Why Winston was ruled out

February 3rd, 2011 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

There’s been interesting speculation on why Winston was ruled out. Some think it is tactical (to try and paint him and Goff together). Some say it is because of policy differences. Both may be minor factors, but miss the big reason.

He was ruled out because you simply can not trust him at all.

Peters lied not once but dozens and dozens of times over his knowledge of the Owen Glenn donation. He lied to the media, he lied to the public, he even lied to the then Prime Minister’s face. Helen Clark told Winston that Owen Glenn told her he had donated $100,000 and Peters lied to her face and said he knew nothing about it. And the phone records show that was clearly a lie.

Clark was prepared to tolerate a Minister who lies to her face, in her quest to retain power. Key is not – simple as that.

This is not about policies. Arguably NZ First has more policies in common with National than the Greens and maybe the Maori Party.

John Key does not rule out the Greens. In fact he has a co-operation (but not confidence) agreement with them. If there was a desire to do so, I think he would even consider a deal where you have the Greens take up a couple of portfolios in exchange for perhaps abstaining on confidence and supply. That would depend on being able to agree on enough policies in common.

The nature of MMP means that no political party is likely to govern alone, and the system demands that parties compromise on policies in order to form a Government. But it does not mean that parties should compromise on integrity.

At the end of the day one could trust Metiria Turei and Russel Norman in a Government to not lie to the Prime Minister. Likewise with the Maori Party.

John Key ruled Winston out in 2008 because Winston lied about the Owen Glenn donation, and could not be trusted. Winston has never apologised for his actions, and to this day still insists he did not lie – that somehow it was a coincidence that Owen Glenn phone up Winston’s lawyers with a $100,000 donation five seconds after speaking to Winston.

Unless Winston did some sort of mea culpa and apologised for what he did, then of course John Key was going to have to rule him out again. Because otherwise people would ask, what has changed? And the reality is, nothing has.

Tags:

55 Responses to “Why Winston was ruled out”

  1. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Who was the PM that assured Chinese officials that he wouldn’t meet with the Dalai Lama and then told the NZ public that he might? Double standards, wouldn’t you say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. grumpyoldhori (2,205 comments) says:

    Interesting David, shows the morals or lack of them in too many politicians.
    Now would this be right, Winstone lied so can not be trusted to go into coalition with.
    Another party made a criminal who stole a childs identity a list MP.

    Yet, Key is happy to be in coalition with them.
    We who are not part of politics would believe the second crime to be the worst.

    In some ways I’m disappointed that Key did not state he would not go into coalition with ACT again if those who knew about Garrett’s background yet made him an MP when they were ACT MPs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Michaels (1,233 comments) says:

    Don’t forget he is also a thief!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. hj (7,140 comments) says:

    The problem for NZ First is that they cannot rely on payments from vested interests such as The Property Council “$6B in assets and 20 Corporate members” (and Harcourts Shanghai).

    Gareth Morgan says “Winston Peters may have had a point”:
    http://nbr.infometrics.co.nz/column.php?id=409

    Mathew Hooten (from the right):
    “if that person can’t sell [his land] to a foreigner he can’t get the best price”
    Chris Trotter (from the left):
    “people who sold out to foreigners used to be hung drawn and quartered”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hj (7,140 comments) says:

    What about that dodgy Chinese businessman Bill Lui? and Dover Samuels the one who hosted both national and labour functions at his restuarant?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gravedodger (1,575 comments) says:

    How much incontrovertible “truth” is needed to get through to the sheeple that he is a devious, bauble crazed self opinionated prick who is only about his self aggrandisement. We know he doesn’t know the meaning of Truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. hj (7,140 comments) says:

    NZ First is a threat as it is nationalist, it therefore threatens the property industry. It is a threat to the “greens” as they have no answer to hordes of people arriving on a verdant landscape.
    [Keith Locke is more interested (drooling on) a potential bloodbath in the middle east.]
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/02/03/key-lets-down-the-egyptian-people/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Fisiani (1,051 comments) says:

