

    • Enough is Enough 4.1
      10 July 2017 at 9:39 am

      Who?

    • ianmac 4.2
      10 July 2017 at 9:43 am

      The cost of 10cents a litre on bottled water wouldn’t take much to get round. A squirt of lemon juice and its all over.

    • heman 4.3
      10 July 2017 at 10:13 am

      she comes across a bit silly to me. In my mind she could have said what she wanted and done less damage for changeing the govt. It looks like lab/greens/nsf will need each other to change this govt so can’t really understand her thinking.

      Also, to say that another party is racist but at the same time say that they would work with that party in government is hypocritical or does not sit right with me.

      Just my take on it, be interesting to see what is really going on.

      • greywarshark 4.3.1
        10 July 2017 at 4:49 pm

        heman
        Parliament is not a church, even a church isn’t full of purists. In government you have to make compromises and if another Party can be worked with on most important matters, a sensible party isn’t going to give them the freeze. This is real life, not a TV show.

        And if Turei seemed a bit underwhelming, then maybe she is just being human and suffering from having too many meetings. It was the grand opening of the election campaign for the Greens yesterday and then they went doorknocking to introduce themselves to some lucky Nelsonians.
        You would be tired if you were working to her schedule too.

    • Matthew Whitehead 4.4
      10 July 2017 at 1:21 pm

      Tariana Turia is no longer in politics. I believe you mean Metiria Turei?

  5. mary_a 5
    10 July 2017 at 10:16 am

    “There will be consequences” … is Winston Peters’ response to Meteria Turei’s statement.

    What this proves is that Winston is a threatening bully, when challenged, in the mold of his former mentor Rob Muldoon. While at the same time Meteria is demonstrating some good strong leadership, not afraid to speak the truth. Well done Meteria.

    There is leadership and there is dictatorship. I know which I prefer.

  6. Shona 6
    10 July 2017 at 10:55 am

    I am really disappointed in Turei. I would’ve thought she was above such blatant and pointless attempts at populism. Here’s a heads up for all you urban voters the regions are gonna vote NZ First. The Greens have the lowest level of appeal in rural areas that they have ever had, despite the the filth in our rivers. The Twitteratti bubble the present day Greens inhabit is a Wellington phenomenon. And young rural voters are more motivated than any of you may think. The view from between their backsides that the Greens have will not help them secure government come September and yes Winston will be Kingmaker. Been so obvious since ages ago. And all kiwis who see how fucking hopeless NZ is for their children ever gaining secure worthwhile employment hate immigration. So wise up Greens we don’t want any more migrants! Refugees yes!.

    • Gristle 6.1
      10 July 2017 at 11:06 am

      Hi Shona,

      Surprisingly the Green’s policy probably is the most restrictive of all the political parties for migrants numbers coming to NZ: less than Labour and less than National. I don’t know how far apart they are from NZF in numbers, but it is obvious that the Green’s starting point for its immigration policy is different from NZF. And that is where the two get into disputes about racism and dog whistling.

      Do you have a preference as to who is going to leading party for the next Government, and how are you going to be sure that Winston Peters will hear and act on your preference?

      • garibaldi 6.1.1
        10 July 2017 at 11:54 am

        Shona, nothing the Greens say would appease the rural backbone type. Never has and never will. The yokels demand the right to ruin our environment for the sake of their unsustainable practices in the name of personal greed.

    • Psycho Milt 6.2
      10 July 2017 at 1:33 pm

      Here’s a heads up for all you urban voters the regions are gonna vote NZ First.

      The few who don’t vote National, maybe. Willy Leferink was on the news last night pointing out to a TV journo that NZ’s rural areas aren’t Labour country and aren’t Greens country – it was an uncontroversial comment because it’s true. What Marx referred to as “the idiocy of rural life” ie its isolation and focus on parochial concerns, is as relevant today as it was in the 19th Century. The fact that Labour and the Green Party lack appeal in rural areas is a given – there’s no warning to heed there.

      • Alan 6.2.1
        10 July 2017 at 2:11 pm

        what a condescending post, “the idiocy of rural life, as relevant today as it was in the 19th century” – you don’t get out much do you

      • Ian 6.2.2
        10 July 2017 at 6:44 pm

        So Marx is the man for you. You underestimate rural folk at your peril.

