Peters vs Key

Written By: - Date published: 8:27 pm, August 18th, 2010 - 53 comments
Categories: national, nz first - Tags: ,

TV3 is reporting Winston Peters will standing at the next election… against John Key in Helensville. Those are candidate meetings I for one wouldn’t want to miss! According to TV3:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is taking the gloves off.

Sources close to him have told 3 News that Mr Peters is going to fight Prime Minister John Key in his very own electorate Helensville at the election next year.

It’s a fight that just might see Mr Peters back in Parliament, after he and New Zealand First failed to make it in 2008.

Sources close to Mr Peters have told 3 News of his plans, and Mr Peters today refused to rule it out, saying it was “interesting proposition” that would force Mr Key to answer questions and turn up for a debate.

And further…

Mr Key ruled out working with Mr Peters last election – that hurt Mr Peters and NZ First failed to make it back.

Mr Peters hasn’t forgotten that – now he’s readying himself to take on the Prime Minister in his own backyard.

What a brilliant PR stunt. Even if Peters doesn’t end up standing he’s won yet another media round. But come on, wouldn’t it just be a great bit of fun for us lefties to watch Key and Peters duke it out?

We all know who’d come out with a black eye.

(I have some thoughts on Peters and the latest problems with ACT, which I’ll share in some detail tomorrow)

53 comments on “Peters vs Key ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    18 August 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Mocking is such an pleasant characteristic of the Left. Now that I have risen above the divide, I see clearly now the way ahead, perhaps others can also begin to glimpse the falling into place of our grand plan. Yes, its about putting New Zealand first!

    Muhahahaw !

  2. Rex Widerstrom 2
    18 August 2010 at 8:41 pm

    But come on, wouldn’t it just be a great bit of fun for us lefties to watch Key and Peters duke it out?

    Oh come on, you “lefties” have made it plain that most of you wuld be rooting for Winston so he could prop up the “power at any cost” Labour Party.

    Loved the satirical line yesterday that had Hide saying (about Boscawen) “Don’t give me that, at least he’s not Garrett”. That’s exactly the line I get back when I mention Labour’s attitude to NZF around here… “at least they’re not Act”.

    If Winston stands against Key the electorate has a guarantee he won’t be part of any National government. That’s the ideal opportunity for Goff to step up and say Labour won’t countenance government with NZF. Hopefully it’d have the effect of making a portion of NZF support realise the party is too toxic to ever have any infuence in government again, and going looking for someplace else for their protest vote, thus forcing them beneath 5%.

    But does he have the courage and principle? Or has waiting round like Prince Charles for his shot at the prize left him so determined to get there that there’s no position too low?

    • The Voice of Reason 2.1
      18 August 2010 at 9:21 pm

      I kinda think this is a great opportunity for Goff to rule nothing out at all. Just say something anodyne like “we’ll let the people decide whether Winston is back next term” and then take the piss out of Key by saying “I heard John Banks, Bob Parker and Heather Roy are standing too!”

    • mickysavage 2.2
      18 August 2010 at 9:55 pm

      Oh come on, you “lefties’ have made it plain that most of you wuld be rooting for Winston so he could prop up the “power at any cost’ Labour Party.

      I would rather gnaw on my fingers.

      Peters is naturally right. He is bigoted and superficial and the people he gathers around him are, well strange. They believe that, for instance, climate change is not happening.

      Labour went into coalition with him because that was the logical result of the 2005 election.

      I thought Helen did an extraordinarily good job with Peters. She kept him focussed and on track and his performance as foreign minister was actually really good. The previous two administrations he was a member of ended in tears, the 2005 Labour Government went full term although Winston had his challenges.

      But I for one will not be rooting for Winnie. Go Greens, Go Greens …

  3. IrishBill 3
    18 August 2010 at 8:58 pm

    Peters will fight dirty at an electorate level which will mean Key will have to spend more time fighting fires at home and less time campaigning nationally. That could be very damaging for National’s party vote.