    New Zealand understands John Key. He is honest. He is upfront. He understands what needs to be done. He has the vision and strategies to take us forward.
    He is a self made business man who having had a successful business career has chosen to come into politics to make NZ a great place to live.
    He is not a machine politician thinking always about what is best for his party. He wants what is best for NZ. He knows that it will take 3 or 4 terms of office to get NZ out of the socialist mindset that has bedevilled and demoralised us.
    He deserves our support and vote.
    John Key will not tolerate a liar like Winston. Phil Goff will tolerate a liar like Winston
    John Key will improve the economy. Phil Goff would bankrupt the economy.
    John Key wants us to feel proud. Phil Goff wants us to feel afraid.
    55% support at present for National is incredibly low. It should be 85%.
    Bring on November 26th

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross (1,414 comments) says:

    Who was the PM who said he wouldn’t increase GST if elected PM? Hmmm.

    As for the obession with Winston, it’s starting to get a little tiring. When Winston gets elected, then you can get your knickers in a knot. But why would anyone assume that in the unlikely event he does get elected, he will hold the balance of power? You may as well say that Hone could hold the balance of power if he stands as an independent. Bizarre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Politicians lying? Never. Next you’re be saying John Key lied about the 2025 target.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hj (7,140 comments) says:

    The truth underlying all politics is that humans are a biological population subject to the laws of nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (10,207 comments) says:

    ross is right – you should only talk about winston once hes elected. the voting masses need not be informed. ffs.

    whats with you leftists? always trying to justify some scumbags actions by comparing them to something done by the other side.

    when will you people just say “ya know what? the guy is a fuckin scumbag!”

    but ah know. we get shit like – JK met with someone when he said he wouldnt! thats just like stealing money and lying to the prime ministers face and never admitting it.

    J H C!

    but but you dont call right wingers scumbags!

    ummm

    Donna however its spelt former act mp – fuckin scumbag!
    identity theft act mp – scumbag!

    it aint that hard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. muncha1 (20 comments) says:

    @Ross, If Hone did hold the balance of power, I really really hope Key acts the same as he is re Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (7,140 comments) says:

    “He is a self made business man who having had a successful business career has chosen to come into politics to make NZ a great place to live.”

    The Highwaymen By Bill Bonner:
    :Just look along the ‘Gold Coast’ of Connecticut. By the early 20th century, you could find the mansions built by the kings of industry and commerce of the period. Greenwich was home to the Simmons family, who made a fortune in mattresses…the Phelps Stokes family, who made their money in copper products…the Milbanks of Borden Condensed Milk…and ‘Sugar King’ Henry O. Havemeyer. Their grand houses were testament to their grand contributions; they were the people who built the wealth of America.

    The rich got their money honestly back then…or, at least most of it. They put their family names on their products and spent their loot grandly. Silk shirts, top hats, spats…great limousines with chauffeurs…grand balls with orchestras…and servants dressed in proper outfits.

    But now, what’s this? A new bunch of kings have taken its place in Greenwich, dressed in perma-pressed khaki pants with blue, open-collared shirts. They are richer and busier than any group of bees the honey-pot nation has every produced. Still, don’t bother to look for their last names on your refrigerator…or on your armchair…or even on your liquor bottles.

    Paul Tudor Jones, who lives in a house in Greenwich that resembles the mansion in ‘Gone with the Wind’, is a very rich man. But what did he do for the money? He is not a king of industry. He does not bring milk to the masses; nor does he provide copper pipes for their water systems…nor mattresses to rest their weary bones. Mr. Jones is a Bubble King, who manages a $15 billion hedge fund.

    In another little town favored by the new moneyed classes, Norwalk, the granite mansion of steamship magnate and head of U.S. Steel, James Augustus Farrell, has fallen into the hands of another Bubble King – Graham Capital Management, a hedge fund with $5 billion in assets and only 150 employees.”
    http://www.safehaven.com/article/6790/the-highway-men

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Michaels (1,233 comments) says:

    Fisiani (329) Says:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Nice comments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Lucia Maria (2,648 comments) says:

    I too, find this obsession with Winston a bit strange.