        • Psycho Milt 6.2.2.1
          10 July 2017 at 10:17 pm

          Oh, I know that alright. Look what happened to the liberal urban democracy enthusiasts of Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Poland – crushed by authoritarians and their teeming hordes of ignorant, conservative, religious rural supporters. Fortunately, the rural population’s in a minority in NZ.

  7. halfcrown 7
    10 July 2017 at 11:07 am

    I tell you what, after reading In “The Jaws of The Dragon. How China Is Taking Over New Zealand” by Ron Asher. Peters is the only one that is worrying about the future of New Zealand. That is more than can be said for the other corrupt pack of bastards (both National and Labour politicians) that have been in power since the Douglas days who are only interested in the dollars and not this country or its people.

    For all you rightwing fuckwits who think you are clever by calling anybody a commie who you don’t agree with, well, going by this book that should be compulsory reading by every New Zealander. We stand a good chance to end up as a communist country Chinese style thanks to the fucking greed of these right wing corrupt prats.

    Dirty Politics is a kids bedtime story compared to this book.

    • smokes kreen 7.1
      10 July 2017 at 11:34 am

      Ron Asher’s book “How China Is Taking Over New Zealand” should be compulsory reading for all New Zealanders who value this country’s sovereingty, independence and future. Don’t bury your heads and hope everything will be all right. Winston Peter’s stands out as a politician who cares about New Zealand’s future and has been warning of the dangers of mass immigration for years now.

      • Ian 7.1.1
        10 July 2017 at 6:47 pm

        And Winston has read One Treaty ,One Nation. All about the blood sucking leeches within.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2
      10 July 2017 at 11:36 am

      We need to ban foreign ownership ASAP else we will find that we’ve become serfs.

    • Carolyn_nth 7.3
      10 July 2017 at 11:42 am

      Foreign ownership and migration are mostly separate issues, though in some instances they overlap.

      NZF does blur the difference. The GP is more concerned about restricting foreign ownership, and supporting immigrants. Often immigrants are exploited as cheap labour.

      Neoliberalism/capitalists want free international movement for corporations and “capital”, but want restrictions on international movements of workers.

      The left should be looking to support freedom of movement of labour, and freedom from exploitation; meanwhile we should be looking to restrict big business from exploiting workers.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1
        10 July 2017 at 12:44 pm

        The left should be looking to support freedom of movement of labour

        No we shouldn’t as we can’t physically support it.

        meanwhile we should be looking to restrict big business from exploiting workers.

        Business should be restricted to operating in the country that they’re registered in.

        • Matthew Whitehead 7.3.1.1
          10 July 2017 at 5:04 pm

          There’s an argument that National has run down our infrastructure, especially in Auckland, and we might need to temporarily make the settings a bit tougher to get into NZ for a very short period of time so we can start fixing that without making the demand side of the equation worse, but that’s a temporary argument, not a permanent one. Are you trying to make that case, or arguing that immigrants are a drain on NZ society?

          Because in the long term, migration is absolutely beneficial to New Zealand, and it can even help address overpopulation. (as people migrating here from certain countries are less likely to have large families than they would be if they hadn’t emigrated) We may have to think about taking measures to reduce human population in the long run to avoid overconsumption, but that’s not going to be in time to solve our critical environmental problems anyway, so it’s not a valid argument against immigration right now, either.

          Literally the only thing that’s left is “we should be careful about letting more migrants directly into Auckland, where most of the critical housing and transport shortages are,” which arguably maybe we should be, but there are practical enforcement issues there.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1.1.1
            10 July 2017 at 7:42 pm

            Because in the long term, migration is absolutely beneficial to New Zealand

            Only to a point and that point happens to be our maximum carrying capacity taking into account water availability, sustainable resource use and maintaining our environment.

            We don’t actually know when that is and yet it is critical to determine how much we should grow our population.

            Everything else you posted there is based upon the ignorant assumption that we can just take more people no matter what.

            • Matthew Whitehead 7.3.1.1.1.1
              10 July 2017 at 11:25 pm

              No, I don’t assume we can take more people no matter what, and we have been talking with each other in enough threads that you should know I am very concerned with climate change and am aware of the issues surrounding carrying capacities.

