Why Clark must sack Peters
The Government is, to be blunt, lying when it says there is no need for the Foreign Affairs Minister to support the China Free Trade Agreement because trade agreements are somehow seperate from foreign policy.
To rebut this preposterous claim, let me quote the Rt Hon Helen Clark who just six months ago addressed the Oxford Union on the topic of “New Zealand Foreign Policy“:
A successful WTO round is our top trade priority. For it to succeed it must deliver on opening up agricultural trade. That is also in the interests of the developing world. But New Zealand has strong interests in negotiations on industrials and services too, and is looking for an outcome which delivers more openness across the board.
Meantime in our own region we are forging new trade links with APEC partner economies. Our first free trade agreement was with Australia over 24 years ago. Now we have FTAs with Singapore and Thailand, and a sub regional FTA with Chile, Singapore, and Brunei. We have completed fourteen rounds of FTA negotiations with China. Negotiations for an FTA are also going on between ASEAN and Australia and New Zealand.
Clark makes it absolutely clear trade policy is a subset of foreign policy. It is not a separate issue as Clark now tries to claim. It is like arguing overseas aid is not part of foreign policy.
To quote Helen Clark some more, in 2000 she said “As I have indicated, multilateral trade policy will continue to be a key focus of our foreign policy.”
And Dr Cullen in 2005 in Hansard said:
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepts that seeking a free-trade deal with China is one of our highest foreign policy goals. …
Cullen points out that Goff is Trade Minister, not Peters. But he very clearly states that the China free-trade deal is “one of our highest foreign policy goals”.
Now Clark yesterday has tried to pretend it is not foreign policy, but trade policy only, as reported on TV3:
She did not believe that China or anyone else would find it strange for the foreign minister to attack trade policy.
But as Dr Cullen and herself and Goff have said on many occasions, it is a key foreign policy goal.
Now even worse, Peters has said he will criticise the deal when overseas as Foreign Minister. So the NZ Government will pay for their Foreign Minister to fly to other countries, and if asked about the China FTA, to say it is a bad deal which does not deliver enough to NZ. He will even say this to the Chinese Foreign Minister he claims.
Peters is also running advertisements today in newspapers attacking the China FTA. These ads were placed *before* his Caucus claimed to have decided their position yesterday. That tells you something.
So in summary, we have multiple statements from the Government that the China FTA has been and is one of their top foreign policy goals. And you have their Foreign Minister:
- Stating he will criticise the FTA when overseas as Foreign Minister if asked
- Attacking the deal while the PM is still in China
- Basically attacking his own colleagues and MFAT staff as having failed to get a good enough deal
- Claiming not to have made his mind up on the deal as he hadn’t seen details, yet drawing up advertisements in newspapers attacking the deal before it had even been signed!
- also heading a party campaigning against Asian immigration to NZ
Now it is possible Peters is trying to get sacked. Since he was re-elected to Parliament in 1984, he has never gone into an election backing the Government of the Day. He could have just announced his party will vote against but he will abstain in recognition of his responsibility to the Government he is Foreign Minister of.
But Clark’s credibility is one the line if she thinks it is not an issue that the NZ Foreign Affairs Minister is campaigning against the Government’s foreign policy, and allows him to do so.
What would we think if the US Secretary of State opposed the foreign and trade policy of the US Government? Or if any Foreign Minister anywhere in the world denounced and ran advertisements against their own Government’s foreign policy?
The “agree to disagree” clause in the agreements between Labour and NZ First can not and does not extend to the Foreign Minister able to campaign against and denounce overseas the foreign policy of the Government. It is the equivalent of the Finance Minister voting against tax cuts in the Budget (something Cullen probably wishes he could do) on the grounds tax is a matter for the Minister of Revenue, not the Minister of Finance.
Peters can not continue as Foreign Affairs Minister and be sent by the NZ taxpayer to countries around the world, where he will then criticise and attack the New Zealand Government foreign policy and achievements (by way of giving personal opinions on questions) rather than advocate on behalf of the Government he is the Foreign Minister for. That is a bauble too far.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:42 am
DPF: the Clark quote, of which you say, “Clark makes it absolutely clear trade policy is a subset of foreign policy.”
I don’t see where she makes this clear. She seems to be very careful, in fact, to make it clear that she is specifically referring to “trade”, with the references to “trade priority” and “trade links” ruling out your interpretation…
“A successful W[TRADE]O round is our top TRADE priority. For it to succeed it must deliver on opening up agricultural TRADE. That is also in the interests of the developing world. But New Zealand has strong interests in negotiations on industrials and services too, and is looking for an outcome which delivers more openness across the board.
“Meantime in our own region we are forging new TRADE links with APEC partner economies. Our first free TRADE agreement was with Australia over 24 years ago. Now we have F[TRADE]As with Singapore and Thailand, and a sub regional F[TRADE]A with Chile, Singapore, and Brunei. We have completed fourteen rounds of F[TRADE]A negotiations with China. Negotiations for an F[TRADE]A are also going on between ASEAN and Australia and New Zealand.”
[DPF: The other Clark quote and the Cullen quote are explicit and beyond debate. Nice try at defending the impossible]
April 9th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Clark is quoted on Stuff as saying “”He goes with a brief from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He will stick to the brief.”"
Let’s just back up the truck for a minute. Isn’t it the Ministry of Foreign Affairs AND Trade? Isn’t it a case of one Ministry, two Ministers? Surely Clark is deceiving herself if she thinks that Peters can effectively represent one half of MFAT while giving the finger to the other.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Jafapete – you need to read son, read. The topic of her speech? Foreign Policy. The opening remarks? “Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening on the subject of New Zealand foreign policy in the 21st century.”
She then waffles on about nuclear policy and so forth before going on to say:
Let me now turn to the major themes of New Zealand foreign policy, before discussing regions of the world where we prioritise our engagement.
The first major theme she raises is Peace and Security. This is followed, after a few paragraphs, by “Trade policy. This looms very large on New Zealand’s agenda, as our major export goods are agricultural – and therefore the most discriminated against under current world trade rules.”
Yup, reading that speech it is fairly clear to me that Helen Clark believes that Trade is part of Foreign Policy. Except, her latest comments make it seem that her beliefs and motivations are only determined by what is best for herself and for the Labour Party.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:48 am
You have to love MMP, where a card carrying xenophobe, who is rejected by his own electorate, gets back in parliament on the basis of 6% of the list vote, becomes our foreign affairs minister representing us overseas!
April 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am
My supposition is that Peters would wish to be sacked. If sacked he would precipitate an election.
In fact I suspect Peters wants the Government to fall now or shortly for his own advantage and we would merely be playing into the vainglorious poser’s hands yet again. To the disadvantage of NZ and to Peters advantage.
It is vital this deal be ratified now, before any election that might see Winston and the GReens in an unholy alliance ceding confidence and supply only to the major party that agrees to renege on this deal.
National and ACT will get no thanks from business for allowing Peters to derailthis deal, if they did that then Key and Co can kiss goodbye to sitting in Govt for 10 years or more.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:51 am
“DPF: the Clark quote, of which you say, “Clark makes it absolutely clear trade policy is a subset of foreign policy.”
I don’t see where she makes this clear.”
It’s part of a speach titled “New Zealand Foreign Policy” ergo if trade wasn’t part of NZFP it wouldn’t be mentioned.
Edit… What Pascal said…
April 9th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Helen Clarks government lying?
Shit never saw that coming.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Go ahead Stamp your foot!
Cant have obscure cabinet manuals being overriden can we
April 9th, 2008 at 9:02 am
You only have to look at the front page of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s website to get an idea of how important trade is to Foreign policy. 80% of the stories, features, and articles, relate to trade policy.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Clark is quoted on Stuff as saying: ”He goes with a brief from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He will stick to the brief.”
Sorry Helen. He has said he will depart from the brief and criticise the deal to even the Chinese. He is defying you.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I don’t much like the photo with the nurses lined up in military style in the Herald though…this is so going to play into Peter’s hand. Watch his poll movements now
April 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
That’s a fine speech, DPF. So when will National be saying it?
There is no pressure on Peters because there is no opposition. No matter how absurd Peters’ position all is, National have not demanded that Peters resign, and we all know why.
When National say Peters cannot be Foreign Minister, then you’ll have an issue. Let us know when that happens.
[DPF: I agree National should be calling for Clark to sack him. The fact they are not doesn't mean the media and others can not expose the incompatibility of what is happening]
April 9th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Don’t you mean the COUNTRY should sack Helengrad the Soul destroyer !!!
April 9th, 2008 at 9:28 am
gee90: When National say Peters cannot be Foreign Minister, then you’ll have an issue. Let us know when that happens.
lolwut? So people should only comment on issues when endorsed by a political party? That might be good enough for the blogs hosted by the Labour Party *cough*The Standard*cough*, but we all know Kiwiblog is a bit different in that regard.
Agreed with the thought though – it would be good to see somebody laying into Peters. Except, everybody appears to roll over and let that greaseball tickle their bellies.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Helen Clark will allow Winston Peters to say anything, do anything as she knows that her staying in power is critical on New Zealand First continuing to support the government.
One thing that we’ve learnt from the current Labour government, is that staying is power is their highest priority no matter what they have to do in order to do that.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
gee90 is right. Where is National in all this? Does Key plan to make Peters his Foreign Minister too? He’s ruled out Roger Douglas from Cabinet. Why is Peters still allowed a place in a Key Cabinet?
[DPF: I don;t think one can say you'll exclude someone from a future Cabinet on the basis of whether or not he voted for a FTA in a previous Parliament. But what Key can and should say is that he would not allow a Foreign Affairs Minister to disassociate himself from trade policy as it is part of foreign policy. Hence any future Foreign Minister has to support the Govt's foreign policy (which includes trade policy]
April 9th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Politics is an activity engaged in by consenting adults. If Labour and NZ First and anyone else supporting the government are happy with the present arrangements and the contravene no law, then that is their call. On voting say voters can make their own call. Winston Peters’ supporters will think he has done the right thing in standing up for them despite his position as Foreign Minster. Labour voters will vote for Labour, apparently satisfied that things are as they should be. national supporters, not party to the arrangement in question in any case, will take a sim view and vote for National…….and so on down the list of relevant political players.
The way I see it, the FTA was signed. Though still not apprised of all the details, it looks to me to be not a bad one based on what I have heard so far. I don’t give a rat’s arse what Winston Peters says or does. I don’t vote for him.
Given politics is the art of the possible, I’m not sure why you’re taking such an uncompromising view of what a Foreign Minister “should” do. Winston Peters was “Treasurer” under a National government and things proceeded along similar lines to what we are seeing today. The arrangement seemed to work well enough for the parties involved, though people with limited ability to be practical when doing so conflicted the preconceived ideas found themselves upset by it all.
The present government – any government – works out the best way to get where it wants to go given the conditions it operates under. Whatever peters says or does, the FTA was signed and appears 9so far) to be a win/win for all concerned – in terms of trade, foreign policy….and political leaders with differing views who are working constructively together.
In taking the stance you do, DPF, you give the impression that National still doesn’t “get” how to be constructive and work well with others who don’t agree. I think Key knows how to do it, but finds himself challenged and surrounded by people who still struggle with how to co-operate instead of dictate.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Pascal: to clarify – “an issue” meaning, in the big world out there, beyond planet blog.
A question in Parliament, a leader’s speech, a simple statement saying “Peters, Foreign Minister, No.”
Unless National do that, the story will die. (Except on planet blog …
[DPF: On the contrary, National calling for Peters to be sacked (which I think they should do) might make the Govt less likely to do so for fear of giving National a win. They key issue is how much the media press Clark on the issue. Having said that I certainly hope National asks questions in Parliament on this and puts the acid on]
April 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Well, gee90, I think we can forgive National for not bothering to state the blindingly obvious — you couldn’t trust the man to organize a gang bang in a brothel. Clark used to be quite fond of saying “when you’re in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.” The corollary is this: When you’re watching your enemies bury themselves alive, don’t distract ‘em.”
Though it might be useful for Key to make it perfectly clear to any potential coalition partners — and the public — that the next National-lead Government is going to return to a *cough* less Tardis-like definition of collective Cabinet and Ministerial responsibility.
Let Clark, Cullen and Goff stew in the pot of their own creation. They’re willing to be treated like idiots, more fool them.
Steve Withers wrote:
Well, Steve, both DPF and I have been involved in the National Party and found ourselves on the losing end of any number of votes and policy debates. Majority rules is a bitch, but what’s “constructive” about deciding you want the perks of a senior leadership position but none of the discipline? MMP — hell involvement in any political organisation that isn’t a control freak’s personality cult — is also about not chucking your toys out of the cot when things don’t go your way.
I’d actually have a little respect for Peters if he said, “I cannot in good conscience continue as Foreign Affairs Minister, as I cannot defend this FTA either at home or abroad.” But I guess that would require a little genuine integrity.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Yes where are National in all this.
Peters and Clark are making a mockery of our democratic processes.
I thought Key was the smiling ass asin but I’m begining to think I’m only half right.
NZers will be lapping this FTA crap up.
National on 45% next polls and kiss your arse goodbye for the election.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am
John Key was on Breakfast this morning and he said that it is fine for Winston Peters to oppose the FTA, and he also said that, if necessary, they would keep Winston Peters as the Minister of Foreign Affairs if they won the elections. So I guess that makes National’s stance on the matter pretty clear.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Of course any country negotiating future agreements with us will know enough now of affairs here to ask Winston if he visits, what his Government position is and what his real stance might be at the same time. Or does he pretend none of them have embassies here reporting back every hour of the day to the places they represent, because that is why they are here. His next trip overseas will hopefully show just how useless he has rendered his position to be.
If the media of the country concerned don’t do it, there will of course be ever more attacks on our own media, accompanying any trip, asking Winston Clark What do you think? – and Winston First What do you think?
Notable that when Helen went to Washington – after Winston had actually done commendable work there – they sent him to South America, while they made a mess back here of announcing his Gold Card fiasco, if I remember right, and of course they didn’t dare take him to China for their biggest yet foreign affairs initiative for reasons now obvious. In fact one what foreign affairs issue, really important to Helen and Goff [still the real Foreign Minister] have they involved Winston? Fiji? – which is just a piss-off as Frank spurned Helen’s ‘meaningful Wellington meeting’ and is annoying as Field’s or Benson Hope’s final affronts, but not essential to her re-election. Winston has his position it seems for one reason only – to prop up the Government, and to keep him out of the way as much as possible.
Sideline -
Placing newspaper ads when they have and being briefed of course when Winston was but claiming they need full details to decide are all anomalies of timing that reveal people are not telling the truth.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Clark would be doing our politics a favour by simply keeping calm. Winston First is a source of instability in our politics because he is erratic. Clark has managed him better than any other Party leader up to now. She has even managed to get him to be reasonably productive.
I quite like Key’s line last night which was something like ‘it’s strange but then that’s not unusual it’s a strange Government’ It strikes me as the right sort of tone.
I don’t think its wise for National to ride Labour too heavily on this – they have an instinctive reflex to Winston First and he knows it.
Winston First is flat-lining, running up Asian immigration and now the China Free Trade agreement. He’s trying to appeal to his grumpies. Most importantly, they want to know that he’s a player; that he can dominate the political agenda. That’s what they really like – their boy, centre of attention.
The question is whether the rest of Parliament will give Winston First the attention he seeks and what the grumpies want in order to reward him with their vote.
While DPF might be right, our constitutional conventions are evolving. Having this sort of flexibility is useful for the two big parties when considering options of coalition formation.
Winston First might be finding that being in Government with Labour is a little like waterboarding – a prolonged drowning sensation. Why would the rest of Parliament want to end that?
April 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am
his is the circuit breaking issue that Peter’s needs to reassert his and NZ First’s identity. It will allow him to create a ‘principled’ platform just in time he’ll hope for the next election. Does national stoke the fire and try and force the separation or just sit back and hope it will fester and cause damage for Clark if she does not act decisively. It’s all a game.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Helen Clarks government lying?
Shit never saw that coming.
Love it! Put a smile on my face mate.
On the side, Key needs to grow some balls – quite franky he needs to get a little mongrel in him else the Nats are going to sdtart hermoraging votes! He needs to learn that he can support the FTA while giving the finger to Peters about this, shit Peters qouldnt think twice before putting the boot into them – why the hell was Key bending over backwards to give Peters an excuse on Breakfast this morning – he’d be seen in a better light and IMO get more votes if he denounced Peter’s and stated unequivicolly that Peter’s would form no part of a National Government he leads unless Peter’s pull his head in.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
At the risk of upsetting the blue team I must say National are acting like a bunch of hen pecked eunuchs. Get hard and ruthless National and get into these corrupt bastards and bitches. Do they pack such weapons in there arsenal? No sorry kiwi voter. Join the exodus mate, as this is PC Wimpland.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
After you, Dad. But when you get on this particular rip, I feel like we’re in Pirates of Penzance: with the likes of you and Redbaiter as the Chorus of Policemen:
Don’t worry, Dad. You don’t upset me at all — the impotent bluster is far too entertaining.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Much as I dislike peters, National has little option.
National rightly have been lambasted in the past for failing to get to grips with the realities of MMP. Whilst it is distasteful, Key is showing signs of realising that if he is to form a Government he may well have to coalesce with NZ First. Therefore, why piss Peters off now. It just does not make political sense. Realpolitik is what is driving both Key and Clark.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
WTF is all this Clark stuff? The word is Klark.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Instant (positive) karma for that, Adam. Because you’ve ably stated an unpleasant truth. We can only hope that less than five percent of those who cast party votes at the general election decide to swallow Winnie’s snake oil, and it becomes a pure hypothetical whether Key would let him in the Cabinet Room or not.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:54 am
“John Key was on Breakfast this morning and he said that it is fine for Winston Peters to oppose the FTA, and he also said that, if necessary, they would keep Winston Peters as the Minister of Foreign Affairs if they won the elections. So I guess that makes National’s stance on the matter pretty clear.”
Any confirmation of this claim?? Especially the second item- that National would keep WP as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Y’know, I don’t think this Key chap is ever going to grow any balls. Labour has to be dumped but Jezuz H Christ, what the fuck is the point in voting for National?
April 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am
The point in voting for National is to avoid 3 more years of Labour.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Although I agree with you Adam, there must be a point when Key takes a stand that differentiates National from Labour. He has not performed well over recent times and it pains me to hear sound bites of Cullen taking the piss out of his interview technique.
National appear to have let Labour off the hook with this, and the discussion around other issues with which Labour could be taken to task about have disappeared from view. It is worrying times…. I look forward to be proven wrong, but I can see the gap in the polls only closing.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:59 am
What Steve Withers said! I can agree that Winston is a real knob. But he represent a subset of knobs who are a part of our country and have managed to stake a claim in our government, no matter how much National or anyone else refuses to accept this. His position as Minister is something of a joke, but both he and his constituents appear to accept this. Basically he does not actually wield any influence over his portfolio, and the representatives of the other nations fully get that every bit as much as we get that when you deal with England it is polite but not actually necessary to deal with the Queen.
I agree that he could stop being a joke by resigning. But it is not on Labour to force that.
Yes it’s an unfortunate consequence of MMP that there is a subset of NZers who get their knob power. The power to be a knob who has no real power. For some people that’s all the power they’ll ever have, and all they should have.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Redbaiter: Any confirmation of this claim?
Yes, the link off tvnz is here. However, as is usual his words have been twisted into a parody of what was actually said. Read this:
Asked outright on Wednesday morning’s programme if he could run the country with Peters continuing as foreign minister Key said: “Yes, conceivably.”
Key suggested that the possibility had to exist because of the practicalities of governing under MMP.
So let’s look at that. Given a hypothetical question he suggested yes, conceivably he could because of the practicalities of MMP.
This is a far cry from he said that it is fine for Winston Peters to oppose the FTA, and he also said that, if necessary, they would keep Winston Peters as the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Typical spin and bullshit, it seems, but I cannot watch the video without more plugins installed here so have to rely on the text. Damnit!
April 9th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I agree with Adam
Other parties attacking Winnie only gives him oxygen, whereas letting the media attacking him probably has a negative effect on the NZ1sts poll rating
Key is right to kill him with kindness and leave him to drown under the threshold
April 9th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Winston Peters is an EGO out of control. He claims to have New Zealand’s interests at heart, but it is evident that he only has his own interests at heart. But Helen Clark is culpable in this shoddy situation. In her desire to hold onto power, Clark has plainly signed a deal with Peters which allows Peters to unlimited free foreign travel and ‘hospitality’ at the tax-payer’s expense, while she keeps her and her party’s fingers in the till.
Peters now wants to precipitate a schism and ‘come out fighting’ in another election which again, he hopes will return HIM to power, whether it be with National or Labour, again so he can keep his snout in the public trough, while claiming to have NZ’s interests at heart. He is even happy to run recent ads to electioneer counter to all of teh hyperbole and hypocracy he spouted during the EFA debate.
You have to have a heart of stone to look at this despicable bunch of cheats and liars wallowing in their own moral effluence, without smiling.
Personally If I were Key, I wuold state categorically that I want nothing to do with Peters post election, and then go out and guess what? Actually try to win an election of ideas and principles, rather than just allowing this charlatan and his party return to a safe seat. They should be trying to blow this dangerous maverick and his bunch of spineless lackeys out of the water, rather than making vaguely cuddly sounds at the prospect of them being involved in a ‘National’ government.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Key’s position is basically not to give Winston First oxygen, on an issue of his choosing, at the timing of his choosing and in the manner of his choosing.
It’s politics 101.
Clark has a similar interest.
National knows the China FTA has broad support in Parliament and is in no danger. To defeat Labour and have the opportunity to drive the formation of the next coalition government, National needs to fight on ground of it’s choosing.
They have no interest in giving Winston First profile by talking about him or ruling him in or out of any future Government. That makes him a player. Why do we want him to be the faultline in our politics – I know why he would like it – can’t see why anyone else would give it too him.
They can rightly seek assurance from the PM that the foreign policy of the Government as broadly supported in Parliament will be faithfully advocated by Winston abroad.
I love all these wardroom warriors – the ghosts of the battle of Omdurman rattling – they are a bit G&S.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
ps where’s the f**n leadership? Perhaps it got on a plane to OZ ten years ago? Are we left with the results of the brain-drain?
April 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
>Much as I dislike peters, National has little option.
A property of NZ’s MMP is that small parties are always going to be required as coalition partners, and so they are going to escape criticism by both the main parties. If a Labour or a National MP had spouted the racist nonsense that NZ First came out with a week or so ago, then there would have been a feeding frenzy of inter-party criticism. But, instead, Labour are happy to have a racist party in their coalition. And National can’t comment because they might need them after the election.
It is up to independent commenters, like the media and bloggers, to point out just how vile NZ First is. And to try and drive them from parliament. Otherwise they’re almost certain to be in government after the next election, regardless of whether National or Labour win. In which case Peters will still be manufacturing instability. And the party will still be falling back on anti-immigrant baiting to keep their 5 percent support in line.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Lee C: Personally If I were Key, I wuold state categorically that I want nothing to do with Peters post election, and then go out and guess what? Actually try to win an election of ideas and principles
I agree, but can see that it will be an uphill battle. It’s very, very difficult to do with the Labour Party organizing beat ups and lies (Remember the EB?) whilst still spreading their government funded propaganda.
Note how tax cuts are okay if you’re Labour, but National would need to cut spending? And so on and so forth. Which is all fair in love and politics, but at the moment there are masses of people who do not think further than their next form of governmental assistance and they buy into any bullshit the Labour party sprouts and believes it be gospel.
So yeah, I’d love to see them fight the election that way – with a clear and solid declaration of what voters will get. Unfortunately their opponents are schoolyard bullies who fight dirty.
Anybody know what ACTs position is on this? They’re not really featuring in the media and their website hasn’t been updated since the 4th of April when Heather wrote that piece on Health.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
That ” interview” with John Campbell on TV3 last night showed us again that WINNY does not give a toss about anyone but his own self interest. He is just SCUM.. sucking the public tit for all he can until someone has the guts to kick him into touch.
There is no NZ First party just this WINNY FIRST and LAST.. as far as he is concerned. Even Peter Brown got shafted by him last night.
It makes a laughing stock of ” Foreign Minister” to have this retard swanning around the world claiming to represent NZ while Goff and other do all the real work.
And National is saying they would consider asking him to join a Government, if they won… Spare me ,this MMP has turned politics into a madhouse. Remember back to when WINNY held the country to ransom & tricked Bolger in making him ” Treasurer”, just to get his vote .
If national think they need to pull that one again to get a majority then are going to see FLOOD of voters turn away from them, maybe to ACT??
Key needs to develop some ” Cojones” and stop parking his arse on the fence. Most people have had enough of WINNY the POO and his selfserving, snout in the trough attitude. He does NOTHING to further the cause of this country and had the gall to turn around last night and say the FTA ” could have been better”..FCS… who does this man think he is !! He did NOTHING constructive to further this trade agreement, in fact Goff was careful to keep him away frm the main action.
Come the next Election many of us will be praying that this doofus finally gets his DCM….
April 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“bubbsie”, you SAID IT. The way Winnie is behaving, and the way JohnBoy Key is behaving, it would be the ultimate in poetic justice if National finds itself post-election, having to deal with a large number of ACT MP’s holding the balance of power in their own right, and Winnie gone for good……….
April 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
“You don’t upset me at all — the impotent bluster is far too entertaining.”
Craig that word ‘impotent” is rather offensive considering I am the father to 4 children .
How many kids you got Craig?
April 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Key may be playing politiks but in my experience people who try to be too clever end up getting dicked.
Keep it simple, come out as a straight shooter and tell it as it is.
We’ve become this shambles of a country because of pricks like Peters
If he was Chinese they would have used him to make a new FTA logo by now.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“Yes, the link off tvnz is here. However, as is usual his words have been twisted into a parody of what was actually said.”
Thanks for the clarification Pascal. Demonstrates just how difficult it is to find the reality in political issues, especially where NZ’s mainstream media are concerned, and when partisan commenters falsely present themselves as objective relayers of the truth.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:30 am
yeah – we are getting the same ‘leadership style’ as we had on other issues, guess what? nice guys come last. Unless Key is seriously aiming to win the election after next by waiting for Clark to implode, i think he is looking at a loser with his ‘softly-softly’ style.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
davidp
Re your comment on what bloggers should be doing, a number of us are in fact doing that see KeepingStock, Whale oil, The Hive and my own effort The Inquiring Mind for example.
Regarding other comments it is a sad fact that a great many people in this country are xenophobic, not just in relation to Asians, a country or race which does not exist, but to anyone who is in the slightest extent different from themselves and who does not hold their own deep rooted prejudices. This compounded by a fear of incomers working harder and being successful instead of losing at rugby and cricket and knowing that the average Kiwi would rather not compete, not for nothing is our national bird and self image a flightless bird that only goes out at night.
Helen Clark was unfortunately correct when she said the FTA will only be successful if NZ business has balls.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
“Any confirmation of this claim??”
Yes. The interview is online on TV1. Select breakfast.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Further to Adam’s comment, I have been calling for Peters’s resignation since last week when Brown made his racist remarks. How can Winston approve of that yet represent New Zealand’s “inclusive” foreign policy? Short answer – he can’t. Therefore, he should be required to resign, or be sacked. Clearly, Clark won’t do that.
My own thoughts on Winston are summarised by this – the shortest thread I have ever posted – http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/04/can-we-trust-winston-peters.html
April 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
DPF:
This fatuous, hyperbolic beat-up wouldn’t have anything to do with you wanting to see a destabilised government coming into the election would it? Face it mate, this one’s going nowhere.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Oy… Take offense, the gate and the whole damn garden path. I’m not playing. The primary definition of “impotent” in my dictionary is “wanting in physical, intellectual or moral power” — which strikes me as excessively generous as far as you’re concerned. You want to make up some slur on your manhood, Dad, be my guest. (While you and your ilk are calling John Key – who I understand is a father himself – a “eunuch” who needs to “grow some balls”.)
Now, don’t you and your virile member have a plane to catch?
April 9th, 2008 at 11:44 am
“Regarding other comments it is a sad fact that a great many people in this country are xenophobic, not just in relation to Asians, a country or race which does not exist, but to anyone who is in the slightest extent different from themselves and who does not hold their own deep rooted prejudices.”
Ever lived in a country as a foreigner Adam?? (BTW, don’t approve of using a real person’s name as an alias). I say you’re wrong and that by a large majority, NZers are on a global scale an extremely tolerant society. Generally speaking.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Craig that word ‘impotent” is rather offensive considering I am the father to 4 children”
As I understand it impotence can be a side-effect of some anti-depression meds.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:53 am
BTW DPF – Due to the length of this post, and the extensive use of hansard you make in it, I can’t help but think it must have taken ages to complete. And you get no remuneration at all for this? Cue tui ad…
[DPF: And that's 20 demerits. And yes it took me longer than most - probably an hour or so to google and search relevant websites. And no not a damn cent sadly.]
April 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Winston has simply shown that he along with his vehicle for staying in Parliament, NZ First, are warmed up leftovers from early last century. Would anyone eat a sausage roll that had been around for that long?
I’d rather have 21st century NZ Lamb and mint Dim Sum thanks all the same Winston.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
No suprise here that the intellectually challenged folk assume that it’s so bloody difficult to do a bit of reserach. I mean, shit, if you’ve gone any further than wikipedia, you must have spent all night on it!
April 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“BTW DPF – Due to the length of this post, and the extensive use of hansard you make in it, I can’t help but think it must have taken ages to complete. And you get no remuneration at all for this? Cue tui ad…”
He actually cares Nome, unlike the bludging paranoid cynical self serving power obsessed loons who populate your side of the political fence and confront those of us who advocate for freedom only because they are frightened they’ll lose their right to steal other people’s income and provide themselves with a standard of living they don’t deserve.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
to be fair to DPF – he has researched his information, set out a clear position, and demanded action clearly guided by some kind of personal moral compass. What more proof do you want that he is not a mouth-piece of the present National Party nome?
April 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Redbaiter
I have lived in several countries as a foreigner and worked in others. In each case a number of those I reported to were locals, my colleagues were locals as were my staff.
I would in the past have accepted your proposition that NZers were a tolerant lot, yet I have seen it reported several times that some 52% of NZers support some or all of Peter Brown’s remarks. The letter columns of DomPost and NZ herald, plus the on line comments give some credence to that, coupled with callers to talkback that my wife has told me about.
Based on my own observations many Kiwis are tolerant provided you share their prejudices.
Having worked with expatriate Kiwis in the past, especially in UK, they tend to cluster together and focus on their Kiwi element rather than attempt to integrate in many, but not all instances.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Once a Nome, always a Nome
April 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Roger Nome: BTW DPF – Due to the length of this post, and the extensive use of hansard you make in it, I can’t help but think it must have taken ages to complete. And you get no remuneration at all for this? Cue tui ad…
Fuckwit. You don’t deserve more of a response for such purile trolling.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’m sure a steady flow of your pustular drivel is recompense enough, Nome.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Pascal, Redbaiter – did you watch the video from Breakfast this morning? No spin, Paul Henry asked him straight out about Winston and the FTA, and John Key said that it looked odd but that he didn’t have a problem with it. He also said that, if necessary, he would have Winston Peters as his Foreign affairs Minister, despite Winstons views on the FTA. In fairness though, this just highlights a failure of MMP in that leaders can’t afford to piss any of the smaller parties off unless they are convinced they will win the election outright. John Key and Helen Clark both obviously think that they may need Winston on their side so are afraid to stand up against him.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I’m still hoping, hopefully not in vain, that National are just collecting all of these examples of poor government and will just lay them out end on end in such an overwhelming fashion before the election that Labour can’t spin their way out of it and National can get a majority of seats. That’s the only reason for whimpering along like National are at the moment. If the “me too” name sticks then there is the election gone. If they can come out with 9 years of idiocy lined up one after the other and all NZ’rs suddenly realise what we’ve been stuck with then this plan could be genius. There’s only one way to find out though.
Anyone else get the feeling National are shadowing Labour?
April 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Our Hero Mr John Key = a small, weak whipping boy for Auntie Helen to dispatch with a good smacking later in the year. This is not a new revelation…
April 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
RRM
I think Auntie Helen lets her husband smack the boys….. However I guess she has nothing to fear from smacking children, it’s not she would be charged for breaking the law.
Key needs to get his head around all of this and quickly, either he’s going to join the rest of the self serving bunch and play this to his own advantage or he’s going to take a stand on what he thinks is good for NZ.
I’m not holding my breath for any of the current bunch to think about NZ before they think about their own polling. Ces la vie.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“I can’t help but think it must have taken ages to complete. And you get no remuneration at all for this? Cue tui ad…”
Oh, the ironing! Nome often spends more time replying to DPF than DPF spends posting!
April 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Key just hit the headlines in the Herald. Gets a mention in the first paragraph, then its all Peters
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10502946
April 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“I would in the past have accepted your proposition that NZers were a tolerant lot, yet I have seen it reported several times that some 52% of NZers support some or all of Peter Brown’s remarks.”
I think you’re making a mistake referring to New Zealanders. They are more likely to be and are therefore more accurately described as NZers of a certain cultural persuasion who feel their own culture is threatened by the increasing influence of another culture.
This fear is hardly singular to New Zealand.
Anywhere you go on the globe, you will find cultures competing for social and political supremacy. Its life. Nothing to get steamed up over, and one would be wary of letting the preaching of pseudo liberals whose thinking is entrenched in dated and mis-allocated perspectives like racism assume more significance in your own thinking than they should.
There’s no harm in discussing such matters. It is often far worse to silence debate on these issues with false and alarmist allegations of racism than it is to actually be a racist. I don’t even know what Peter Brown has proposed, or what his concern is, but I say let him speak out, and listen and think about what he says before alleging his ideas are founded in racism, and labeling him a bigot. After all, doing that is what makes us a different and better society right?? Tolerance right?
April 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I’m reminded of the following quote.
“It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”
—Lyndon B. Johnson
Winston is inside the tent pissing in.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Nice one Nome. Now do it four more times please.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“Fuckwit. You don’t deserve more of a response for such purile trolling.”
April 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
haha rogered gnomer got twenty points and Cwaig has gone nasty again. What a laugh
April 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
waaaaaah! Roger cries to the ref.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
May I just clarify, is it a demeritable offence to point out vile and pernicious innuendo about politician’s spouses that is (1) untrue and (2) very deserving of demerits?
April 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
jaffapety is it is fair to call residents of a region “feral inbreds”?
Edit – only when you stop editing jaffapety deary
April 9th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
What ‘innuendo’ is that?
April 9th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
John Key as just gone WAY up in my estimation. On “Breakfast” this morning (at 7:28am – viewable via TVNZ’s OnDemand) John Key says several times that e would have Wiston Peters as Foreign Minister if that was required in order to form a government
Good on him. I love seeing common sense in action like that.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Redbaited, I’ll wait for clarification before I answer that one!
No idea what D4J is talking about, but then that’s nothing unusual.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
‘No idea what D4J is talking about, but then that’s nothing unusual.’
sorry darling, f##king level 9 idiots, I will clarify matters as I was speaking about Helen Klark when she shut down Timberlands and she called the inhabitants of the West Coast “feral inbreds”. I hope that O’Connor creep gets the arse!!
April 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
If by “nasty” you mean “I fabricated a slur on my manhood and got slapped down for making shit up”, I plead guilty. You find that unpleasant, Daddy-o, the solution is entirely in your own hands.
And do you think you could cut the baby-talk mis-spelling of my name? Its pathetic.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
sadly there are enough nutters out there to keep Luigi in the House if he keeps up the red neck stuff and he knows it.
The only up side is the delicious humiliation that Clark and Cullen etc are experiencing overseas.
NZ is a laughing stock in international political circles The idea that you can have a Minister of Foreign affairs outside the government is considered novel enough but to have one who then shits all over your parade on a matter that actually gets you on the front page is something else.
International colleagues are even more convinced that we are a governance joke at the bottom of the world.
A little insignificant entity whose pollies and civil servants strut about like legends in their own lunch time.
What was it that Robbie Burns said about Oh to see ourselves as others see us
April 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Adam Smith Add karma Subtract karma +6 Says:
“My supposition is that Peters would wish to be sacked. If sacked he would precipitate an election.In fact I suspect Peters wants the Government to fall now or shortly for his own advantage and we would merely be playing into the vainglorious poser’s hands yet again. To the disadvantage of NZ and to Peters advantage.National and ACT will get no thanks from business for allowing Peters to derail this deal, if they did that then Key and Co can kiss goodbye to sitting in Govt for 10 years or more.”
April 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Personally I think National should campaign on the basis that a vote for Winston First is a vote for Liabour…It probably will be irrespective of which party gets the most votes anyhow.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
gd: “NZ is a laughing stock in international political circles”
Proof please. Do you think we’re going to be a prime topic of conversation on the Washington cocktail circuit? Listen, most Australians would have trouble pointing out NZ on a map, and couldn’t care less about us, so where’s the evidence that anybody out there in “international political circles” cares that the party of the NZ Minister of Foreign Affairs opposes the FTA?
I’d be surprised if these sorts of situations (disagreements over specific policies amongst coaltion partners, whether de facto or de jure) didn’t regularly arise in places like Germany. And the response would be a lot more mature than this sort of tosh.
NZ First are *not* going to make a big deal out of it, apparently, and National would have Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs tomorrow if that’s the price of power (they made him Treasurer once, no?), so can we have a little less wailing?
April 9th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“Peters could be foreign minister in National govt – Key”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501819&objectid=10502946
How is it that Peters could “convievably” be Foriegn minister in a National socialist cabinet, but Key can rule out any chance of Douglas being in cabinet.
A vote for National is now a vote for Peters. National voters should be voting for ACT, to send peters where he belongs… electoral oblivion.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
How stupid does Clark think we are. Frankly, she’s a perfect example of the kind of manipulative politician with contempt for ordinary people (the plebs), that a Democracy elects when any idiot is allowed to vote….
April 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Fair comment there Mike E
I have just read Blair’s Post over at Mulholland Drive.
I am sure there are many Nats who want no bar of Winnie in any future National government.
But sadly, the relaities of MMP may demand it.
As I have blogged over at http://www.nominister.blogspot.com we need to do two things.
Both sides need to work together to shun Winston First, but will they?
And the country needs to abandon MMP as it constantly leaves Nazis First and other small parties dictating who is government.
Anyway, I am happy to hear more ideas on this at No Minister.
Might I add, it is interesting to see John Key being tested as much as Helen Clark.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
MikeE: “How is it that Peters could “convievably” be Foriegn minister in a National socialist cabinet, but Key can rule out any chance of Douglas being in cabinet.”
Not sure about the neologism, but your question has many possible answers, some of which may be:
(1) NZ First has been much more successful at the polls than ACT since both formed political parties around the same time.
(2) Key has worked out that (normal) NZers will tolerate Winston’s clowning but find Douglas’s ideas repugnant.
(3) Being driven by his lust for the baubles of office, Peters is more rational when it comes to deal-making, whereas Douglas is an ideological hazard to shipping.
Edit: (4) Oh, and ACT has no option other than to support National, being on the far right, whereas Peters has all the options open to him, not being on the far right, generally, er, being all over the place, actually…
April 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
MikeE: So I guess Rodney’s going to stop cuddling up to Helen now? If I wanted to be equally disingenuous, I could say a vote for ACT is a vote for Labour. Butt I’d rather see ACT actually get their shit together, run a decent campaign and be back in force sans these stupid stunts.
And, once more, could I suggest we have this tiresome thing called an election before we start calling dibs on ministerial warrants or inking the coalition agreements? Based on current polling, it seems more likely that an Irishwoman called Marge N. O’Error is going to have a seat in the Cabinet Room long before Peters or Douglas.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
# LabourDoesntWork Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: April 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm “How stupid does Clark think we are. Frankly, she’s a perfect example of the kind of manipulative politician with contempt for ordinary people (the plebs), that a Democracy elects when any idiot is allowed to vote….”
Interesting. How many others on the right share this view of democracy? What would Burke say?
April 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
jafapete There are a small number of international governance organisations where matters like this are on the radar screen I am a member of one and like all such bodies there are networks where info is exchanged No big deal however the word gets around. No I wont tell you the organisation but attend meetings on a regular basis and are subjected to gibes and give back as good as one gets when the situation demands. As a Kiwi sheep jokes our rugby and our pollies and civil servants are a source of conversation.
Emails also fly around with comments and opinions just like in any organisation.
As I said Oh to see ourselves as others see us certainly applies to our pollies and civil servants
April 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
gd: Well, you will be in an excellent situation to report on any reaction “in international political circles” should it occur, but I doubt whether any little domestic matters like this are of more than the most momentary interest to anyone with any serious responsibilities internationally.
When I worked on Capitol Hill, admittedly some time ago, people knew we had great scenery and a lot of sheep, and maybe that we don’t like nuclear arms. Since then the only thing to change is that the LOTR movies have probably reinforced our image as a beautiful country.
Any minister or senior official overseas meeting Peters in an official capacity will be briefed beforehand on likely issues for discussion, and will know Peters’ position on the FTA before they meet him. I would be surprised if those in countries with coalition governments would give the matter more than a casual shrug, whilst others would probably just think it a peculiarity of a PR system.
Once again, I can’t see what everybody is getting so excited about here. It’s more an indication of political immaturity than anything else.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
But I’m sure a few could point out where China is.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Oh BTW DPF – seen this sweet little piece over at KBB?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501819&objectid=10502946
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/hutesium-et-clamor-national-confirm-winstons-burbles/
April 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
# labrator Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: April 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm “…most Australians would have trouble pointing out NZ on a map…
But I’m sure a few could point out where China is.”
Well, most Australians could probably get NZ right too… I will admit to a little hyperbole there, but just to get some sense of proportion into the debate. Basically, the rest of the world doesn’t care enough about us to make us a laughing stock (except when we set an example by, say, banning nuclear warships). Do you seriously think they give a damn about Winnie? I don’t.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
The obvious answer to this situation, is for the PM to clarify “his” position – the coalition agreement does allow him to criticise the FTA, but only as part of domestic politics, not while he is acting as Foreign Affairs Minister abroad.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
“seen this sweet little piece over at KBB?”
What kind of lunatic reads that psychotic bullshit blog? Hells bells gnomer pile!!
April 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Free speech. You lot are selectively for and opposed to it. Lets sack people for speaking freely. Good on Winstone.
As for Peter Dunne I’ll be glad when that religious nutter leaves parliament.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Eva: You lot are selectively for and opposed to it.
Darling, you seem a bit confused about what is actually happening. Nobody is opposed to Winston Peters speaking freely. He is more than welcome to air his views however he wants.
What they are however suggesting is that his credibility as our foreign affairs minister is nil when he opposes the single largest foreign policy achievement of this administration. And without credibility he is a farce on the international stage, a joke and the only reason he is continuing in that role is because he is needed to prop up this corrupt government.
It’s Winston, btw. Winstone is an aggregates company. You can find their website here.