    I was talking with a mate about strategies for Winston a couple of months ago and we came to the conclusion his best bet would be to stand in Helensville as a platform to reach 5% but I never thought he’d do it.

    What a cunning old prick.

    By the way Rex, you’ve clearly been drinking the ACT/DPF cool-aide if you think lefties like Winston. We just don’t hate him quite as much as you do.

    • Rex Widerstrom 3.1
      18 August 2010 at 9:55 pm

      I really can’t let that pass IB, though in doing so I fear I’m going to be seen as attacking particular people and that’s not my intent. I’ve just chosen a few comments to illustrate my argument.

      The “lefties” response to Winston is almost universally “Ewww, yuck… but if he knocks Act off and is willing to work with Labour, we’ll hold our noses…” a strategy neatly summed up by Tane in a post prior to the last election:

      …John Key’s big gamble of ruling Winston Peters out of any future coalition may well turn out to be one of the stupidest plays in New Zealand’s political history… For Labour, Winston’s presence provides an insurance plan. If he gets in there’s another three years of mild centre-left government; if he doesn’t then a genuine Left government incorporating the Greens and the Maori Party is that much easier to form.

      – Tane 19 September 2008

      The “get rid of Act at any cost, even if the price is the return of Winston” meme was dragged out again by Sam Cash in a post in January this year:

      In a delicious piece of irony Rodney Hide might have opened the door for his nemesis to come full circle, return to national politics and knock the NACT government off its perch.

      – Sam Cash, 23 January 2010

      and by Michael Foxglove three months later:

      Just to make it clear, in no way do I support NZ First’s stance on most issues especially Maori and immigration. Yet you’ve got to wonder. Peters is good. Very good. It’s not far fetched to think he might pick up the extra 2% (on current polling) needed to get back into Parliament in 2011.

      Rodney Hide’s worst nightmare may yet still come true.

      – Michael Foxglove 10 April 2010

      and again by r0b earlier this month:

      I don’t like Winston Peters and I don’t like his narrow minded nasty opportunistic racism. I think Parliament is better off without him and his kind (of which there are far too many in National and ACT). On the other hand, however, I also don’t like the extraordinarily vicious and deceitful campaign that the right wing attack poodles ran against Peters in 2008. They painted him as a minor satan for “crimes’ that National and ACT were (and still are) every bit as guilty of themselves.

      – r0b 4 August 2010

      That’s certainly not the only reason I went after him, nor is that true of most of the journalists I spoke to at length during that whole saga. It was the lies, the hyocrisy, the threats and the allegations of bribery that motivated them, and me, not just a few concealed donations.

      This excuse-making extends to many commenters too. A selection from just one post, all published on the 28th or 29th of July this year:

      tc: Clark only formed the gov’t with Winnie as she was obligated to under MMP (y’know those rules thingy you RWNJ’s forget conveniently)…

      Pundit X: That’s the problem with MMP. You have to get into bed with the most obnoxious politicians to form a government.

      No, you don’t have to, you can choose not to.

      coolas: A high price to pay to have that nasty, bigoted prick in Parliament, but is he
      any worse than Hide and Garret, and most of the current cabinet?

      Maybe, maybe not. But there’s a world of difference between being able to do nothing to stop them (other than winning resoundingly) and being able to stop Winston and doing nothing.

      mickysavage: The funny thing about MMP is that you need a majority. The only way that Labour could get a majority is going into coalition with NZF. Really sad, I know, I would have preferred that they go into coalition with the Greens but democracy is a bugger sometimes.

      Oops, we let in a lying bigot who now represents our country internationally, we gave him a media paltform for his ideas and a chance to rort the entire political system. Never mind, we got our baubles out of it. Yeah, just the kind of principled attitude we want from our leadership.