              What we do have to consider, however, is whether closing borders to stay at our own local capacity is going to cause bigger global problems or not. Right now, countries like New Zealand have very low birthrates, so ironically, although it might be bad for the local environment, us continuing to take migrants above our carrying capacity in the short term could be good for global overpopulation and still have us reasonably well-placed to reduce our population to a sustainable level in the long run.

              Besides, there’s room yet for a fair amount of net migration to buoy population- our capacity is probably 5.2-5.7 million, and we’re currently at about 4.7. If we change immigration settings at 5.1 or so that net migration goes positive mostly to deal with population decline, that’s great. Until then, it’s really spurious to be talking about immigration controls for anything other than short-term problems when migrants are clearly beneficial from both an economic and a sociological perspective. (And besides, if the Treaty means anything, it means we are a country with a history of being open to immigration, so it’s a little hypocritical for those of us who aren’t Māori to be talking about closing borders if the tangata whenua aren’t yet ready to)

              I think overall it’s better to look at solving the overpopulation problem through birth control and birthrates and social welfare than through drastic measures like closing borders, or worse, forced or coercive sterilisation, which sadly some people still seriously consider worth talking about. (usually in some form of either economic reducing-people-to-numbers garbage arguments that essentially devolve to genocide against the poor, or with a significant degree of racism pervading it, which hey, circles us nicely back to the difficulty in teasing apart racism from a suggestion to close borders for other reasons)

              There’s actually good reasons that I’ve learned relatively recently to believe that continued population growth is going to taper off globally before it gets disastrously high, (it will still get to way too high a number with reference to carrying capacity, but if it stops growing naturally at that point, then taking less-than-drastic measures along the way will help) but basically less-developed countries are reaching the point where their populations stop growing from means other than net-migration much quicker than us developed countries did. Unlike climate change, carrying capacity is actually a problem that is somewhat manageable, and if it didn’t feed into climate change at all, it wouldn’t really bother me.

              (there’s a nice infographic that sums up some of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348. If you don’t want the preamble, the relevant stuff starts at about 4min iirc. It concludes that it’s rather unlikely that global population will ever reach 12 billion, which of course is still way too high a maximum, which will probably need to decline somewhat as I don’t believe the rampant optimists who estimate a carrying capacity of 16 billion. Even at worst-case, 4 billion is doable if we solve climate change and things would naturally level off within a hundred years or so anyway, all we have to do is put some gentle incentives in the speed the decline until we get in the neighbourhood of 5-6 billion, and then pull back on them)

              It’s fine to go over our carrying capacity if we are actually willing to make a plan to get back to that capacity in the medium-term, the thing is, nobody is talking about it now. And given how much the conversation about immigration is like pulling teeth, I hope we get better at navigating political debates to fact-based solutions, not worse, because good grief.

              edit: and to clarify, by “controlling population through social welfare,” I simply mean that people have lower birth rates as you eliminate conditions of material poverty, not the sort of scary dystopian stuff where you encourage people to get sterilised in order to get onto social welfare at all, so any and all measures to eliminate poverty are also good for arresting unwanted population growth. Which is an excellent argument for foreign aid.

        • The Lone Haranguer 7.3.1.2
          13 July 2017 at 3:30 pm

          So DTB,

          “Business should be restricted to operating in the country that they are registered in”

          So if you meant that there should be no imports into or exports from NZ, then we are kind of stuffed.

          But milk should be real cheap so thats a plus. As soon as we can run our cars on it, the oprice will go up again tho.

          So if you meant that any multinational business should have a NZ subsidiary here in order to trade, then you can still have an I Phone I guess.

          But you statement was “country” and not “countries”, so Im thinking you havent thought this through very far.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1.2.1
            13 July 2017 at 3:52 pm

            So if you meant that there should be no imports into or exports from NZ, then we are kind of stuffed.

            NFI how you got that from what I said.

            So if you meant that any multinational business should have a NZ subsidiary here in order to trade, then you can still have an I Phone I guess.

            Nope, no subsidiaries either. Local businesses and even individuals can bring in their own. But no offshore corporations to operate in any nation.

      • halfcrown 7.3.2
        10 July 2017 at 1:16 pm

        “Foreign ownership and migration are mostly separate issues, though in some instances they overlap.”
        They are not

        “NZF does blur the difference. The GP is more concerned about restricting foreign ownership, and supporting immigrants. Often immigrants are exploited as cheap labour.
        Neoliberalism/capitalists want free international movement for corporations and “capital”, but want restrictions on international movements of workers.”

