Now Peter is sulking
First we had the Greens sulking at the influence of United Future beign greater than the Greens, despite three times the MPs.
Now Peter Dunne is sulking because Labour keeps flirting with the Greens and National is trying to seduce the Maori Party ahead of United Future.
Peter’s problem is that in political terms, he is an easy lay.
Now I don’t mean this as a bad thing. Peter is a very good guy, who is always a safe and competent Minister, and he doesn’t go troppo like Winston does. But it does mean both major parties do tend tio take him for granted.
We may be about to see a more frigid United Future as they struggle for profile and relevance. Already Peter has started to publicly push for personal tax cuts in 2008 – something which would get any other Minister sacked. It may be interesting to see how far he will push. Not that it matters for tax cuts – no one will believe election year tax cuts from Labour, after they broke their word and cancelled the last set of election year promised tax cuts.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Peter Dunne is the Grumpy dwarf of New Zealand politics.
Happy has to be John Key.
Sleepy would be Jim Anderton.
Bashful, I would suggest would be, Winston.
Sneezy is Tariana Turia.
Dopey is Nandor Tanczos.
And Doc would have to be Helen Clark.
I need more dwarves (apparently they considered Scrappy, Cranky, Dirty, Awful, Blabby, Silly, Daffy, Flabby, Jaunty, Biggo Ego, Chesty, Jumpy, Bald, Gabby, Nifty, Sniffy, Burpy, Lazy, Puffy, Dizzy, Stuffy and Tubby in creating the film).
May 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Helen is the wicked witch
Shame there is not a “spanky” as this would have been perfect for David Benson Pope (aka panty slut boy)
May 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Peter Dunne- the professed pro-family politician who granted power to a gang of anti-family Marxists. The worst most two faced politician in parliament. (and that’s saying something) What a creep. I hope his arse is kicked out of parliament by voters who acknowledge what a self serving waffling hypocrite this man is.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Dunne always leaned more to National. now, with the dramtic polls over the weekend, he thinks he’s seen how the election will go and has decided to cast his chips with National.
Will he pull out of the deal with Labour? Unlikely, it could limp on without him anyway.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Peter Dunne has just lost 1/3 of his caucus and seemed to be caught off guard and he recently lost the out-door recreation party. He has problems. And I seem to recall Judy Turner making some pretty savage remarks about the Labour Party recently. Centre Parties think they had hold the election result in the palm of their hands and rock left or right but staying in Government wll the time. It is a position of extreme policial expediency and arrogance. I hope Dunne loses his seat as well, and National should target that hard.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Heh heh. Redbaiter & I are in agreement on this one.
Actually, with the Outdoor Recreation pillocks are out of UF, I’m surprised that Dunne has any objections to Labour working with the greens..
May 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Greg…You missed out Corrupty, but then again most of them would qualify for that appellation.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“Mr Dunne wants some recognition from Labour now of United Future’s possible relevance after the next election.”
Ha ha ha!! I hope Key has no bar of him.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Redbaiter is right that he is “the worst most two faced politician in parliament” — but he is incredibly arrogant as well.
On the one hand, he tells Labour – the governing party! and the largest in parliament right now – that it must not talk to another of its current and potential allies (the Greens) because this would represent a betrayal by Labour of his piddling two-MP organisation.
Then he ANNOUNCES that his party wants to talk to Labour’s motral enemy, National, about forming a different government after the election – the ultimate betrayal of the party he reckons owes him so much loyalty.
And then he attacks National – currently the leading party in the polls with enough support to form a government on its own – for talking to another of its potential supporters, the Maori Party. This is despite the Maori Party having been far more straight with National during the 2005 coalition negotiations than the betrayer Dunne.
He is having another Sainsbury moment. Everyone has to talk to Peter but no one is allowed to talk to anyone else – even people who have been more honest towards them than he has!
Who the fuck does he think he is? He has two MPs. National and Labour are far more important parties than him – and so are the Maori Party and the Greens.
