Why won’t Winston Peters answer straight forward questions about NZ First policy?

116 comments on “Why won’t Winston Peters answer straight forward questions about NZ First policy? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. weka 1

   2 October 2023 at 11:00 am

   From Newshub yesterday,

   And who Luxon could be working with is again in the spotlight. Newshub can reveal New Zealand First's number eight Tanya Unkovich is a member of the Nuremberg Trials channel on Telegram which says the COVID-19 vaccine was akin to the Nazis' war crimes.

   "I'm not here to waste the public's time by answering your inane, stupid questions," Peters told Newshub.

   …

   "And I am quite comfortable in my ability to form good teams," Luxon said

   https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/election-2023-nz-first-act-candidates-face-scrutiny-over-nuremberg-trials-new-world-order-content.html

   NZ First need just under 7% of the vote for Tania Unkovich to be a Member of Parliament.
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.1

     2 October 2023 at 11:27 am

     Tanya Unkovich is a member of the Nuremberg Trials channel on Telegram which says the COVID-19 vaccine was akin to the Nazis' war crimes.

     I find that quite worrying..esp as Peters goes here…

     But to hear Peters speak, it’s as if he was always on the outside with the former Prime Minister and her Government.

     He said while he supported initial lockdowns, later instances were unjustified, and he promised a full-scale independent review of the Covid response. if elected and in power.

     “This inquiry must not be run by Parliament, and nor can it be narrow in its scope… it must not be run by parliamentarians who will cover their .. what? Cover their derriere,” he said. “Do you trust them? I don’t, and I know them better than most.”

     https://www.newsroom.co.nz/peters-feeds-the-five-hundred-in-the-north

     Will there be gallows?
2. Anne 2

   2 October 2023 at 11:02 am

   Peters was using the age old trick of projecting his own behaviour onto someone else. In this case Jack Tame. He's been doing it since he first came into parliament in 1978 – 45 years ago. Unfortunately it often works because many people are so politically unaware.

   As Marama Davidson has said… he did it deliberately. But I wonder whether he went too far this time and it might rebound on him. At the end of the interview, he effectively levelled a sinister threat to Jack Tame. That might go down well with the 'loopy conspiratorialists' but the rest of the population will not take too kindly to that kind of behaviour.
   • weka 2.1

     2 October 2023 at 11:08 am

     there's a bit from Davidson here

     https://tkr.ro/e/EGYkUuH6DDTx3saD
     • Anne 2.1.1

       2 October 2023 at 11:17 am

       From weka's link. This is what Marama said:

       Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson says Sunday's interview of NZ First leader Winston Peters on Q&A was intentionally chaotic.

       "I didn't watch the whole thing. It sounds like it was a bit chaotic. But, for people at home, I know that this is intentional, to make him look like he's anti-establishment and anti-media, because that's supposed to appeal to people," Davidson said on Breakfast on Monday.
       • miravox 2.1.1.1

         3 October 2023 at 3:39 pm

         I watched the whole thing. I agree to a point with what Marama Davidson says, but at one stage it all got too much for Peters – he actually didn't know the answers and most of what he was saying was bluster. He came in with an A4 sheet of paper, about Auckland he said, as he waved it around. Jack wasn't letting up and Peters was entirely unprepared and blurted out old one-line tropes, and then the threat at the end.

         Usually there's something to laughingly respect with the outrageousness of what he says. Not this time. He was appalling and didn't know his stuff. He is like Muldoon, especially now, making his last political gasp, as Muldoon was when he called that snap election.
   • ianmac 2.2

     2 October 2023 at 2:03 pm

     Yes Anne. And note that Peters after shouting and not answering another question says, "Don't be so rude to interrupt me!"

     Hypocrisy.
   • mikesh 2.3

     3 October 2023 at 9:52 am

     Why did Tame go on repeating "you haven't answered my question". Having said it once he's made his point. He should move on to something else. I have the impression that Tame just wanted to make Peters look bad, and keep him out of parliament. If this is the case it makes Tame's objective look political when an interviewer should remain politically neutral.

     PS: I have never supported NZ1st, and I have no intention of voting for them this time.
3. Ad 3

   2 October 2023 at 11:24 am

   Peters is only politician who tames Tame.

   At 78 he still has plenty to teach any interviewer: he gives as much respect as he's given.

   And OMG talk about knowing how to peak a party for maximum yield. Looks like 8% to me.
   • weka 3.1

     2 October 2023 at 11:31 am

     never mind the bollocks
   • Dennis Frank 3.2

     2 October 2023 at 12:16 pm

     knowing how to peak a party for maximum yield. Looks like 8% to me.

     Likewise, but depends how much voters want the handbrake. He's the only one capable of gravitas, so voters will notice other party leaders seeming lightweight.

     James usually does okay on that front & I thought Marama on TV1 earlier did well in her stint with Seymour.
   • Ngungukai 3.3

     3 October 2023 at 8:54 pm

     Agree +100%
4. Mike the Lefty 4

   2 October 2023 at 11:37 am

   In the past Winston came up with some rubbish, but he did come up with some good ideas from time to time, most successfully the Super Gold Card with its discounts, and he did give us a very good crisis leader – Jacinda Adern.

   But now he seems to be merely a grumpy old man, increasingly turning back to his conservative National roots and sounding more like a reincarnated Rob Muldoon everyday.

   He doesn't seem to know what he stands for anymore, he just stands against everything.

   If New Zealand First becomes part of, or tacitly supports, the next government it will be bring it down, eventually.
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 4.1

     2 October 2023 at 11:41 am

     a reincarnated Rob Muldoon

     Pretty sure he was Winstons..mentor. And he might well be channelling him…..

     IMO "if" NACtFrst get power…it will be a very dark time. And they will possibly fall sooner.. than later
   • Hunter Thompson II 4.2

     3 October 2023 at 9:31 am

     Aeons ago, when Winston was a National minister, the media would often ask him if he wanted to be the PM.