        Peters is not blurring the difference and he is the only one who is standing up to the Chinese.
        As for migrants being exploited, also the massive influx of cheap labour is designed to lower the pay rates in this country.

        “The left should be looking to support freedom of movement of labour,”

        No, and this is where the Greens want to stop the tree hugging and come out in the real world. I am all for migration to New Zealand providing it is the correct migration with the skills this country needs – not cheap shoddy Chinese builders or contractors because some corrupt politician agreed to a very shoddy free trade deal. This is the same trade deal that is reducing the rate of a lot of New Zealand sub contractors who have struggled for work or gone to the wall. Also the infrastructure can only absorb a certain number of migrants, not this open slather we have now.

        “we should be looking to restrict big business from exploiting workers.”

        I really feel you should have a read of this book that also mentions about the Chinese behind the spivs flag referendum and if you are really concerned about exploited labour, read about the cheap goods flooding this country which have been made in Chinese prisons.

        • Bill 7.3.2.1
          10 July 2017 at 1:54 pm

          Why are people from China your enemy?

          How do you feel about Indian workers being exploited in Christchurch, or workers coming in on the Pacific Quota being exploited? Do they need to be ‘stood up to’ too?

          btw. NZF do make a call on the exploitation of migrant labour in their immigration policy.

          Make sure effective measures are put in place to stop the exploitation of migrant workers with respect to wages, safety and work conditions

          • halfcrown 7.3.2.1.1
            10 July 2017 at 3:58 pm

            You really didn’t read my reply did you. Nowhere have I stated I am anti-Chinese what I did write was that I am against corrupt politicians who signed this “free trade “agreement with China that apart from other shonky things going on, allows shoddy Chinese builders into the country to compete against our own labour.
            I am against any exploitation of any labour be it Chinese, Indian, Dutch or the fucking man from mars and as long as this massive migration is allowed, so the exploitation of the New Zealand worker will increase by lowering the wage and competing for limited accommodation.
            I think I made the point I was against exploitation when I mentioned some of the goods we are buying in New Zealand are made in the prisons in China.
            The book is worth a read to give you some context.

            • Bill 7.3.2.1.1.1
              10 July 2017 at 4:39 pm

              Your comment isn’t anti- people from China just like there’s no blue in this stilton…

              You want an end to exploitation, then forget about immigrants. If on the other hand you just want an excuse to have a go at immigrants, then carry on with that wrong-headed framing around lower wages.

              Had a look at the number of good made in US prisons btw? Or even UK prisons? Their stuff okay is it?

        • Carolyn_nth 7.3.2.2
          10 July 2017 at 3:05 pm

          If the free movement of capital and corporates internationally is stopped, and workers support each other internationally, there will be less migration from some countries to others.

          The aim is for workers to get a better deal wherever they are. And the restrictions on capital and business will lead to better provision of the infrastructure needed to support the workers and business operations.

      • Bill 7.3.3
        10 July 2017 at 1:44 pm

        That’s precisely what “the left” used to do. But for most, that was all a long time ago – ie, ‘internationalism”.

        These veritable cages that capitalism constructs that mean a worker in one country gets payed a pittance compared to a worker in another who is doing exactly the same job, should be as much of an issue for “the left” as pay equity for men and women. And the solution, as I believe you sign-post, is freedom of movement for labour.

        Anecdote. (Can’t remember the source) Teacher, financier and immigrant in a room having biscuits and tea. The immigrant and teacher are deep in conversation and the financier furtively swipes 9 of the 10 biscuits from the plate. When the attention of the teacher and immigrant returns, the financier points to the plate and informs the teacher that immigrant will be looking to steal their biscuit.

        • adam 7.3.3.1
          10 July 2017 at 3:26 pm

          You mean working with friends inside China to get wages increased is internationalism….

          I consider them a lot more left, and braver than anyone here. No doubt the cries of purity will start ringing soon. How dear you raise the specter of us all being in this together.

          Who would have thought the banks, and international finance wants to shaft all the working people of the world in the name of profit.

          Who could have guessed that divide and conquer was their approach of choice.