      Adrian: Like him or loath him, Winston is the only politician in NZ who has the ability to counter the Crosby/Textor bullshit in an election campaign…

      Then go hire some decent advisors and/or select some decent candidates for a change.

      This cartoon “battered wife” stuff – “I know he’s violent brute but he’s better than my last husband and anyway, he buys me nice things” – is wearing thin. Grow a pair, you lefties.

      (As I said, I’m not aiming this particularly at the people I’ve quoted… in fact I got tired of cutting and pasting examples, so prevalent is this attitude amongst the left).

      • IrishBill 3.1.1
        18 August 2010 at 10:09 pm

        Yep. you’re bitter all right.

        Here’s one to add to your collection: I’d rather a left-wing government with Peters in it than the right-wing one we’ve got. That’s because National-Act are causing more harm to more New Zealanders than vain little Winston ever could.

        Of course what I’d rather see is Peters and Hide and Key at each others throats.

        • Mickysavage 3.1.1.1
          18 August 2010 at 10:35 pm

          What Irish said.

        • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.1.2
          18 August 2010 at 10:43 pm

          I’ll own to my bitterness, but my experience also gives me a level of personal insight into character that very few have. And I can tell you that Winston’s danger isn’t his vanity, it’s his laziness and thus his susceptibility to capture by anyone willing to do the work and who has his trust. I know… I was once that person, and frankly just made shit up when asked by the media, which was then adopted as policy.

          I always had a copy of the party’s Principles beside me, and tried to make a point of canvassing issues I thought might arise with as many senior figures in the party as possible. I hope the results were relatively benign… they were certainly popular with a fair number of my fellow NZers.

          But put that power into the hands of, say, a Michael Lhaws…

          Coupled with his vanity and arrogance – which means he will brook no suggestion he’s wrong (even though the thooughts he’s advancing usually aren’t his own) – this leads to games of brinkmanship. And if the other side blinks, Winston’s puppeteer du jour wins.

          If the rumours about Lhaws are right – and I personally think they are – that combination will make Hide, Garrett et al look positively benign.

          Of course it needn’t be Lhaws… any malign and dangerous “adviser” who captures Winston poses a similar danger.

          • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.2.1
            19 August 2010 at 7:29 am

            But put that power into the hands of, say, a Michael Lhaws

            Coupled with his vanity and arrogance which means he will brook no suggestion he’s wrong (even though the thooughts he’s advancing usually aren’t his own) this leads to games of brinkmanship. And if the other side blinks, Winston’s puppeteer du jour wins.

            If the rumours about Lhaws are right and I personally think they are that combination will make Hide, Garrett et al look positively benign.

            Rex, can you see a NZF party with Lhaws in it actually choosing to go into govt with the Labour party, even if the LP would have them?

            Can you see Winston enjoying the prospect of campaigning against Key in his electorate, and then propping up a Key govt on the ‘principled’ basis that ‘Nat got more votes then Labour’, thereby rubbing Key’s 08 position in his face and getting cold handed revenge on both ACT and the media?

            If NZF gets into parliament and ACT doesn’t, which is probaby the only way NZF would be kingmaker anyway, then that situation would be on the cards.

            The presence of Lhaws would make me think that would be the plan, similar to the way he went with National in his first incarnation as kingmaker, after pretty much explicitly campaiging against them.

            • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.1.2.1.1
              19 August 2010 at 2:07 pm

              Rex, can you see a NZF party with Lhaws in it actually choosing to go into govt with the Labour party, even if the LP would have them?

              Yes, absolutely. I was advising Hirschfeld, Moore et al in 1996 during the country’d first ever coalition negotiations remember. Lhaws was advising Winston. It was quite clear that it was simply an auction of power (for Lhaws and his hand-picked lackeys) and baubles (to keep Winston happy). There was no principle involved for Peters or Lhaws.

              Certainly all other things being equal their preference was for National… which is why they kept coming back to Labour saying “National have offered… can you match that?” till Labour folded. But if they’d kept upping the ante beyond what National were prepared to put up… history would have been very different.

