by frog
The Herald on Sunday had a piece this morning about how there are very few party leaders left who would relish post-election negotiations with Winston Peters. Now that Helen Clark has signalled unequivocally that she’d rather work with the Greens and/or United than NZ First, Winston is getting nasty. He told the paper that Helen Clark deceived him during coalition negotiations in 1996 and that she is “obsessed with social engineering”. He doesn’t have much nice to say about Don Brash either, saying he was “a neo-liberal pursuing policies that have never worked anywhere in the world”.
This kind of bluster is classic Winston. He rails against the two major parties, and never quite admits that, well, he will have to serve in government with one of them. Either the deceptive social engineer or the completely misguided neo-liberal would have to lead any government in which Winston served, as much as he’d like to pretend to his supporters that he can beat them both and form a government all on his own.
Winston has also lashed out at other party leaders who state which other parties they are willing to coalesce with as “lacking integrity” and “obsessed with power”, because what they should be doing is concentrating on delivering policy.
Well, the majority of New Zealanders disagree with him, as yesterday’s Fairfax poll revealed. 68% of those polled either agree or strongly agreed with the statement:
Prior to the election, political parties should state with whom they are willing to form a coalition.
What Winston is in effect saying (and Peter Dunne and Tariana Turia are doing the same thing) is that he doesn’t care whether Helen Clark or Don Brash, with their strikingly divergent visions for New Zealand, leads the next government.
My guess is that that line will eventually come back to haunt him. If the Labour voters moving to NZ First are told often enough that their votes could lead to an asset-selling, service-slashing National government – and my goodness the Prime Minister will be repeating this line ad infinitum from now till September – then they’ll start to think twice about being seduced by Winston’s smile. One thing many of Winston’s voters will remember is the deception they felt in 1996 when he went with National. That memory may have faded, but it will certainly come rushing back over the next few months.
Published in Campaign by frog on Sun, June 19th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
david farrar is saying the greens have not ruled out supporting a govt with nz first in it…only that they would not be part of that govt.
could we have some clarification on this please..would the greens give confidence and supply to a govt containing nz first..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have not forgotten Winston’s shenanigans back in 1996 nor have I forgotten his coalition with National. The man is indeed the ‘poisoned chalice’.
Yes, I do strongly prefer the parties to give some indication as to whom they feel they could or would work co-operatively with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is my first NZ election. It appears to be almost as potentially bizarre in results as the elections in the states. The difference however is instructive. I too wish the hands were open to inspect, but labour is “hoist on its own petard”. That could put the greens out of power, as the election result could be a coalition out of the right that is just fractionally larger than the coalition on the left.
Funny how I seem to remember something very like that result back home. The difference is that the green vote doesn’t take anything away from labour…. as green and labour are able to work together, but a vote for Nader was a vote against Gore.
The question to be answered by the Greens is why the voters do not resonate with OUR message, but instead are so ready to listen to Winston? It isn’t JUST an inability to see the nastiness inherent in the Peters position (why does this sound like a cartoon in the making).
Politics is the art of the possible. I think we’d best recognize that a platform of peace doesn’t mean that we can ignore the possibility of war, and a platform that promises adherence to the treaty cannot ignore the divisive nature of the document that unites us as New Zealanders.
( Lets face it we have a policy paper on industrial use of hemp and no policies on defense OR immigration? )
As to why Winston Peters exists. In a sense, he is a creation of the treaty itself.
Sorry… drifting off topic here.
The parties could tell us all who they were willing to dance with, but the electoral “cake” is going to be sliced rather thinly, and even the smallest party can have a voice. The possible outcomes are not going to be easily computed, but the numbers look bad yet again.
We’d best start considering how we will function if those numbers go against us.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hey frog..any chance of clarification on the question i asked re greens doing a swerve on a full coalition, but giving confidence and supply to a govt containing peters..?
thanks..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greens are left wing Frog, and left wing belief is dying throughout the world
We are having to build our own Green within the centre right frog because present Green is a basically like a religion..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil: as far as I’m aware, the only things Rod and Jeanette have said is:
1) Our first preference is a government that only contains Labour and the Greens (i.e. “a clean government”);
2) The Greens would not sign up to any government which implemented NZ First’s divisive immigration policy.
The key is the policy platform.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog..does the term ’sign-up’ also include confidence and supply..?
yours in transperancy and need for clarification..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)