          But yeah, here come the cat calls, us delusional leftist who believe in such things as economic freedom and the rights of workers. Next we will want women to have the right to choice their own destiny, where will it stop.

  8. Michael who failed Civics 8
    10 July 2017 at 4:19 pm

    “No one should count on Peters for anything.” – except Labour does count on Peters to drag it over the finish line on 23 September (with a little help from the Greens, which it will drop like a hot potato the second it calculates it can attain power without them). The best scenario I can see is a replay of 1996 – Winston gets into bed with the Nats, who accommodate him until the stench gets too great even for them, whereupon they ditch their leader and replace him with a nasty woman, knowing that Winston will not stand for it, the coalition breaks up, but not in time to save the Nats from defeat at the next election. AFAICS, all the elements are in place for a repeat fo this scenario – except for a Labour Party willing and able to govern. An aspiration for 2020 perhaps?

  9. gsays 9
    10 July 2017 at 5:34 pm

    so miteria turei, at a green party launch has a crack (‘called out’) at another minor party, peters responds, and he is posturing.

    i would like to think the paragraph or two, the greens co-leader spent on nzfirst/peters, would be better dealing with policy, or pitching a vision for the future.
    not feeding an unfriendly msm some clickbait.

  10. mary_a 10
    10 July 2017 at 5:49 pm

    It beggers belief that Kiwis will vote for a political party whose leader refuses to indicate which way they will go … either with Labour or National, post election. In my opinion under these circumstances a vote for NZF is similar to bindly following the Pied Piper, ready and willing to go in any direction they are led regardless of the outcome. Not good for NZ.

    • BM 10.1
      10 July 2017 at 5:54 pm

      It’s called MMP.

      This ruling people out lark is bullshit, any party should be able to work with any other party, it’s all down to negotiation.

      Peters, National is doing it right, Greens and Labour are doing it wrong.

  11. David Mac 11
    10 July 2017 at 6:15 pm

    There is a negotiation point that Peters can pitch to the Left that he can’t the Right. “I’m PM.”

    All those years in the Hive and a Gold card on his horizon. I wonder if the price of the left holding portfolios might be Prime Minister Peters.

    • Ian 11.1
      10 July 2017 at 6:52 pm

      he could also be prime minister in a national government.

      • David Mac 11.1.1
        10 July 2017 at 7:06 pm

        I’m not so sure. He may well be in a position to state ‘The other guys have asked me to be PM, what say you Nats?’

        I think the Nats would talk with the Greens before crowning Winston. I know the Greens have claimed ‘No way would we go to bed with the Nats’ …That BMW limousine leather is seductive.

      • Stuart Munro 11.1.2
        11 July 2017 at 1:13 am

        In fact he’d be a better fit there. National has lost its way, Winston is the leader they always needed. He’d put the nationalism back in National – make it something more than a temporarily unimprisoned kleptocracy.

  12. David Mac 12
    10 July 2017 at 7:09 pm

    After the election we will need to be prepared for a week…month…of ‘Who the hell is governing us?’

  13. David Mac 13
    10 July 2017 at 7:28 pm

    If the Nats were faced with the choice of crowning King Winston or talking with the Greens….The Greens would become empowered like never before.

    I think one of the cool things about the Greens is what they would do next. They would turn to their members and say, “At last, we’ve got 3 Aces and a pair of 4’s, how do you guys want to play this?”

    Collectively they would decide on a bottom line and bid. That rocks.

    • weka 13.1
      10 July 2017 at 9:01 pm

      The Greens can’t and won’t support a National government. Not only has the leadership said this, but the members wouldn’t let them even if the caucus and exec wanted to.

      • David Mac 13.1.1
        10 July 2017 at 9:20 pm

        Politics is about compromise. Nobody gets exactly what they want. This is the case from households on up.

        Like all of us, the Greens can be wooed.

        What are your bottom lines weka?

        Kitchens in all schools, 2 meals a day. Double all benefits. Visiting tutors for all kids that are lagging. Hospital waiting lists slashed….

        I think it would be a shame to let all that leverage go to waste. We slam and lock the negotiation door to our detriment.

        • McFlock 13.1.1.1
          10 July 2017 at 9:26 pm

          all of the above and a zero poverty and zero homelessness target, and I’d vote national.