     His eyes would glaze over and he would go into a kind of trance as he briefly imagined himself holding the highest office in the land. Then he would return to the present and deny any such ambition.

     As political survivors go, he is #1. I suppose Peter Dunne is #2?
5. pat 5

   2 October 2023 at 11:37 am

   Peters has been known about for decades yet his political rivals continue to feed him ammunition…more fools them.

   To write off the support for his current iteration as only coming from the lunatic fringe is naive…populists succeed because they are.

   An examination of Peters place in NZ politics worth consideration is linked.

   https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/124554/it-news-media%E2%80%99s-job-elicit-information-politicians-not-prosecute-them-writes
   • weka 5.1

     2 October 2023 at 11:51 am

     To write off the support for his current iteration as only coming from the lunatic fringe is naive…populists succeed because they are.

     The post didn't say that. I pointed out that his current courting of the fringe, third arm of politics is dangerous. To ignore that is daft.

     I also spoke directly about two other cohorts who might give their vote to NZF: left wing voters who believe the left will lose and it's better to vote NZF to temper NACT, and people who won't vote L/G over women's rights issues (or child safety). In a tight election every vote counts.
     • pat 5.1.1

       2 October 2023 at 12:27 pm

       And I didnt say the post said that (though commentors have)….and the two other cohorts you list ignore the protest element.

       I am well aware that Trotter's musings are unpopular here (though the sidebar regularly links them) however he has been involved in NZ politics in many forms for as long as Peters so is well placed to observe and comment.

       As he notes..
       “As the election campaign has unfolded, the number of entities challenged in this way has grown to include not only heretical individuals and fringe groups, but also political parties attracting mass support. Act and NZ First have been decried as racist, and even the ideological acceptability of the National Party has been challenged. Given that all the most recent opinion polling indicates that, between them, these parties encompass a majority of the electorate, their characterisation as political deplorables is alarming.”

       Thats a sizeable cohort.
       • weka 5.1.1.1

         2 October 2023 at 12:43 pm

         you know well enough to post a link when quoting. Please do it now before commenting further
         • pat 5.1.1.1.1

           2 October 2023 at 12:45 pm

           Thought I had

           https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/124554/it-news-media%E2%80%99s-job-elicit-information-politicians-not-prosecute-them-writes
           • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1

             2 October 2023 at 12:47 pm

             there's a 10 minute window to edit a post, you can check once you've posted if the comment is how you want it.
       • weka 5.1.1.2

         2 October 2023 at 12:46 pm

         And I didnt say the post said that (though commentors have)

         Glad we clarified. The post didn't write off the support for his current iteration as only coming from the lunatic fringe, but some invisible commentors did.

         I've not seen anyone call ACT or NZF voters deplorables, apart from now Trotter. Have you? Seems he is intent on creating a narrative, let's judge that.
         • pat 5.1.1.2.1

           2 October 2023 at 12:57 pm

           I guess that depends upon whether you think racism is deplorable or not…for that tag has certainly been used.
           • weka 5.1.1.2.1.1

             2 October 2023 at 1:52 pm

             I don't think it does depend on that. 'deplorable' is a word with a specific political meaning and context, it's not a synonym for racist. If people are using deplorable to talk about NZF voters, or anti-mandaters, it's a problem.

             What I'm seeing is Trotter using it without cause. That's a problem too because he's introducing the language into the debate unnecessarily, it's inflammatory.
             • pat …

               2 October 2023 at 2:04 pm

               I disagree…being labelled a rascist is to be labelled deplorable
               • weka …

                 2 October 2023 at 2:06 pm

                 only if you completely ignore the political context of the term 'deplorable'. Trotter is throwing fuel on the fire.
                 • pat …

                   2 October 2023 at 2:20 pm

                   Not at all…deplorable means what it means. Mr Trotter is observing the reality of how that is being used by all parties in their quest for influence….and how it is counterproductive, just as it was for Hillary Clinton.

                   62% of the voting public say they will vote for the major parties …and falling.
                   • weka …

                     2 October 2023 at 2:37 pm

                     ok, so you are ignoring the context. My point stands. If Trotter is using the term as a catchall for the ways in which parts of NZ write off other parts, it's lazy and using the term is adding to the problem of sociopolitical decay.
                   • pat …

                     2 October 2023 at 2:40 pm

                     Its reality
                   • mikesh …

                     3 October 2023 at 10:14 am

                     I don't think "deplorable" should really be used to describe persons; just events (or things such people do). Hilary Clinton's use of the word was incorrect for semantic reasons.
                   • joe90 …

                     3 October 2023 at 10:51 am

                     Hilary Clinton’s use of the word was incorrect for semantic reasons.

                     Clinton didn't call them deplorables.

                     She lumped them into her basket of deplorables.

                     “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it

                     https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/
                   • mikesh …

                     3 October 2023 at 11:39 am

                     Clinton didn't call them deplorables.

                     I suppose. If you wish to split hairs.
                   • joe90 …

                     3 October 2023 at 12:04 pm

                     If you wish to split hairs.

                     for semantic reasons

                     /
6. Cricklewood 6

   2 October 2023 at 11:38 am

   Winston's doing what Winston does best, finding an angle to pick up enough vote to make parliament although this time its very likely his mps wont be so compliant. I suspect he's underpolling by a significant amount with a big chunk of the antimandate/protest vote coalescing around him and more specifically the promenent antivax mandate people high on his list. There is zero chance polling companies are reaching or accounting for that voter segment.

   What likely comes next is a direct result of the mandates and messaging that essentially cast a whole bunch of otherwise funtional people into a very entrenched anti Labour & antiestablishment position.
   • observer 6.1

     2 October 2023 at 11:45 am

     Even if that were true, it makes no sense whatsoever to cast a vote for 2024-2026 based on how somebody felt about vax mandates. The government we elect won't care.