Can we please be rid of the creep in 2008?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Has anyone told Peter Dumb he has a possum living on top of his head ?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Peter Dunne is flirting with National,National is flirting with the Maori Party, JAMterton is in bed waiting for Labour to get home after flirting with the Greens.
Rodney Hide is happily married to Heather Roy. Dunne has lost one of his partners and now wants to flirt with a younger MAN! (John Key) but it appears that he is not as spunky as the Maori party.
Poor Peter Dunne. He just wants to get into bed, but he`ll probably end up next to a snoring Winston who will kick him out when he wakes up.
heh.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“Not that it matters for tax cuts – no one will believe election year tax cuts from Labour, after they broke their word and cancelled the last set of election year promised tax cuts.”
It was never presented as a “tax cut”, the closest anyone came to describing it as such was Labour’s political opponents which maligned it for not being a tax cut.
Why do right wing commentators continue to throw up this red herring? As we have so often heard from the right, these tax cuts were inconsequential and not worth giving.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I was once called an “extreme left wing fellow traveller one of that ilk” by Peter Dunne.
This for questioning why the words conservation, environment, civil liberties and human rights did not occur in his article on why the United Party was “liberal”.
An apologist for Jennifer Shipley’s economic rationalism and Jim Bolger’s communitarianism he has remained to this day.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Pedro, you need to be reminded it’s the thought that counts. THe thought whihc is uppermost in people’s minds is that The Cullender has turned out to be an Indian Giver. Never again will he be believed. I reckon he will be the sacrificial Christmas lamb. The question is:- who will be the new potatoes, green peas and mint sauce?
Now that’s actually not a bad analogy. LAbour needs some new potatoes on the front bench, they need to seriously pee in the Greens’ pockets and somehow they need to spice themselves up.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I hope but doubt that the Nats ignore Dunne for his lack of loyalty over the years and he is toast after the next election.
The last thing National needs propping them up is somebody connecting them to the past government.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Much more so I hope National they target Blanderton’s Wigram seat.
He ought to be washed away with the massive tide that is coming in for the centre-right.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
It is entirely logical that Dunne would want to talk to National. His objective is to remain permanently in government. National is high in the polls, so he had better be talking to National in order to have a look in.
Whether or not we like it, National had better be talking to Peter. If he gets a couple of seats National will need them, if he doesn’t then no harm done. Just talking to the potential coalition partners, and looking like they could form a government, is worth a lot of votes to National. There is no particular value to National in ignoring them, or attempting to minimise the third party vote (it didn’t work in the last election, and I suspect will never work in an MMP environment).
In terms of Dunne himself, I reckon it is 50/50 whether he wants to be in govt all the time because he reckons he best influences policy there, or whether he just likes the perks. The first is arguable, but with little evidence to support it. The second has at least a grain of truth in it.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
OK adolf, so do you think it was Cullen’s vindictiveness purely that caused him to cancel the tax bracket adjustment? But don’t we also know that Labour will also do anything they possibly can to get public approval? So surely the only reason they would do this is because it is economically advisable? And so it turns out. Hey I’m not saying that this doesn’t mean the government isn’t liable for wasteful spending, I’m just saying breathless rhetoric about the tax bracket shift cancelling is misdirected.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I think that United will be down the gurgler at the election like Winston was in 1999. They have for short term gain sacrificed the long term future of the party.
The Greens have got by far the best seat in the house, no C/S agreement means they can still stand independently without getting swallowed up in the Labour machine.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
No, we don’t know that Labour will do anything possible to get public approval. The anti-smacking bill proved that. Third term govt and arrogance kind of go together.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:09 am
I think Dunne is doing a branding exercise and plus he probably wants to get the tax message out as he sees it as being dangerous not to.
With the Greens getting stroppy and Dunne saying this, it will be very, very interesting to see what Peters does. He has more potential than any to cause trouble.
This isn’t good for Labour.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:35 am
We see the true believer in Pedro. If the great Michael Cullen did it, then he must have a good reason for it. Quick sell that man a bridge.