      • r0b 3.1.2
        18 August 2010 at 10:17 pm

        Say Rex, what’s your issue with what I said about Peters as you quote it above?

        • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.2.1
          18 August 2010 at 10:34 pm

          As I said under the original post, very few people who lined up against Peters (in fact everyone aside from Act a predicatable handful of the commentariat, I’d say) did so without ulterior motives and because they were concerned about very much more than just donations.

          The whole Owen Glenn saga simply started a snowball rolling… the stuff that was added – new stuff, reminders of old stuff, stuff which arose out of the way NZF decided to handle the issue itself (including Ron Marks’ cowardly smearing of me under Parliamentary privilege)… painted a very stark picture of a very ugly party.

          To write it off as an “extraordinarily vicious and deceitful campaign” run by “right wing attack poodles” belittles the seriousness of Peters’ behaviour both then and over time, and the courage that it took for many people to come out and oppose Peters and his boot boys. Journalists were abused and threatened too, as were the occasional blogger and potential witness.

          Viscious it may have been, but not nearly as viscious as the treatment handed out in return. And what was deceitful (other than some of those opposed to him denying their own political advancement as a motive)?

          • r0b 3.1.2.1.1
            18 August 2010 at 10:47 pm

            As I said in the text you quoted, and as I say again now, Peters was guilty of nothing that National and ACT were not also guilty of. If you need reminding, just go an re-read The Hollow Men, and for topical flavour take a wander through the just leaked Heather Roy notes.

            Now, you have your own issues with Peters and NZF based on personal history. A messy story. You anger is completely understandable. But it blinds you to the fact that National and ACT, the main body of those attacking Peters, were every bit as bad as him, and twice as hypocritical (or as I said in the quoted text, deceitful).

            • Jum 3.1.2.1.1.1
              18 August 2010 at 11:35 pm

              What Rob said.

            • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.2.1.1.2
              19 August 2010 at 1:48 pm

              But it blinds you to the fact that National and ACT, the main body of those attacking Peters, were every bit as bad as him, and twice as hypocritical (or as I said in the quoted text, deceitful).

              r0b, I’m not sure which one of us is blind here. I’ve acknowledged, back on the original post and elsewhere, that National and Act were every bit as deceitful as Peters when it comes to donations, and equally deserving of being attacked on that point. So yes, it follows that their attacks on Peters on that issue reeked of hypocrisy.

              However focusing solely on that ignores the vast amount of related and unrelated corruption, lying, initimidation and other unacceptable behaviour in which various facets of NZF had indulged and which was exposed as a result. It went far beyond whatever the Spencer Trust might or might not have got up to… remember the helicopter? Tommy Gear? The probable sale of the Monaco Consulship? I could go on, but clearly no one’s listening.

              Maybe if I simplify it: National / Act: very bad indeed. NZF: that plus even worse. Or perhaps you’d prefer: just because National and Act didn’t cop it too doesn’t mean NZF didn’t deserve every bit of it.

    • Monty 3.2
      19 August 2010 at 12:39 pm

      Key will do the only sensible thing and ignore the corrupt Prick that despite his lies was propped up by Helen Clark in the dying days of her Government. Key needs to make it very very clear that under no circumstances will he entertain a deal with Winston no matter what. (Goff actually needs to do the same).

      Key can win the Hellensville seat and retain all the Party vote with nil effort. Do not forget that Winston has no money, no parliamentary backing, and a dying support base.

      Winston destroys governments and it is only the sign of a very desperate party that would entertain doing a deal with him.

  4. swimmer 4
    18 August 2010 at 9:04 pm

    Aaaah so that’s why he’s doing it. It’s sure to be a great circus to watch.

  5. the sprout 5
    18 August 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Excellent excellent excellent.

  6. felix 6
    18 August 2010 at 9:38 pm

    Pass the popcorn please.

  7. Santi 7
    18 August 2010 at 9:43 pm

    The liar against an even worse liar. These two crooks deserve each other.

  8. Santi 8
    18 August 2010 at 9:46 pm

    “…if you think lefties like Winston.”

    Of course lefties love him for the mere fact Peters was Clark’s accomplice and staunch supporter (at a price).

    • IrishBill 8.1
      18 August 2010 at 9:51 pm

      Not all lefties liked Clark either. It’s an odd black and white world some of you live in.

    • Ari 8.2
      18 August 2010 at 10:25 pm

      Uh, I think the closest I ever came to supporting Winston on anything is when I said he shouldn’t have been kicked out of Parliament due to the threshold, even though I was glad to see him gone.

      Please, paint us all with the same brush. 😉

      The good part about this news is that no matter who loses, we (the people that is, not the left) win. 😉

  9. nilats 9
    18 August 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Should be fun. I will be there being in Greenhithe.
    A question or 2 for Peter’s I will raise.
    1. Susan Crouch is still poor so what happened to the $158K owed to the taxpayer?
    2. We all know he knew of the Owen Glenn donations and WP knew of this before July 2008. That is unless the un-kangaroo court is to be beleived. The question I have is as follows:
    ‘Why did you [WP] use the still warm corpse of your mother to lie to the NZ public on 18 July 2008 about knowing of this donation? This was the day before the NZF part conference?
    Links:
    1 NBR – WP mum dies – http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/winston-peters-mother-dies-eve-party-conference-33190
    2. WP finally divulges he found out about the OG donation – NZH – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10522347
    The same date folks. We all know politicians are liers but WP is the first one iN NZ I know to use the still warm corpse of his mother to lie to the public to garner sympathy.
    Absolute wanker.

    • Pat 9.1
      18 August 2010 at 11:11 pm

      And absolute lier. It was classic Peters on TV3 tonight – Garner caught him red-faced and off balance so Peters just did what he does best – smiles and lies.

      Key needs to make a stand again, and leave him for Labour.

  10. Descendant Of Smith 10
    19 August 2010 at 12:06 am

    The reason I voted for MMP was not to have a Labour Government as an alternative to a National Government or vice versa but to have diversity in our government.

    Regardless of his more recent behavior I will maintain til the day I die that NZ owes Winston Peters a debt of gratitude for The Winebox inquiry and it’s revelations. As a result I don’t have a problem having him around.

    I’ll never vote for him but can live with the fact that others might. I don’t agree with all Green policy either but am quite happy to have them there. I’m also quite happy to have National party politicians there as well – despite disagreeing with most of their current policies.

    I remember the damage done to this country by a Labour government in the 1980’s – a government that did things that many National MP’s opposed including Muldoon. The platform for the rightwing free market madness that we have today was set up by that Labour government.

    Left leaning and Labour are not necessarily the same thing for many of us now.

    It’s not that we compromised our beliefs it’s that Labour compromised theirs and the way we view politics as a result is much less black and white (or red and blue) as you might desire us.

    The facile nature of the last Labour government showed in the fact that they re-instated the $20-00 per week cut on NZS but not on benefits. That was cynical and vote catching and they should hold their heads in shame.

    In saying that there will reach a point where he’ll do enough stuff that I don’t agree with and he’ll lose any support I have for him. Siding with Lhaws will probably be the straw that breaks that particular back.

    • loota 10.1
      19 August 2010 at 1:31 am

      Left leaning and Labour are not necessarily the same thing for many of us now.

      It’s not that we compromised our beliefs it’s that Labour compromised theirs and the way we view politics as a result is much less black and white (or red and blue) as you might desire us.

      A few nails, few sore heads.

    • Jenny 10.2
      19 August 2010 at 6:30 am

      Descendant Of Smith has made a great comment that obviously comes from the heart, yet still manages to be objective.