    A number of older talkback callers yesterday were quite put out with this categorical denunciation of their hero.

    I’ll have to ask my MIL (who thinks Winston can do no wrong, but also likes Key) what she thinks of all of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    I am no supporter of the Greens, but I reckon Russel Norman has it dead right in this extract from his speech on the motion to censure Peters which was debated and passed on 26 September 2008

    In terms of the evidence, I can tell members that in my mind it was difficult to try to put the witnesses’ words one against the other. We heard numerous stories. It was very difficult to know which was the right story when one was sitting there listening to them all. So I think one of the key issues for me was the events around 14 December. That was one of the key bits of evidence, because regardless of who rang whom before 14 December, something very important happened on that day. There were two phone calls and an email. The first phone call was from the billionaire to the politician—if we want to take people’s names out of it—and they talked about something. We do not know what they talked about; there are different stories. The politician rang the politician’s lawyer immediately after, and they talked about something. Then the lawyer sent an email back to the billionaire and said: “Further to your conversation with the politician, here are my bank account details.” This series of phone calls and the email were compelling evidence—they were strong evidence. The thing about them is that nobody denied this evidence. Nobody said “Actually, this didn’t happen.” Those three pieces of evidence and the way they are connected together are a central part of why, I think, the majority of the committee came to the conclusion it did. There is a lot else around this, but we know that those three pieces of evidence were extremely strong, and nobody denied those three pieces of evidence

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/8/1/d/48HansD_20080923_00000825-Privilege-Consideration-of-Report-of-Privileges.htm

    He’s dead right. Despite Peters’ assertions to the contrary, there is only one credible explanation for the sequence of events that Norman describes. Peters misled Parliament, misled the then Prime Minsiter, and misled the people of New Zealand, yet now he wants us to vote for him again so that he can take his place at the trough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    John Key has the vision and strategies to take us forward.

    Colombian Red Tip? Jamaican Elite? It must be bloody good to put you to hallucinate that much!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. LabourDoesntWork (292 comments) says:

    IMO Peters is a full-fledged narcissist who is destructive to those around him whenever reality intrudes on their bullcrap as it always ends up doing. (Witness the Obama train wreck taking down the USA.) Sure enough, he dragged down Labour thanks to the poor judgment of Clark, et al, informed of course by their own arrogance and narcissism. Surely Key is not so politically desperate as to have any need to coopt Peters into his party’s political ambitions.
    Btw, I suspect Peters enjoys being rejected by Key almost as much as if he were favoured by him: narcissists love the attention. DPF is right: narcissists never change. The more he is ignored the better; it’s his rightful place.
    -LDW (who’s got NPD on the brain after watching one Sam Vaknin’s videos about it on Youtube. So relevant to politics, though.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Farrar (1,436 comments) says:

    Politicians accuse each other all the time of lying about broken promises etc. That is par for the course.

    What I am talking about is lying about something factual – the “were you in Auckland last night” type questions, or in this case “Did you know about Owen Glenn’s donation”. 98% of politicians will not tell a blatant lie about something like that. Winston is part of the 2% that will. I mean for God’s sake he spent several months waving a “No” sign about which should have read “Yes”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    Quite so DPF; and on the subject of the infamous “NO” sign, it’s a great day for a caption contest!!

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2011/02/thursday-caption-contest-wrp-special.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    And of course, he’s not only dishonest; he’s hypocritical as well. So much for all the “NZ First doesn’t take donations from big business” rhetoric

    Mr Anderton, explaining his decision to abstain from yesterday’s vote in Parliament, noted that NZ First had been accepting donations while attacking other parties for taking money from big business. “For that, the party has some explaining to do to the voting public,” he said. Mr Peters now has the time to do just that. He will not because he cannot. Nor will he sign a letter of resignation. Voters will have to do that for him.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10533786

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. paws (197 comments) says:

    Dont tell me that politicians lie.Looking at them as a group with their snouts in the trough that thoughts really shaken my trust in them to the core.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. vto (713 comments) says:

    So according to Farrar it is not ok to have someone supporting the government who lies…

    Yet it is ok to have someone supporting the government who has stolen a child’s identity…

    oh and also ok to have someone supporting the government who claims to be a perkbuster at exactly the same time as rorting the perks himself.

    ha ha, what a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Jack5 (5,271 comments) says:

    I’m no fan of Winston Peters and I’ve never voted for NZ First, let alone been a member of its party.

    However, I reject the current National Party push to tell me, as a Right wing supporter, who I should support if, come November, I don’t want to vote for National.

    Peters may be a bit of a conman IMHO, but ACT had Garrett and Rodney Jekyll-Hide, the perk buster, turned out to be a perk user himself. ACT’s chief Christchurch backer, Dave Henderson, turned into a bankrupt who is costing lenders tens of millions.

    The Greens have Locke and other ultra-leftists and a swag of melon green wingnuts.

    Labour has had Taito Phillip Hans Field and the gay Carter (to distinguish him from all the other Carters in the House).

    National has had Richard Worth and Pansy Wong.

    I wouldn’t rank Peters the most venal politician NZ First has had. There’s one who went on to a controversial business career.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @ muncha1 11:38 am

    If Hone did hold the balance of power, I really really hope Key acts the same as he is re Winston.

    I can’t see any comparison. Winston’s problem is that he is too dishonest, even for a politician, and lies even when there are irrefutable facts to disprove his version of events.

    Hone’s problem is that he is too honest for a politician. If he thinks Whitey ripped off his people (and the facts are that they did) he’ll say it, and in very colourful terms. If he thinks the Maori Party leadership are betraying their members and supporters over the foreshore and seabed and on social policy (and imo he’s right about that too) he’ll say that too.

    [DPF: Toad has it in one]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    I agree on the clear difference, accustations of lying are thrown around that often they are meaningless background noise, and are quite different to demonstrable lies about factual events.

    WP is amongst the small proportion of MPs who are blatant liars, and also has proven supreme self interest and unreliability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    toad said “Hone’s problem is that he is too honest for a politician”

    You mean when he misled his party over his trip to Paris?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/harawira-investigated-over-paris-trip-3113094

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Mr Robert Black (145 comments) says:

    Personally I think this will backfire for National.

    OK so Winston plays the race card but let’s face it with guys like Harawera around the political scene, the race card is a powerful trump card.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. JC (948 comments) says:

    “Hone’s problem is that he is too honest for a politician. If he thinks Whitey ripped off his people (and the facts are that they did) he’ll say it, and in very colourful terms. If he thinks the Maori Party leadership are betraying their members and supporters over the foreshore and seabed and on social policy (and imo he’s right about that too) he’ll say that too.”

    Too honest for Labour anyway.

    “Goff would not, however, talk to Hone Harawira, saying there were “lots of things I fundamentally disagree with him on”.

    He said Labour would also work with Winston Peters, though New Zealand First is currently out of government.”

    So Phil has likewise ruled out working with a particular politician, because he is honest, but he has embraced another politician, because he is dishonest.

    Funny old world

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kiwi in america (2,314 comments) says:

    Key will destroy Peters in the smaller parties Leaders Debate on the issue of the Glenn donation (and the clusterfark that ensued) alone. He can play the race card all he likes – voters assume politicians fudge, exaggerate, obfuscate and tell porkies all the time. This was a bald faced blatant lie that was made and repeated to the PM, the media and to Parliament. It was a lie that was unequivocally proven as a lie and Winston still won’t admit it – David is right, that puts you in a very small camp of truly devious and venal politicians (David Benson-Pope is another who fits this category). Peters opponents will mercilessly hammer on this matter throughout the campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Rodders 12:11 pm

    There’s nothing in the link you provided that suggests Hone was dishonest about his trip to Paris.