The 2005 announcement were tax cuts (just nto tax rate cuts) and the proper response to complaints that they are not big enough is to make them bigger, not to cancel them all together.
It is a clear broken promise.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
This morning Dunne says he wants an indication from National as to who they will go into coalition with. He wants this before any election.
I think that is a bit rich since he won’t openly declare which way he is going to bend. (Although its a done deal really because he will go with who is going to govern. Quite likes the baubles does Peter)
Surely he must concede that the electorate should have good feel for where his position will be.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Dunne obviously thinks that with Labour declining in the polls he can frighten them into treating him more kindly in return for a continuation of what is seen by the commentators as Labour’s masterful management of MMP and coalitions. Trouble is that he has become a) far less significant with fewer MPs and b)irrelevant to their problems which is massive haemhorraging of public support for core Labour direction.
He looks a bit like a suicide bomber threatening to press the pickle after showing everyone the explosives but everyone has moved away and he is standing alone in an empty field. Go on Pete, press the pickle, make all our days.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Looks like the dogs tail is running out of wag
May 30th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Looks like the dogs tail is running out of wag
May 30th, 2007 at 9:09 am
David, cullen didn’t sell it as a promise, it was a very minor detail in the ’05 budget. I’m not a blind believer though, you know very well your self that he would have kept those shifts in place if he hadn’t received strong advice against if from treasury/reserve bank: I’m willing to trust their analysis of what constitutes very complex economics, in any case it will be better than most of the ‘computer chair’ pundits who inhabit this site. kiwiblog aspires surely to be a source of new information, a dynamic system, not just some self perpetuating stagnant echo chamber of entrenced positions. Hey and if I’m damn wrong tell me why I’m wrong, don’t just tell me that I’m indoctrinated.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Do you think we might see if Peter can dance, next year?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Pedro I’m pleased that you have such faith in the reserve bank/treasury. As a general rule 10 economists in a line still cant reach a conlusion but any idiot can see that massive government spending is inflationary. Many of us would prefer to have more say in our own destinies by deciding how we spend the rewards of our work. Labour is squashing our aspirations
May 30th, 2007 at 9:39 am
A very minor detail – not according to Mike Williams. It was the first reduction in tax for the Government, and was heavily publicised.
You claim not to be a blind believer, and then show you are 1000% exactly that by not just parroting Cullen but by daring to say “you know very well your self that he would have kept those shifts in place if he hadn’t received strong advice against”.
My God Pedro you not only parrot Cullen, but you claim his version of how the world works is so strong that I even secretly agree with him. The fact you can’t even see your affliction is concerning.
The tax cuts were so small their inflationary effect would be minimal – far less than say Fonterra’s payout. And even if inflation is an issue, Dr Cullen had the option of keeping his word and just not increasing spending by quite so much. He also had the option to defer rather than cancel them.
To suggest that Dr Cullen had no choice but to cancel the tax cuts, and that he did so reluctantly is such outrageous spin not even the 9th floor would try it on.
And also please don’t fucking tell me what Kiwiblog does or does not aspire to be. That’s arrogance second only to your own unflagging defence of Labour for a clear indisputable broken promise.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
While I rejoice at the Polls it would be stupid of National to plan on governing alone.
A three/four term National administration (and that is what is needed to put this country back on track) will require coalition partners.
And like it or not UF is a potential coalition partner. Dunne (like Anderton) will retain his seat for as long as he cares to stand. Once he steps down, different story.
So, it is in their interest that National nurtures relationships with ACT, UF and, dare I say, the Maori Party. THe only one I would run a country mile from is Winston First … have they paid the money back yet?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Hey pedro, I will tell you that you are wrong..
Why?? because when Cullen put the chewing gum tax cut (adjustment) in the prior budget he was indicating that a future tax cut was POSSIBLE at some time.
You say… “cullen didn’t sell it as a promise” That statement is not supportable because the voter’s perception IS the message, and Cullen knows that. Whats more, you know that Cullen knows that..