      In detailing his views on the failings of the various parliamentary parties, my only wish is that Descendant Of Smith would extend his comment to give us his insights into the remaining other two current parliamentary parties.

      capcha – views

  11. Adrian 11
    19 August 2010 at 9:01 am

    Just for the little gems like last nights quip at Key ” It’s not a ‘moss commercial’, just spray and walk away! ” we need Winston. Which is my point about him being the only polly who can get cut-thru on the Crosby-Textor Cloak of Invincibility. No body else (except probably David Lange) could get TV time on that quote. I don’t agree with much he says but every polly has some value and in his case better deals for the aged, blowing the whistle on resthome transfer pricing rip-offs, the Winebox and remember from a few years ago, compulsory super. So somewhere in his supposedly dark satanic heart is a corner reserved for the strugglers and less well off, and inarguably he is 100% for New Zealanders.

  12. Anthony Cribb 12
    19 August 2010 at 10:20 am

    Love Winston or hate him, he did a lot for his core constituency with the SuperGold Card, which I was sceptical about at first but seems to have a number of good social and health outcomes for the oldies.

    • Inventory2 12.1
      19 August 2010 at 11:50 am

      That’s true Anthony, but it also underlines Winston’s biggest obstacle; his key constituency is, quite literally, dying!

      • Carol 12.1.1
        19 August 2010 at 12:14 pm

        Ah, yes, but there’s more where the older-dying off ones came from… endless supply.

        • comedy 12.1.1.1
          19 August 2010 at 12:38 pm

          Carol if you are suggesting that inevitably we must all one day grow into Winston voters I think we should seriously consider bringing in compulsory euthanasia to replace superannuation.

          • felix 12.1.1.1.1
            19 August 2010 at 1:23 pm

            Yeah, ‘cos that’s what she said. We *all*…

            /facepalm

            • Carol 12.1.1.1.1.1
              19 August 2010 at 1:32 pm

              Thank-you, felix. And conversely, comedy, are you assuming all of the elderly are NZF/Winston voters?

              PS: A clue, how old are Roger Douglas, Jim Anderton, Brian Edwards…. and Peters showed himself on TV3 last night, to be able to adjust to different audiences from students to grey power. Don’t under-estimate his cunning.

              • comedy …
                19 August 2010 at 1:37 pm

                No……. but all Winston First voters are elderly.

                I’m also sure that Roger Douglas, Jim Anderton, Brian Edwards are not Winston First supporters………… I’m also sure that a majority of NZers would support them being euthanised regardless.

            • comedy 12.1.1.1.1.2
              19 August 2010 at 1:38 pm

              I love you and want to have your babies

  13. joe90 13
    19 August 2010 at 12:20 pm

    My dad is 82 and is in the mid phase of dementia but last night when I told him WP was standing the lights went on and he asked me when the election was. No matter to the old boy that WP is standing in a different electorate, Winston is back and that’s all that matters. So now he’ll be on the phone every second day asking when the election is.

  14. tea 14
    19 August 2010 at 5:28 pm

    Is it wrong to say I think the guy is great?

    Standing against Key. Amazing.

    Couldn’t find anybody or anyone (ie Hide or any other cretin) who would have the kahunas to stand against Clark.

    He’s a genius, a showman and an entertainer. He’s unique in a way that nobody else currently in politics is, with the possible exception of Banks.

    I’m so astounded I’m not sure that I can even coment on anything else.

    Only perhaps, could this incarnation of Labour manage a coalition with NZF quite as well as the previous one? And who would he bring in on his coat tails this time if he makes it?

    And can you be quite sure this means no National? I don’t think either Peters or Key are that dogmatic that they wouldn’t work together if the other option was to lose a chance at power.

    Just see Key and the Maori Party .

  15. atp3 15
    20 August 2010 at 8:17 pm

    I’m with the guy who said we still owe Winston for the Wine Box. But that was yesterday. The world is imperfect and politics is the art of the possible.

    Helensville should be interesting.

Links to post