    He told members cross-party delegation he was with and the European MEP convening the meeting he was to miss that he was going there in advance of his departure from the delegation. And he paid for the Paris leg of his trip himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. barry (1,191 comments) says:

    Oh David, never ever suggest politicians always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    OK – peters is less concerned about being found out, but to suggest that its because he lied is the reason why key doesnt want to deal with him is just plain – well politically blind (I was going to same else..)

    Policians only tell the truth when they have to, when they have alternative. I am sure that Key knew the Pike river men were dead on day one and only a complete moron would – after the advice he got on high gassing mines (yes – there are lots of them and theres lots of experience) – would honelty suggest that “all would be done” to get the men out. Yet what did he so? he lied to the families and gave them false hope.

    High gassing coal mines are very danerous beasts and when they go bang they become virtually uncontrollable – and key would have known this. I think you can see the almost very bad communication when it was announced about the ceasing of effort to get into the mine. The police and Key came out with different stories.

    Key wont deal with winston because winston is unpredictable and in many instances uncontrollable – key dont like people like that. Hes not a control freak like Clark – but he doesnt like being blindsided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    toad said “There’s nothing in the link you provided that suggests Hone was dishonest about his trip to Paris.”

    Then read what Mrs Turia had to say http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10607633

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Mr Robert Black (145 comments) says:

    No one really gives a shit about Winnie’s lies.

    These are voters we are talking about, not politicians.

    Voters have very short memories, usually closely associated to their purses and wallets, or their day to day affected lives.

    Just ask grey power.

    And he is a smart cookie, in a not so smart jar of biscuits, called NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Lucia Maria (2,648 comments) says:

    Winston has guts. He managed to take out a gay paedophile trying to set up in NZ. Remember that NAMBLA guy a number of years back? He certainly had me fooled at the time, I even defended him.

    Politicians get rehabilitated all the time. There has to be something more going on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Shazzadude (531 comments) says:

    Of course it’s a political stunt. Winston announced his intentions to run for parliament again around 18 months ago, but Key has refused to rule him out again until now. If this was about principle he would’ve ruled him out back then.

    They’ve crunched the numbers and decided 50% is attainable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Or maybe Key didn’t see any need to discuss a non-entity, but now WP has shown he wants to throw his hat in the ring again it makes sense for Key to state his case. The polls would suggest that most people won’t be disappointed if WP doesn’t become the centre of attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Lucia

    The worm hasn’t got guts FFS. He wont admit any wrong doing over the Glenn issue. If my kids lied like that their arses would be kicked from here to Wellington.

    Plus he owes the tax payers of NZ $158000, he is a duplicitous worm who has no redeeming features. Politicians dont get rehabilitated at all, party leaders think us the great unwashed forget, we don’t and stupid people perpetuate the myth that Shane is sorry over watching porn on the tax payer. He’s not, he doesn’t give a toss either and Winston is no longer lying scum

    Imagine you getting fooled Lucia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Lucia Maria (2,648 comments) says:

    PaulEB,

    You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not fooled. Most politicians are not honest. It’s just for some, certain things are forgiven, while as for others, they are not. That’s what I find incredibly interesting here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. s.russell (1,649 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori,

    John Key did not rule out working with NZ First. He ruled out working with Peters, who is a wrecker, and who has never apologised for his disgraceful behaviour and is still leader of the party.

    Garrett’s actions were wrong, but Act did not know the whole story before they made him an MP. And they threw him out when they did know. (He also admitted his actions and apologised.)

    The two cases are therefore rather different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “I think he would even consider a deal where you have the Greens take up a couple of portfolios in exchange for perhaps abstaining on confidence and supply.”

    I cannot believe that Key would ever offer the Greens anything other than a hearty “fuck off”

    If Key ever did offer the dirty stinking Greens a ministerial portfolio I would NEVER vote for the Nat’s again in my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    What is Key about? He flip flops..says he is not going to do something , then when there is a big reaction in the papers , says ”I’ll take advice on that.” Hardly leadership , much more paint by numbers.
    Garrett and Hyde are a disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Mr Robert Black (145 comments) says:

    National were weakened by their coalition with the Mazi party more than they know.

    (OK I just patented that).

    Now they attack an anti-Mazi.

    I think they under-estimated Winston.

    Whether it will cost them the election is in doubt.

    Because a huge factor with NZ voters, right up there with economics is the leader, are they tough and intelligent enough?

    But in my my opinion it was a dumb move.

    It can only harm them.

    And help Labour.

    Maybe they will be faced with a coalition and no one will trust them not to go with the Mazi party again which, let’s face it was a disaster for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. DJP6-25 (1,389 comments) says:

    It’s a pity Jim Bolger didn’t do something like this at the start of the 1996 election campaign. Still, fifteen years late is better than never.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Jack5 (5,271 comments) says:

    S. Russell at 1.50 posted:

    Garrett’s actions were wrong, but Act did not know the whole story before they made him an MP. And they threw him out when they did know. (He also admitted his actions and apologised.)

    Can each ACT MP put the right hand over his or her heart and swear they never leaked the Garrett background to the MSM?

    Yeah right.

    The rumours were that ACT put Garrett on its list in a secret deal with the Sensible Sensing Trust. How could ACT’s list controllers have overlooked the delve into crime of this lock-em-up or hang-em advocate?

    What happened to ACT any way, Mr Russell? If you are the Mr Russell who is a prominent ZAP member and one of the stalwarts of ACT in Canterbury you may be able to tell us.

    What was up with those who drew up the ACT party list — pushing down (and out of politics) good right-wingers like Gerry Eckhoff, an MP who won big rural support for his anti-fart tax campaign, and the smart legal eagle Stephen Franks, who was then picked up by National?

    Why didn’t the ZAP team counter the Auckland clowns who stuffed up the ACT list with Garrett? And why didn’t it check those Auckland clowns from wrecking the entertaining, mob-popular, rort-busting MP, Rodney Hide when they turned him into a ballroom dancer and a then a body-proud gym nut. That was an utter contradiction to Hide’s successful political style of a verbal brawler who would take-on-anyone — a truck driver’s son, a man of the people, a bold, brave, tubby little guy who didn’t give a toss that his build was public bar, draught-beer pyramid – just like that of many NZ voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Winston a duplicitous c*nt? Never….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    Jack5 claims:

    I wouldn’t rank Peters the most venal politician NZ First has had. There’s one who went on to a controversial business career.

    Absolutely. Considering Laws was, for one bried shining moment, an NZF MP Winston will never be able to take that title. And in fact he was outdone by many of the other people he dragged into Parliament behind him, like Robyn McDonald the woman whose only impact as a Cabinet Minister was to take a shopping trip to Paris at our expense a few weeks after being sworn in. No one – and I mean no one in the party hierarchy had even heard of her before her name appeared on the list.

    But that’s a bit like saying “Al Capone wasn’t the worst gangster in his outfit. So I think I’ll give him the keys to my safety deposit box”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jack5 (5,271 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom posted at 6.30:…

    …But that’s a bit like saying “Al Capone wasn’t the worst gangster in his outfit. So I think I’ll give him the keys to my safety deposit box”…

    Nope, Rex, I didn’t recommend anyone give the keys to Al Capone on that basis. Just implied that what would be the validity if Dion O’Banion, Big Jim Colosimo, Johnny Torrio, Bugs Moran, Samuel J. Morton, or the Genna Brothers, or all of the aforementioned, had warned me, as a theoretical 1920s Chicago citizen: “Don’t give your keys to Capone”.