     Punishing ourselves never punishes politicians.
     • Cricklewood 6.1.1

       2 October 2023 at 12:28 pm

       Doesnt need to make sense, encompasses everything from a protest vote to people who believe (wrongly imho) that Winston will somehow champion the cause and hold people accountable.
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 6.2

     2 October 2023 at 11:52 am

     Vote Winston First, then..you can have a trial. Gallows and all…

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300917125/nuremberg-20s-strange-path-to-new-zealand
   • weka 6.3

     2 October 2023 at 11:56 am

     fingers crossed enough of the anti-mandate vote will go to the smaller protest parties that have no chance of 5%.

     I agree that the messaging around the mandates and non-vaxxers is a significant part of this. Ardern said she was creating two NZs and the other NZ is biting back. I don't think that's the only thing going on though. Trump's presidency emboldened many people to say things out loud they wouldn't have said before. The background stress of climate, ecological collapse, war in Europe, cost of living crisis, the pandemic and it not really being over, and so on, create fear, and people do weird things under this kind of chaotic stress. Lots of people looking for safety and trying to get it via power.
7. Thinker 7

   2 October 2023 at 11:39 am

   Why won’t Winston Peters answer straight forward questions about NZ First policy?

   Who says Luxon and Winston can't find any common ground? 😂
   • ianmac 7.1

     2 October 2023 at 2:07 pm

     Aha. Sort of bling leading the blind?
   • mikesh 7.2

     3 October 2023 at 10:33 am

     Why won’t Winston Peters answer straight forward questions about NZ First policy?

     Because cost is only a secondary matter. It is more important to decide, regardless of cost, and regardless of numbers, whether or not an initiative is desirable. Peters probably doesn't know the answers to some of the questions relating to costs or numbers, but that shouldn't bar him from making suggestions that he thinks prospective coalition partners might find it worthwhile to consider.

     And Tame shouldn’t go on badgering someone about matters of cost if he knows he not going to receive an answer.
     • weka 7.2.1

       3 October 2023 at 10:35 am

       that's fine. Just don't call it policy. It's not policy, it's ideas about what should happen that still need to be developed into policy and costed. Peters talks about it as if it's policy.
       • mikesh 7.2.1.1

         3 October 2023 at 11:49 am

         I don't think it matters if he calls something "policy" when it's not something he can achieve without the agreement of the major party to a coalition, unless it's a bottom line. It's important to know, I think, what policies of the other parties, who might be considering including NZ 1st as a coalition partner, Peters might put the kybosh on, These would be his "bottom lines" rather than things he might advocate.
8. observer 8

   2 October 2023 at 11:59 am

   For the left(ish) readers of The Standard, the key point is not to fall into the trap of seeing NZF as a "handbrake". A Nat-ACT gov't will be terrible, and a Nat-ACT-NZF will also be terrible, but with an extra layer of dangerous rhetoric.

   The handbrake will be public opinion, which will turn against a potential Luxon gov't very quickly. There is clear evidence from polls on economic policies that there is no shift to the Right, only to "Other". There will be no honeymoon once that "other" takes shape and the cost becomes clear.
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 8.1

     2 October 2023 at 12:12 pm

     Aye ! That is well summed. Good comment, which needs to be thought..and acted on.
   • weka 8.2

     2 October 2023 at 12:17 pm

     completely agree.
   • Dennis Frank 8.3

     2 October 2023 at 12:29 pm

     On your first point, it's rational to see NZF as a handbrake for various reasons. Firstly, because plenty of voters do, secondly his proven track record of using that strategy in governance, thirdly, he know the technique works since he proved it in the past, fourthly, it provides a centrist path forward between left and right, for others.
     • PsyclingLeft.Always 8.3.1

       2 October 2023 at 12:34 pm

       Firstly I dont see any Rational in the Winston "Handbrake" theory…also

       it provides a centrist path

       In this version of Winston First…"Centrist" has left the mix.
     • observer 8.3.2

       2 October 2023 at 12:56 pm

       Compare the potential NZF caucus with the previous incarnations.

       They were always small "c" conservative and blokey, but the Richard Prossers were in the minority. Now they are the party.

       It's not a coincidence that most former NZF MPs are staying well clear at this election. Winston has gone too far even for them. He has new followers, a more extreme message. Not going to be anyone's Deputy PM or Foreign Minister (even if Luxon considered it, the Nats caucus would balk).

       In summary: the past is not a reliable guide to how this lot will behave. Different agenda now.
       • Dennis Frank 8.3.2.1

         2 October 2023 at 1:01 pm

         Yeah, that's valid. I guess we wait & see how it all plays out this week with the PM out for a while. Political positioning as knee-jerk reaction can be entertaining but I'd rather see issues of substance delineated.
       • weka 8.3.2.2

         2 October 2023 at 2:41 pm

         I haven't looked at the NZF list, but that someone how is on that Telegram channel is at #8 is a massive red flag.
       • Tony Veitch 8.3.2.3

         2 October 2023 at 3:43 pm

         Yes, I haven't heard anything from two of the better NZF politicians in the coalition – Ron Marks and Tracy Martin.

         Very telling!
   • AB 8.4

     2 October 2023 at 12:58 pm

     Well-said.

     And tactically it doesn't make a lot of sense either:

     • NZF being a handbrake is possible only if Nat-ACT fail to reach 48% – 49% of the vote. (Which with wasted vote discarded would creep them to above 50% and deliver 61 seats,)
     • A leftish voter voting for NZF does not make it any more likely that Nat-ACT will fail to reach that 48-49%
     • NZF is going to get 5% anyway – leftish voters transferring their vote to NZF are not required to get him into Parliament
     • Leftish voters are therefore best to vote according to their real opinion in the hope that things are closer than predicted. Imagine the chagrin at having voted NZF in the mistaken belief that it was a good tactical choice, only to see the left lose by a whisker!
     • weka 8.4.1

       2 October 2023 at 2:44 pm

       NACT don't even have to get that high, they just have to get more than the left bloc combined. National could form a minority govt with ACT alone (assuming Peters isn't lying when he says he won't support Labour, but who knows?).