          But then they wouldn’t be the NZ National Party, would they…

        • weka 13.1.1.2
          10 July 2017 at 10:04 pm

          One of my bottom lines is to join the other GP members in tearing the party down if they went with National. I think you will find there’s more than a few of us.

          It’s got absolutely nothing to do with not getting exactly what one wants. Go listen to Turei’s speech in the weekend, she spells out clearly that there will be compromises in governing with Labour. So if it’s not that, what is is? It’s to do with values. National is incompatible with the Green Party kaupapa and policies. There’s also no point in making a the odd policy gain if your fundamental position is eroded in the meantime. There is literally nothing that National could offer that would be worth it, none of the important things would be achieved, because National are a bunch of plunder monkeys.

          The Greens have far more power in what they are dong than in trying to negotiate with people who are intent on keeping poverty and destruction of the environment.

        • weka 13.1.1.3
          10 July 2017 at 10:05 pm

          btw, there are other ways to do politics than contemporary notions of leverage. Watch and learn.

  14. Tanz 14
    10 July 2017 at 11:05 pm

    Go Winston!! Love ya, you care about NZ tradition, rights for all New Zealanders and the fact that Kiwi kiwis are being sold out and betrayed. Winston for PM, fingers crossed. All the rest are betrayers, giving our housing stock and country away.

    Winston is going to do so well this year, he will choose the govt, the others are not listening to the electorate at large and Winston has tapped into that. Labour and Greens will lose bigtime, bleeding lots of votes to NZ First. Considering at one time Labour and National thought they had shut out Winston forever, it’s really really funny.

  15. Cynical jester 15
    11 July 2017 at 12:11 am

    At some point during the comments by left wingers , I realized that the nz left is truly the scum of the earth.

    Instead of hearing about how 10% of the country owns more wealth than the other 90 % or anything inspiring like the Sanders or the Corbyns all we hear about is immigration. Immigration is to blame for everything. Its nit consecutive labour and national govts miss managing our infrastructure no its immigrants. Everything wrong in this country is immigrants fault according to the left.

    You know what? I hate national but I hope they win and that they don’t need nzf. I could never vote for the torys but i hope Act gets a lot of my generations vote if only to screw over the disgraceful boomers.

    I hope labour,greens, nzf lose seats to the current coalition because I don’t want you lot in office with this rhetoric.

    On Saturday i was door knocking for labour as of today I’m not voting for anyone. You’re all a disgrace

    • James 15.1
      11 July 2017 at 12:48 am

      If you hope national win – remember to give them two ticks.

    • Psycho Milt 15.2
      11 July 2017 at 6:36 am

      You claim to hate National and to have been door-knocking for Labour, and yet you’re so ignorant of the party you were door-knocking for you think its main concern is immigration and you hope National win? Apt pseudonym you’ve given yourself there, Tory boy.

      • halfcrown 15.2.1
        11 July 2017 at 11:58 am

        +1

        • Cynical jester 15.2.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 12:48 pm

          I’ll never vote tory or a party that supports them. I like my lab candidate but am completely disillusioned with labour and unfortunately the mou has tied the greens to the center.i hope for a change of govt but don’t see it on the cards. Also bugger all of labours volunteers can name labour policy go ask them, I know the major policy but I think its all weak. I’m hoping labour has a shockingly progressive manifesto but considering what I’ve seen i highly doubt it. We livein hope but at two months out from election i can’t see labour doing any better than 2014 unless it throws tge rule book out the window

          • Psycho Milt 15.2.1.1.1
            11 July 2017 at 12:51 pm

            We livein hope but at two months out from election i can’t see labour doing any better than 2014 unless it throws tge rule book out the window

            Deciding not to vote because it will help keep National in power is the oddest definition of “Living in hope” from a progressive that I’ve ever seen.

            • Cynical jester 15.2.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2017 at 12:55 pm

              I won’t be voting bloody national or any party that could work with them which means im stuck with red/green doesn’t mean I can’t criticize their lack of courage.

  16. Cynical jester 16
    11 July 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Also yeah I got very grumpy and apologize for my hate fest but my god am i sick of being sneered at for suggesting labour actually be a party that actually does something about the rampant inequality in nz and im sick to death of hearing about immigration. Immigration isn’t to blame for three decades of shortsighted govts.