Another point. You say of Cullen… “he would have kept those shifts in place if he hadn’t received strong advice against if(t?) from treasury/reserve bank:”….
Well come on, you know what opinion Cullen has of Treasury advice. Need I remind you of his “ideological burp” quote.
Funny how these quick, witty, humorous, demeaning and totally arrogant one liners keep coming back to bite him. karma.?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Sure Dunne wants to know what side his bread is buttered on.
I think National could make a simple answer right now to the question: “which parties will you be in coalition with”
“every party that votes no confidence this afternoon”
With the polls that have just come out – in any other MMP/PR country we would have had either a new government or a fresh election. Absolutely no question.
Key should be talking to Dunne, to Peters, to the Greens, and to the Maori party. He should be offering them policy and ministerial positions that he can give them next week.
Tax cuts not next year, not next month: but we coiuld have retrospective tax cuts next week!. We could fix the smacking. We could fix the benefits, schools, hospitals and all the rest of the mess in about a couple of weeks. We know how to do it: i’ts easy. John Key just needs the political will to seize the moment.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
bwakile “any idiot can see that massive government spending is inflationary” yeah sure, lets look at government spending. I’m wondering what, exactly, we should cut out? The health system is churning through a pile of cash- how can we change it so that it is more productive? We don’t get anywhere by saying, ok, lets kick all those red DHB administrators out of their jobs, because we haven’t identified exactly which ones are superfluous. Any thoughts? We don’t get anywhere by saying: we need to open it up to the private sector, because how exactly are we going to open it up to the private sector: sure theres potential in auckland, wellington, christchurch, but what exactly, in specific terms, are we going to do? what about places like wanganui, masterton or taumaranui where there isn’t the population to support two complete systems? “My God Pedro you not only parrot Cullen, but you claim his version of how the world works is so strong that I even secretly agree with him. The fact you can’t even see your affliction is concerning.” Well you can’t see your affliction either, in that you believe that all of treasury and the reserve bank are either powerless under the crushing weight of a huge socialist regime, or alternately towing the line like good red army tank squadron commanders. Cullen is a politician god damn it, I think the fact that he has spent so much on new health spending and I don’t know whats happened to it stinks, but until I see some workable alternatives presented I’m not going to jump. “And also please don’t fucking tell me what Kiwiblog does or does not aspire to be. ” No need to swear at me mate, kiwiblog can be whatever the hell it wants to be, I was making a suggestion that instead of ending posts with highly partisan statements which do nothing but promote whinging, expletive ridden posts from spluttering WASPs on the wrong side of middle age, you could actually propose some points of discussion. Or maybe just not say anything about labour at all, seeing that your original post on this thread was meant to be about peter dunne.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Pedro I’m not saying that Governments shouldnt spend money but to put your head in the sand and say that govt spending isnt inflationary is banana republic stuff. every time mortgage interests rate go up I get a bit pissed off that we shoulder the blame and the government says “not me”
May 31st, 2007 at 10:16 am
Government spending relies on taxation. The money comes from the wages of workers. Government (because you want them to, because you vote for it) takes it before you get it, or in the case of sales based taxes, as you spend it.
If it wasn’t taken and spent by government, the workers would spend it (or save it) When it is taken, government spends it.
Where is the function in this simple equation that allows that a different spender affects inflation differently?
May 31st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
No function, I dont disagree with you on that. The point is some spending is inevitable. I’d like to cut the spending that isn’t neccesary, but we can’t because apart from anecdotal cases we don’t actually knwo where the wastage occurs.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Peter Dunne was the prick who “shafted” Derrick & Enid Catley.
He took up their cause and then left them high & dry.
The Ombudsman did likewise.
The current Gov Gen Bahjarama {not sure on spelling} was also in on it.
Derek and Enid have been impoverished as a result. Mr Catley had a revolutionary system for fishing. The IRD virtually bankrupted him.
Read the story on
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/teegee/catley.html