    And hell’s teeth, T.Rex, if you are going to launch a new party of the Right, you had better start unwrapping it immediately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Andrew R (6 comments) says:

    What? Ruling out Winston is a good thing because he is a liar? On that logic John Key would have to rule himself out, would have to rule Bill English out, would have to rule Nick Smith out, would have to rule Rodney Hide out …

    Oh that’s right, hypocracy (sp?) is the basic behaviour in politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. John Ansell (832 comments) says:

    I think people are missing the real reason Key is ruling out Winston.

    A lot of National supporters are highly hacked off with Key for running the country for the Lucy Lawless brigade – the urban liberal females who crossed over to his side in 2008 on a three year trial.

    He needs to grovel to the Lucys to keep them. And he’s doing so at every turn. (ETS, mining, foreshore and seabed.)

    He doesn’t give two stuffs about what his own supporters think of this treachery because he knows they have no option but to vote either National or ACT – AS LONG AS HE DENIES THEM THE PROTEST OPTION OF VOTING FOR WINSTON.

    This he has now done. It is now much less likely that any disaffected but self-respecting Nats will vote for Winston, knowing with 100% certainty that they will be helping to elect a Labour government – as opposed to just punishing Key by giving him a stroppy coalition partner.

    The Botany by-election would be a good time for those Nats to tell the PM what they think of his sidelining of their concerns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Winston has the capability to wreak the whole Government. Key by laying down the position now has made the position clear to voters and they can vote in advance of the election. A vote for Peters is a vote for a Labour-Peters coalition Government. What could be fairer than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    That is not the only choice..NZ First could be independent..if you read the herald column there seems to be a lot of people who voted National last time but won’t be voting them this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. pq (728 comments) says:

    I am constantly awed by the lessons in morals we receive at Kiwiblog.

    Winston Peters lied absolutely and I am not sure what the rules on party funding were at the time, but how many New Zealanders outside the NZ First party were adversely and materially affected by that lie.
    None. just your sense of outrage.

    On the other hand when we went to the polls in 2008, 80% of us declared we wanted to be rid of the absurd Sue Bradford smacking law.
    Well Bomber Bradbury who said 80% wasn’t 80% at all it was only 40% because half of us didn’t vote and the other half were idiots, but we were fundamentally let down by the new Government.
    Too bad we thought it will be ok, our votes don’t count but we don’t bash kids, and our tax cuts are coming.
    Tax breaks Not.
    What we got was a tax increase. GST.
    This was a fundamental lie, and a reversal of manifesto.
    A good reason not to trust the Nat Government.
    [Some people in higher income brackets received an income tax reduction].

    One of the most unacceptable positions this Government have taken is the utterly nihilistic and cynical
    new foreshore Act.
    The idea of no entity or country owning the beachhead is fundamentally ludicrous.
    I own it. You own it. The crown owns it on our behalf. NZ Nat Govt can sell it down but eventually we will change that law back again come hell or high water.

    The value in Farrar’s report here is in the possibility he sees [ at long last ] a possible relationship with the Green party.
    His weakness is that he sees a factual lie with no consequence to the voter as being serious where as he sees disinformation from his PM which had serious outcomes as OK.

    l
    I and others are am in that position referred to above by John Ansell [ feb 4th 12.15 ]

    He doesn’t give two stuffs about what his [ John Key ] own supporters think of this treachery because he knows they have no option but to vote either National or ACT –… This he has now done. It is now much less likely that any disaffected but self-respecting Nats will vote for Winston, knowing with 100% certainty that they will be helping to elect a Labour government – as opposed to just punishing Key by giving him a stroppy coalition partner.

    Many people will refuse to vote for the Nats, on the tax issue and the foreshore issue, and the pittance which will be gained through sale of assets.
    Winston will suck up most of those votes and if John Key spits the dummy and reconstitutes the Merril Lynch mob after the election well thats ok cry cry kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. jackp (668 comments) says:

    I just about spewed out my coffee when I was watching the news and John Key said he won’t form a coalition with Winston because he doesn’t trust him. For those same reasons pq mentioned, I am definately now Against National and will vote for Peters unless Act breaks the coalition. Key is a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote