October 14, 2005 9:32am by David Farrar

Winston on 7 September

An alert reader has sent me this extract from Winston Peters’ speech in Rotorua on 7 September 2005:

I am announcing today that New Zealand First will not be going into a formal coalition with either Labour or National.

Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding of what I am saying let me be clear

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More
Pinterest
Print
Tumblr
Like this:
Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment32

Uncategorised
Winston First

Comments (32)

Login to comment or vote

Adolf Fiinkensein

You should really send this directly to Helen Clark so that she can see she is getting into bed with a person whose erection promises are even less reliable those those of the morning after.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 10:00am

Davros

I reckon this statemnt needs a bit of prominence as well…

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 10:04am

Craig Ranapia

Oh, forget the hack pack – I don’t see their mututally parasitic relationship with Luigi changing anytime soon.

I’d make sure every member of the National caucus has those words burned into their memories – and they’re repeated at every opportunity.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 10:10am

kowhaikiwi

Can Winston assure us that he never used Ministerial cars the entire time he was the treasurer? He may have never had a self-drive, but I bet he used the Crown limos like there was no tomorrow…

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 10:20am

freedom

we won, you lost, eat that.

minimum wage $12, free healthcare for under 6s etc. these are lefty policies.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 10:35am

culma

Freedom – We All Lost, that’s the funny thing.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 10:40am

PatMC

We will soon have a government that no one wants and no one voted for. We will have the fluke waving the whale. We will, in short, have the best democracy that MMP can buy. But the price will be……….?

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 11:13am

Murray

Well the coalition of the liars is coming together well.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 11:23am

Steve

Why should we have thought that Winston would do what he says he would this time? The only time he seems to do what he says he will do is if it is in his self interest to do so.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 11:43am

Paul W

Obviously it’s to Labour’s advantage to have NZF vote FOR confidence and supply rather than abstain but like others, I thought Winston’s strategy required him to sit on the cross benches.

Maybe he’s worked out a new approach that will see him on the inside but still able to make noises to ensure his survival post the next election. Probably that’s the issue that’s focusing all minds: for Labour, is a fourth term possible and under what conditions and for NZF, how do they survive if Winston can’t win his seat.

It’s clear that the Nat’s would have dealt with him despite their protestations to the contrary (so all this hand-wringing is just posturing).

As to how the Greens will feel? My view is that they’re increasingly savvy and will extract a deal from Labour that ensures they grow in the next parliament and that doesn’t require them to have Ministerial roles.

These are interesting times – MMP is only a few elections old and each new parliament presents new challenges.

If Labour manages a stable coalition over the next 3 years, they may well cement there position as the natural party of government. Beauty!

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 12:16pm

simple rules

When it comes to Winston a good rule of thumb is to assume that anything he asserts is true is false and anything he says is false is probably true. He can be counted on to be the most consistently WRONG MP. A lazy way of figuring out good policies from bad ones is to assume they are bad if Peters endorses them and good if he opposes them. On rare occassions you will be wrong but you’ll be more conistently correct this way than anything short of actually spending a lot of time to study the issues. Peters is a good indicator. It’s just that you have to find truth and goodness on the opposite of him almost all the time.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 12:51pm

simple rules

When it comes to Winston a good rule of thumb is to assume that anything he asserts is true is false and anything he says is false is probably true. He can be counted on to be the most consistently WRONG MP. A lazy way of figuring out good policies from bad ones is to assume they are bad if Peters endorses them and good if he opposes them. On rare occassions you will be wrong but you’ll be more conistently correct this way than anything short of actually spending a lot of time to study the issues. Peters is a good indicator. It’s just that you have to find truth and goodness on the opposite of him almost all the time.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 12:52pm

gd

So wheres the new government those media wankers have been telling us breathlessly about for the past 3 weeks.Either they are liars or they just dont know whats going on and are making it up as they go along.Either way it cements in the reality that most of them are tenth rate jurnos and Leftie supporters What a joke they are

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 12:52pm

Mark

Paul, if Labour is the natural party of government then Michael Jackson is not a kiddie diddler.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 1:06pm

Paul W

Mark/gd: I’m disinclined to take either of you seriously – don’t worry though, you’ll get another chance in three years.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 1:25pm

gd

Hi Paul W Somehow i dont think we will have to wait 3 years Im picking 18 months at the outside

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 1:35pm

PS

How come in spite of a media gagging for news that Philip Field gets to have a pretty free run.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 1:50pm

Paul W

I very much doubt it – it’d be a first!

Even the Bolger/Shipley deal with NZF lasted longer than that and it was the first MMP parliament full of first time MPs… nah, wishful thinking!

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 1:52pm

Mark

Yeah, that whopping 2% landslide by Labour really put us in our place.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 2:30pm

Paul W

Mark, fair comment.

I think the election result showed that the country has some misgivings about both parties and I’m certain that Labour, given a chance, will implement a policy program that reflects the recent mandate such as it was.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 2:42pm

darren

Labour will need to be moderate and responsible.
Certainly something they did not show during the campaign.
They might even have to find some money for tax cuts.
Any PC loopiness, Grren extremism, etc, and it’s curtains for Helen and hello Don!

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 2:59pm

Andy Soprano

Peters can stick to the plan or fall into another honey trap. His leverage is greatest if he abstains until the next election.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 3:14pm

Paul W

darren: Labour is already pretty moderate and mainstream by any objective measure however I think tax reform will need to be explored in this term (and Cullen signalled it would be at the last buget).

The line about “PC loopiness” is code for conservative – I don’t agree but I do think that the last government probably enacted most of Labour’s progressive policy agenda and the next term will focus on sustaining and maintaining the growing economy.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 3:16pm

Michael

I’m pleased Winston didn’t cave into the Nats latest efforts to recruit him – sending the EB cultists into his caucus. That tactic, in my view, demonstrates National’s total unfitness for government.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 4:21pm

baxter

Well at lunchtime TV today Winston repeatedly told reporters to go back to the speech (quoted by David above} This would seem to indicate he won’t join Labour and the Greens….What puzzles me more is why he hasn’t been outspoken about the Thai Tiler affair.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 4:49pm

culma

Paul – your comments to mark/gd that they will get another say in 3 years, I have to say you are incredibly optimistic if you think this will go 3 years. just remember the shit burger. What flavour sauce do you want on it.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 4:57pm

Paul W

culma: I ignored that comment last time ’cause it was so incredibly purile, it hasn’t become any less so on repetition.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 5:52pm

Tony Milne

I can’t imagine National, NZ First or the Maori Party would really be that keen to rush into a centre-right (National/Act/United/Maori Party/NZ First) government. It could hurt National if they are seen to give may on anything to do with race. It would kill the Maori Party (as Chris Trotter pointed out today). And could damage Winston. Although a centre-right government is still a possibility.

You never know what you’re going to get with Winston.

In hindsight, not going with Winston in 1996 was probably a pretty good thing for Labour. National not going with Winston in 2005 could also advantage them. If I was a National members, I’d want us to sit on the opposition benches for 3 more years, get our new MPs some experience, change leaders, moderate some of the more extreme views, promote the talented newcomers. And go in strong in 2008.

I guess it will all become clear soon enough.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 6:30pm

Andy Soprano

The Exclusive Brethren has no place in a National government & their post-election maneuvering is regrettable. Brash must move forward from his current position & acknowledge they are irrelevant.

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 9:31pm

JW

Why hasn’t someone just told the EB,

“you don’t vote, so you don’t have any right to a) tell/influence people how to vote; and b)what sort of coalition to put together. Now piss off!!”

0 0
Report
October 14, 2005 9:58pm

alistair

National/Act/United/Maori Party/NZ First :

What a fabulous coalition. What a great thing that would be. For the parties which are not in it.

Stable government! Who needs it! All fun, all the time.

0 0
Report
October 15, 2005 9:47am

Ben Wilson

Winston is someone who I disagree with on many points, but do respect. I think he’s mainly honest, if big headed. So I’ll be surprised if he ends up a minister. It seems that the whole thing is Labour’s idea, to try to tie him in more closely.

I’m not sure why he made his ‘strategic decision’ to refuse coalition, but still offer support to the government. I can’t see what it gets him or his voters.

Perhaps he’s genuinely scared of the real responsibility of government and prefers to sit in the benches saying whatever he likes. Clark probably doesn’t want that. It will be much easier to control Peters if he’s kept in close, rather than ranging freely outside the cabinet.

Coalition negotiations do make a mockery of party promises. Since no party ever has the seats to rule alone, there is absolutely no chance they can follow 100% of their promises, since they must seek coalition with parties that have made different promises, and compromise.

This is a well understood facet of MMP that voters take into account when they cast their ballots. What are the probable coalitions, and what will they insist on?

This is not excusing the breaking of election promises. Just explaining it. No one knows before hand exactly what cards will be dealt by the voters.

0 0
Report
October 15, 2005 11:20am