       Whether Nat would prefer to have NZF on C/S as well to stop Peters being a thorn in their side would be interesting to see.
   • mikesh 8.5

     3 October 2023 at 11:49 pm

     I don't think "public opinion" will act as a handbrake to sale of properties to absentee foreigners. If the that were the case National would be losing popularity already. However, I'm pretty sure NZ 1st would be reluctant to allow such a policy
     • observer 8.5.1

       4 October 2023 at 9:11 am

       If that were the case National would be losing popularity already.

       Governments lose support for what they actually do, far more than opposition parties lose support for potential policies that haven't happened yet.

       The apparent vote for "change" is not based on the public scrutinising National policies. Ask those Lab to Nat swing voters, and you'll hear "This lot out", not details from the party manifesto.
9. gsays 9

   2 October 2023 at 12:13 pm

   I find the rhetoric around Peter's constituents being fringe or extreme misses the mark.

   My sister-in-law, was a recent graduate when Covid came through. Any discussion about lockdowns, govt. response, mandates, vaccines etc, she would start with"Speaking as a health professional…" and then trot out the govt line.

   Just last week she thought Winnie was where her party vote would go.

   Sure I get Winston is advocating for the disenfranchised, suspicious of bought and paid for MSM, and fairly anti the state. But to paint NZ1st as only appealing to them is well off the mark.
   • weka 9.1

     2 October 2023 at 12:20 pm

     again, that's not what the post says. I didn't write about people like my Dad who used to vote NZF because he's a centrist, because we all know about them. I also expect TS readers to be able to parse that I don't have to cover every single thing in a post.

     In the post I am pointing to specific dynamics that exist around NZF that we should be paying attention. Whever the make up around a big chunk of NZF voters, there are people on the fringe who are a new dynamic in NZ pol generally, and with NZF specifically.
     • gsays 9.1.1

       2 October 2023 at 4:49 pm

       "again, that's not what the post says."

       Yes, I could have my comment clearer. I wasn't meaning your post, more addressing comments with the narrative about 'fringe' elements being Peter's raison d'etre eg Cricklewood and PLA. I would have replied to them but didn't want to cause a squabble.

       I take yr wider point about Winnie's evasiveness. Certainly not the only pollie to do so.

       Sorry about delay in responding, playing with my fone at lunchtime, I put it on Desktop and couldn't comment nor find where to put it back on mobile…
   • weka 9.2

     2 October 2023 at 12:20 pm

     Just last week she thought Winnie was where her party vote would go.

     why?
     • gsays 9.2.1

       2 October 2023 at 4:51 pm

       Not certain. I figure since the crypt has been opened and the media have repeated his name a gazillion times, she could have picked up a soundbite or two of his.
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 9.3

     2 October 2023 at 12:24 pm

     Well..thats a story. Anyway I dont think anyone discounts there are those Winnie supporters who want "the old days back". Whatever they were…and also how "good" they were…

     However some that he is "courting" (and also on his candidate list !) are quite different. Racist, and also fascist.

     Dangerous in power..for NZ.
     • gsays 9.3.1

       2 October 2023 at 4:56 pm

       As to the 'old days' I probably belong to that group, So long as we are talking pre Rogernomics and the n-l experiment. When small appliances were worth fixing, NZ had a manufacturing base and there were affordable clothes and shoes made in Aorearoa. One parent could work and provide for a family and where corporations had way less sway in our lives. Unions were strong and there were things like time and a half or (brace yrself) double time! Companies used to have apprentices that they put time, money and effort into.

       Not gonna vote for him though.
       • Dennis Frank 9.3.1.1

         2 October 2023 at 5:26 pm

         I remember getting paid treble time once or twice. Think it was at one of the woolstores (student holiday job). The precariat thing must be a freakout for many nowadays. My daughter became adept at juggling 3 jobs concurrently in various cities (bit of a globetrotter).

         Nowadays she works for herself online as an English teacher with foreign clients – seems good at that – living in Rome with her man who is doing some novel kind of degree at uni that I thought seemed sophisticated but can't recall (my bias is to assume profs are morons unless they prove the contrary). Tell you what, tho, a job as an AI programmer would be real cool, particularly figuring out the upskilling bits via design/feedback/tweaking. Interim, I guess, since the tech won't succeed until it becomes adaptive all by itself…
   • Incognito 9.4

     2 October 2023 at 1:04 pm

     But to paint NZ1st as only appealing to them is well off the mark.

     Winston’s game is the same one that he’s been playing for decades and it’s been growing old. To get over the threshold this time he’ll say whatever some people want to hear and there’s plenty of fertile soil to plant and nurture seeds of discontent. Never forget that a vote for NZF is a vote for Winston and nothing else.

     […] she would start with”Speaking as a health professional…” and then trot out the govt line.

     What does this even mean? Was she indoctrinated, spreading false facts and untruths, or just that you disagreed with some of it because you think you know better?
     • gsays 9.4.1

       2 October 2023 at 5:05 pm

       "What does this even mean?"

       The arrogance and confidence that often come with a new degree holder. You could say she was indoctrinated, she was right behind the state's response to the pandemic.

       For all her knowledge she wasn't aware that the vaccine was supposed to be an aspirated when injected.

       I only use her as an example of someone who has no truck with the 'anti' crowd but may well vote for him.
       • Incognito 9.4.1.1

         2 October 2023 at 5:32 pm

         Irrespective of her degree, her presumed (or perceived) arrogance, ignorance, or inexperience, there are special requirements to become a Covid-19 administrator. Aspiration is not the standard way of administering vaccines. You would (and should) know these things.

         https://www.immune.org.nz/immunisation-workforce/covid-19-vaccinators

         Winston is trying to appeal to enough people to get him over the threshold and his anti-establishment vibe is just one string to his bow.
         • gsays 9.4.1.1.1

           2 October 2023 at 6:01 pm

           "Aspiration is not the standard way of administering vaccines. You would (and should) know these things."

           pfizer wanted the intra-muscular injection to be aspirated. Aspiration ensures the administrator hasn't accidentally hit a blood vessel.

           Edit; we are going well off topic of the post.
           • Incognito 9.4.1.1.1.1

             2 October 2023 at 6:11 pm

             The context of your anecdote was vague and unclear (and patronising, dare I say) and you have no idea why your SiL may want to vote for Winston.

             The second part of my comment was entirely on-topic.
10. Dennis Frank 10

    2 October 2023 at 12:57 pm

    Huh. I've just watched 14 mins of the thing on their website & obviously it was a TVNZ Jack-up. Hard to say if was more pathetic than funny though.

    Basically, insider vs outsider. Wilful denial of due process in cabinet by the media on the co-governance decision-making, preceded by tedious recitation of repeated demands for exact numbers on policy-funding. Thought everyone already knew that in finance costs are in constant flux because the market works as a self-organising system. Interviewers who have managed to remain ignorant of both principle and fact are in a sad state.

    Normally natural, Jack came on robotic. I suspect due to having his strings pulled by the news hierarchy. Normally it would be his producer but there are other layers in newsroom management such as executive producers who sometimes frame topics and questions. It's corporate rights in play…
    • Adrian 10.1

      2 October 2023 at 1:27 pm

      Bullshit, he just needed to answer the question and not threaten to sack a presenter by demanding to be Broadcasting minister and God knows how many other portfolios. Beneath him few of his lineup don't even know which way up to hold a piece of paper.
      • Dennis Frank 10.1.1

        2 October 2023 at 1:37 pm

        Yeah I'm not inclined to disagree, just needed to point out that there's more to the situation than surface appearances.

        My view is based on a decade working there observing such instances – not rational for me to assume others will agree with me so I don't!
        • Adrian 10.1.1.1

          2 October 2023 at 2:56 pm

          Fair enough
    • Anne 10.2

      2 October 2023 at 1:47 pm

      Tame was doing exactly the same as he did to Chris Hipkins and Chris Luxon in recent episodes… picking holes in their policies to see if they stacked up. Hipkins answered most of the questions straight up. Luxon blustered his way through his responses. Peters twisted every question to try and make it look like Tame was the one doing the attacking when it was Peter's himself… and stalling. Half his answers made little to no sense, and the other half had nothing to do with the questions being asked.

      Some people might think that is clever. I think it is pathetic and tells me the person is untrustworthy.
      • ianmac 10.2.1

        2 October 2023 at 2:11 pm

        Right on Anne.
    • That_guy 10.3

      3 October 2023 at 12:27 pm

      Pffft.

      Winston goes on and on about his experience and wisdom, yet he hasn’t figured out the basics of democracy. Winston, you are a servant. Voters are your masters. Journalists exist to pass on questions from the boss (us) to the employee (Winston).

      The questions were reasonable and relevant. The answers were threats, bluster, bullshit, whining.

      Just Winston being Winston. After the election he’ll calm down and go back to giving handjobs to the racing industry.
      • weka 10.3.1

        3 October 2023 at 12:30 pm

        does your name or email have a typo? this comment got caught in the spam filter.
        • That_guy 10.3.1.1

          3 October 2023 at 12:36 pm

          Quite possibly. On a mobile.
11. Belladonna 11

    2 October 2023 at 1:34 pm

    There was an excellent RNZ broadcast yesterday (Sunday) evening – Caucus where political journos were doing a round up of the campaign.

    Excellent programme in general – I do like intelligent analysis.

    However, two relevent points in relation to Peters:

    • The claim that it's because journalists are giving Peters airtime, they are to blame for his increased popularity. They laughed it off (amazing the power ascribed to them), but then commented that they'd spent 30 minutes discussing Peters and his potential impact on the election and future government. So, possibly some truth to this. But they are caught in a cleft stick. Either they report on what is becoming (independently) a potentially significant element in the formation of the next government (and risk inflating that popularity); or they don't (and risk their independence, and reduce the actual information available to Kiwis).
    • That Peters only needs to appeal to the 5-6% of Kiwis. It doesn't matter (to him) if he pisses off 90% doing so. That's a win in his book. So he can be as abrasive and contradictory and downright nasty to the 90%, but so long as the 5-6% are on board, he's sweet.

    Here's the link to the RNZ website – I'm not quite sure if it's the one from the 28th of September, re-broadcast; or if the one from the 1st of October hasn't been listed yet.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/caucus
    • weka 11.1

      2 October 2023 at 2:05 pm

      I don't think there is a case for MSM not cover to NZF/Peters during an election year. They've polled over 5%, they're a legitimate political party with potential to be in parliament or the next government. How they report is a different matter, but good to see Tame not letting Peters get away with his bullshit and doing it in a calm manner.

      The second point is how I see it too. It's the weak point in our MMP system.
12. tsmithfield 12

    2 October 2023 at 1:43 pm

    I don't know why there is such a furore over Peters. The Labour government thought NZ First was OK to go into government with a couple of terms back. And, Labour can thank NZ First for getting into government at all back then.

    And, NZ First is pretty much the same beast it was back then. Masters of dog-whistle politics.

    The other thing is that some would argue that Labour started to lose its popularity after NZ First dropped out of the picture in Labour's second term. Some would say that NZ First was a moderating force that kept Labour more centrally oriented, and therefore, more acceptable to the wider electorate. That could be the same in a National-led government as well.
    • weka 12.1

      2 October 2023 at 1:58 pm

      I'll be disappointed if your vote NZF instead of Green tsmithfield 🙂
    • weka 12.2

      2 October 2023 at 2:00 pm

      The Labour government thought NZ First was OK to go into government with a couple of terms back.

      Maybe not so much OK, but had not other choice if it wanted to govern.

      The difference this time is that Peters's dogwhistles are to people that want to hang MPs. This is a new political dynamic in NZ, since the pandemic, and what Peters is doing also gives them power. We should be paying attention.
      • tsmithfield 12.2.1

        2 October 2023 at 2:15 pm

        I wouldn't vote NZ First if you paid me tbh. So far as dog whistling goes, it has always been about them dog-whistling whoever they think will give them votes. So, fundamentally, they haven't changed their spots.

        I would actually prefer to see National reach some sort of accommodation with the Greens actually. I see James Shaw has said it would be rude not to take Luxon's call.. So, who knows. Some sort of confidence and supply arrangement might be possible, for a trade off for some key environmental policies the Greens value.
        • weka 12.2.1.1

          2 October 2023 at 2:34 pm

          Shaw was being polite. The Greens won't give C/S to National.

          Agree about Peters/NZF going for whoever will give them the votes.
          • tsmithfield 12.2.1.1.1

            2 October 2023 at 2:49 pm

            I guess we will find out soon enough about what transpires. I agree it would be a stretch for the Greens to enter into any arrangement with National, and would be very difficult for members to swallow. But, I still see it as a preferable arrangement than one with NZ First.

            Even though I don't think much of the Green's economics, what I do like about them is that they seem quite principled, and therefore would be more trustworthy than NZ First. And, I share a lot of their environmental goals. So, would be quite happy to see that represented in a National-led government.
            • weka 12.2.1.1.1.1

              2 October 2023 at 3:20 pm

              National's economic position is fundamentally antithetical to green politics. That's the core reason the Greens can't support National into government.
              • tsmithfield …

                2 October 2023 at 4:04 pm

                You are likely right. But I think going forward some parties are going to have to rethink their position on how they handle MMP.

                It wouldn't surprise me if some time in the future we have a grand coalition between National and Labour. That would on one hand be highly representative as it would likely represent 70% or thereabouts of overall votes. But also terrible in another respect as minor parties would become superfluous.

                I have often seen National and Labour painted as Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, and in many respects their economic policies aren't worlds apart. For instance, both are pro free market, support the Reserve Bank act etc. So, the fundamentals of the current system are supported by both parties.

                If that is true, then Labour's economic position can't seem that much more appealling to the Greens than National's?
                • weka …

                  2 October 2023 at 5:28 pm

                  I don't agree that Nat and Lab are the same. Sure, both are wedded to neoliberal economics, but there's a chance of shifting Labour to something more progressive. There's no chance of that happening with Nat.

                  I can see I need to do another post on why the Greens won't enable National 😈
            • Tony Veitch 12.2.1.1.1.2

              2 October 2023 at 4:00 pm

              what I do like about them is that they seem quite principled,

              They (the Greens) are the only principled party in parliament (though TPM should be included in my statement).

              Certainly, none of the parties on the right have any principles – except perhaps self-interest!
13. Dennis Frank 13

    2 October 2023 at 1:47 pm

    Heh. Just watched a bit more of it. Winston said the Greens have had more donated to them than NZF but Jack asked about why the top end of town had donated so much to it (re the hypocrisy of Winston's stance in relation to a statement he'd made).

    Elegant side-step? Winston was wrong to call TVNZ corrupt without presenting evidence. That's just foolish. He ought to have said morally corrupt, which would echo the view of many. He could even have said they are biased, which would seem entirely reasonable to many more. Skating on rather thin ice…
    • Dennis Frank 13.1

      2 October 2023 at 2:06 pm

      I've watched the remainder & it sure did get contentious! I think Winston was in grumpy old man mode yesterday morning. His sidekick Valentine who seems to have threatened to bury Willie J on social media is clearly a loose cannon & I wonder if police will decide his threat of violence is actionable.

      Regardless, I disagree with Winston that his stance was defensible, even if just joking. Jack's demeanour seemed driven by a tacit need to drive as many nails as possible into Winston's coffin in the time allowed. No nuance got explored at all. No attempt to determine truth around co-governance decision-making. Just robotic adherence to a predetermined agenda of questions. An insult to the intelligence of viewers.
      https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a
14. weka 14

    2 October 2023 at 2:10 pm

    All the political party leaders interviews on Q and A

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/10/01/election-2023-all-of-jack-tames-political-leader-interviews/
15. joe90 15

    2 October 2023 at 2:51 pm

    Why won’t Winston Peters answer straight forward questions about NZ First policy?

    He's an old man. His short-term memory is shot to shit so he resorts to what he does best. Bluster.
    • Dennis Frank 15.1

      2 October 2023 at 3:27 pm

      Yep, can't disagree with that. Winston falls back on the bluster counter-attack often. He was looking somewhat red-eyed, I noticed, maybe a late night before. However TVNZ wasn't merely poking the bear. Seemed more like an endless sequence of short sharp jabs. I didn't notice many useful questions – most were gratuitous.

      I think they were right to try to make him accountable for various inane policies but their question selection was abysmal. I'm in a benign mood so I'll give them 2/10. If I was doing grumpy old man syndrome like Winston it'd be less.

      I don’t blame Jack. He’s the hired gun in that situation. He just has to work his way through the script regardless of Winston’s evasions. He seemed keen to arm-wrestle Winston though – macho stuff, inappropriate. I blame Nat supporters above him doing what Luxon wants…
      • That_guy 15.1.1

        3 October 2023 at 1:07 pm

        You keep trying to push this silly line that JT was operating off a script, a predetermined script. Perhaps you believe the script was handed to him by a secret cabal of lizard-people.

        JT just asked questions about NZF policy and the things Winston and his candidates have said and done. There was no script.
        • Dennis Frank 15.1.1.1

          3 October 2023 at 1:24 pm

          You're clever enough to do better than that. Viewers saw him looking at his script often during that 26 minutes. Go to the online clip at q+a to see that yourself.

          I spent a decade editing news & current affairs there and can assure you that a scripted list of questions is the format used as basis for such interviews!
          • That_guy 15.1.1.1.1

            3 October 2023 at 1:49 pm

            I’m not questioning whether JT had a piece of paper with some relevant questions written on it. I’m questioning your assertion that the questions were “inappropriate” or “an insult to the intelligence of the viewers”. The answers sure were. The questions were fine.
            • Dennis Frank 15.1.1.1.1.1

              3 October 2023 at 1:59 pm

              Fair enough, opinions can easily differ on question framing due to subjective impressions. Also fair to concede that the questions seemed suitably framed to represent the valid concerns of a large portion of the electorate.

              As someone unsympathetic to Winston normally, I always assess the relation of his answers to the quality of the questions. His reactivity on that morning was too acute to make his answers persuasive, I thought, yet I could see why his buttons got pushed so much. The questions were designed to flush him out of hiding, so he came out like a cave bear. They weren't designed for truth.
              • That_guy …

                3 October 2023 at 2:09 pm

                They weren't designed for truth.

                Eh?

                "How much will this policy cost?"

                "What vaccine mandates are currently in place?"

                "Did you post this thing on social media, and if not, who did?"

                These are clear questions. They have clear answers. If Winston wasn't able to tell the truth, it seems like projection to then turn around and claim that the questions weren't "designed for truth". What does that even mean?
                • Dennis Frank …

                  3 October 2023 at 2:25 pm

                  I already covered that in my original posting on the thing. Costings of policies are time-dependent, just like photos. Will is a verb that refers to the future. Asking how much a policy will cost indicates someone who expects the respondent to predict the future.

                  If this isn't immediately obvious to you, just do a mental comparison of the costings of the Transmission Gully project that featured in media headlines over the years that the saga persisted.

                  Now if they wanted the truth, the producers would have given Tame questions to flush that out: has NZF paid for an independent costing of this policy? Winston faces a yes/no answer. Does he dodge or reply by telling the truth so as to not seem evasive to viewers? His choice.

                  Re your 2nd, he obfuscated. Maybe he dodged the 3rd but can’t recall exactly how he responded.
                  • That_guy …

                    3 October 2023 at 2:41 pm

                    I find your arguments unconvincing. Everyone understands that coatings are provisional, but they are still useful, and every other party manages to provide them in some form. Winston could have answered these questions if he wanted to. But he chose to treat basic, reasonable questions as an attack. Other parties do not act like it’s an “extraordinary “ thing when a journalist asks questions of politicians. Because it’s not.
                    • Dennis Frank …

                      3 October 2023 at 2:49 pm

                      Because he didn't believe those questions were reasonable: he detected the set-up. He's not stupid. Thus his reaction.
                    • That_guy …

                      3 October 2023 at 3:17 pm

                      Lol. There was no setup, just a journalist asking a politician questions.

                      And here's the thing: the questions did not matter. JT could have asked "Are you having a nice day?" or "Do lightsabers work underwater" or "Who put the bom in the bom she bom she bom?" and Winston would have treated it like an Attack on Poor Honest Winston from the Evil Establishment Wokerati who use Kia Ora instead of Good Morning.

                      Because, rightly or wrongly, his supporters feel like they have been attacked by the Establishment, and he needs to prove that he is also under attack by the Establishment.
                  • Drowsy M. Kram …

                    3 October 2023 at 3:16 pm

                    Asking how much a policy will cost indicates someone who expects the respondent to predict the future.

                    So ball-park it within an order of magnitude. Imho, estimating roughly how much policies will cost/raise is one sign of an ability to govern.
                    Willis could then say her "technical numbers" are ‘on the money’

                    'Beyond comprehension': Economists lay into National's foreign tax plan [14 Sept 2023]
                    Reddell told the New Zealand Herald it was "almost beyond comprehension how you can get to a number as high as they [National] do".
                    • Dennis Frank …

                      3 October 2023 at 3:28 pm

                      He could have ball-parked it way closer if he hadn't been in such a grouch. I got the impression he was flying by the seat of his pants on the costing issue, and yeah, that croak from Cassandra was good.
16. SPC 16

    2 October 2023 at 4:08 pm

    A question for Winston Peters that journalists should ask

    There is existing rates rebate scheme providing up to a $500 pa and the amount has not changed for years despite rates going up – "so why provide a much greater level of rebate to those over 65 without any income and cost test whatsoever"?

    NZ First has proposed funding rates relief for Super Gold Card holders, to apply for a 50% local authority rates rebate for those who own and live in their only home or equivalent such as an apartment, up to a maximum of $1600 each year. The estimated cost would be about $480 million, the party said in an announcement on Monday.

    NZ First said it would also aim to develop a seniors housing plan to address the increasing number of seniors in rental accommodation and requiring Accommodation Supplement support.

    It would take steps to increase the number of residential care beds. New Zealand would need about 78,000 such beds by 2040, but on current progress just 33,000 would be available, NZ First said. If nothing was done, it would place impossible strain on the public health system.

    The party's policy included funding 2000 new standard residential care beds over the next term of Parliament. It would also begin to address standard bed residential care support to providers by indexing it to inflation.

    And supplementary question – "would not a more moderate rates rebate scheme change (based on need) allow greater capacity to act in these other areas – you've identified a need for 45,000 residential care beds in 17 years and would be funding only 2000 over 3 of those years"?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/133039988/live-christopher-luxon-pulls-out-of-press-leaders-debate
    • Barfly 16.1

      3 October 2023 at 10:18 am

      IMO the questions you believe should be asked of Peters wouldn't provide any difficulty to him

      e.g.

      " you've identified a need for 45,000 residential care beds in 17 years and would be funding only 2000 over 3 of those years"?

      Peters

      "Good Lord! Did you not learn anything from Labour's Kiwibuild debacle?"

      "Let me explain it to you (in the tone of a tired adult having to deal with a wilful child) It is neccessary to develop to the processes and systems which will allow for an increase in the rate of delivery to deal with the increasing demand for this very neccessary service"

      IMO The questions you feel are difficult to answer may actually be "patsies" to someone with the skills of Peters
      • SPC 16.1.1

        3 October 2023 at 11:06 am

        Yeah right, only if you ignore

        if we have this cost to account for among others (more on super and health care for more old people and greater cost in AS to those renting and the care workers/nurses in the new/extra facilities as well as water infrastructure) how can we afford to also provide a $1600 a year universal rate rebate to those still working and with millions in assets?

        Is this not just a bribe for votes?
        • SPC 16.1.1.1

          3 October 2023 at 11:28 am

          "Good Lord! Did you not learn anything from Labour's Kiwibuild debacle?"

          Sure it was a confusion of help to first home buyers with a home building programme (they should have been targeted at young couples upgrading from apartments/flats/townhouses to a first family home and older ones downsizing sans family). Help to first home buyers – with cost of buying, should have been for the single or couples into flats/apartments/townhouses or into small family home doer uppers.

          Otherwise focus on the shortage of income related housing.
          • Barfly 16.1.1.1.1

            3 October 2023 at 12:02 pm

            The phrasing I chose was to just give an example of politician speak in action – – – don't explain, divert in a manner that suggests the questioner and the question aren't up to the task et cetera.

            IMO it would be a very strange day if someone could get Peters to debate in public the numbers and specifics of NZF policy – should such a thing happen I recommend checking Hell's weather report.
17. That_guy 17

    3 October 2023 at 1:19 pm

    I think by now Winston's schtick is pretty obvious, and the interview shows he's just doing the same old thing. He's a grievance politician, his schtick is

    1) point out or create or exaggerate grievances that can get him over 5%

    2) position himself as the Outsider who will Sort All That Crap Out.

    Some of the grievances are bullshit, some are valid, some are exaggerated. But grievance politicians don't exist to actually Sort All That Crap Out. They exist to provide excuses and blame everyone else for why That Crap has not been Sorted Out. If they ever did Sort All That Crap out he'd be out of business.

    The other thing they don't do is policy. Winston was probably perfectly happy to go into an interview with no costings or detail. It enables him to position himself as the Outsider taking on the Jumped-Up Arrogant Establishment Journalist, with his impertinent questions about "costings" and "details".

    As I said before, if he gets in, he won't actually make any progress on the things he's complaining about. He'll just go back to giving handjobs to the racing industry and being Minister of Wine and Cheese. He might well get in. As the saying goes, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you should concentrate on.
    • That_guy 17.1

      3 October 2023 at 1:52 pm

      That said, I take Weka’s point that the rest of NZF are dangerous loons. I can actually see Winston getting pushed aside post election by the extreme elements of his own party, even if he gets in.
18. tsmithfield 18

    3 October 2023 at 2:02 pm

    There could be a peverse outcome Labour may not be happy with through scare moungering about the prospect of a NACTNZ1st coalition.

    What could happen is that voters may heed Labour’s messaging and decide to vote tactically to keep NZ First out of parliament. Since National seems most likely to win, they may decide to tactically vote National to ensure that NZ First does not get into parliament, and that the governing coalition is as unencumbered as possible.

    If Labour were spectacularly succesful in this respect, then NZ First may not cross the 5% threshold. This would mean a large amount of wasted vote that would be distributed proportionally between the parties.

    If National and Act have the highest proportion of the vote, they would proportionally pick up a larger proportion of the wasted vote. Hence they might end up in a stronger position.
19. PsyclingLeft.Always 19

    3 October 2023 at 2:43 pm

    Winnie's blustering BS about Climate Change…

    Both major parties have made clear commitments to New Zealand's climate targets, while Peters has been questioning the science and sharing incorrect climate information at public meetings.

    At a gathering in Remuera last month Peters told voters, "Carbon dioxide is 0.04 percent of the Earth's atmosphere and of that 0.04 percent, human effect is 3 percent."

    Three climate experts, including NIWA's principal climate scientist Dr Sam Dean, have told RNZ this figure is incorrect.

    "It is not 3 percent. Humans are responsible for 33 percent of the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now," Dean said.

    And..his standard go-to position when confronted with Facts..

    RNZ put some of Peters' claims to him, asking him where he got the 3 percent figure he cited about the human impact on CO2.

    "Oh, we've got somebody now that's arguing about the basic science … I get it from experts internationally and if you want me to do all your homework, put me on a payroll," Peters replied.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/499263/election-2023-experts-call-out-winston-peters-over-climate-change-claims

    Im quite sure that all of this Climate, Treaty and Covid Denial, will go down sweet with his supporters….

    IMO he really does need to be continuously questioned..to expose him.
20. Tony Veitch 20

    3 October 2023 at 2:50 pm

    Just received in the male a NZF flier entitled Let's Take Back Our Country.

    "The flier reads: New Zealanders like you deserve a better government with experienced heads to keep the system honest."

    Yet looking at the NZF party list, as far as I recall, only Winnie, Shane Jones and Jenny Marcroft have been in parliament previously.

    My, they'll have their work cut out!

    The flier goes on to list 5 points, of which I'll only type the first – I'm not masochistic enough to do all 5!

    "If you want to defend Freedom and Democracy. Then let's fight racist separatism, we all matter, everyone of us."

    Which, to my mind, is just empty waffle! There literally is nothing concrete – just populist BS.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS