Island Life by David Slack

I think that the PM should sack Peters, announcing publicly that his lack of support for the principles of the labour-led government, coupled with his parties racism, makes him unfit to be a Minister.

She can't do that because he'd bring down the government?

Well, there's a way out of that.

Firstly, she asks John Key to abstain on confidence and supply until an agreed election date in September, thus neutralising Peters.

If Key agrees, then NZF become a bit of a spent force, especially if the agreement becomes mutual (pairing off NZF MPs so that they become ineffectual).

If, as would seem likely, he refuses, then there will be an early election. National will have limited ability to spend its warchest or dream up some policies. NZF (and to some extent National) will get most of the blame for forcing the election date. Labour might just win, but if National wins, they're straight into the teeth of the recession, with a new PM and questionable coalition support. The public will see it as the Nats screwing up after 8 good years with Labour.

Win/win/win, really.

Bollocks.

I have to admit to being a Peters fan. Not because he is an expert dog whistler, but because he is a consumate political performer, and also because he is a consistent nationalist.

The only other politician who represents these ideas seems to be Jim Anderton. And he is too straight up and down to bring John Campbell into a saliva flecked apolexy over his camera.

It is a safe issue for him. It will be passed irrespective. He has nothing to lose by being able to gain a distinction with the government and underline that he represents the pre-1984 NZ in government, a New Zealand not used so used to outside influences, especially Chicago school economics.

Peters doesn't so much champion the down trodden these days as a protectionist import-subsitution nostalgic constituency. I have to be honest, when I look at the N party devoid of value and well, presence, Peters does come across like a rolls royce among newly converted biofuel bearing RAV 4s there.

The best thing would be if he can take the "ohh naice young man" vote away from Key, and heck who knows?

only thing is, sure as heck, would feel mighty uncomfortable with a RAV 4, even one so converted on the 9th floor. given the size of the lifts you would have to wonder how it got there...

Very nice blog, Mr Slack! I've had lots of chortles all through your last few posts (since your re-emergence from seclusion).

Rich of Observationz wrote:

I think that the PM should sack Peters, announcing publicly that his lack of support for the principles of the labour-led government, coupled with his parties racism, makes him unfit to be a Minister.

She can't do that because he'd bring down the government?

Well, there's a way out of that...

Gotta say, the way you explain it -- sounds pretty good to me. I'm definitely not a fan of Peters and his lousy politics of inciting hatred and resentment.

Go for it, Helen, I say.

If, as would seem likely, he refuses

That is a certainty. So much bad blood between Labour and National right now it has gone beyond funny.

Don Brash's legacy is the destruction of any chance of consensus between our most important political forces.

So in your second scenario I/O, early election, and National gets Peters as shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Mr Key yesterday reiterated his position that it was conceivable that Mr Peters could be foreign minister in a National-led government.

Apologies, that's R/O...

Perhaps Winston is trying to send a subtle massage to the Chinese that the sky doesn't fall in if not everyone toes the party line?

And as for those pesky Buddhists. They just don't know when they are beaten

The Dalai Lama has to come back to Tibet,” one monk said, according to Reuters, which was invited on the tour. “We are not asking for Tibetan independence; we are just asking for human rights. We have no human rights now.”

Looks like Alisdair Thompson has had the same idea as me

It would be very funny if Clark sacked Peter Dunne instead. After all, Peters is only challenging policy, whereas Dunne is publicly telling the PM to sack one of her ministers. Which one is the worse lese majeste?

(for football fans, see: committing the foul versus waving an imaginary yellow card at the ref)

Should be red card, of course. Must wake up soon.

a subtle massage

now thats Foreign Affairs....

If, as would seem likely, he refuses, then there will be an early election. National will have limited ability to spend its warchest or dream up some policies. NZF (and to some extent National) will get most of the blame for forcing the election date. Labour might just win, but if National wins, they're straight into the teeth of the recession, with a new PM and questionable coalition support. The public will see it as the Nats screwing up after 8 good years with Labour.

Because Helen Clark wants to end her political career, and 9 distinguished years as prime minister with a Muldoon-ist tizzy holding a snap election over some imaginary constitutional crisis.

That's what she wants people to remember her for.

Winston's posturing for his disaffected local audience will not matter one whit to either the Chinese or other overseas leaders.

And it's always easy to lose the message in the distaste for the delivery method. Like Winny or not, his comments about Douglas et al. are fairly accurate.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate economist, was happy to thank us here in NZ for our "...experiment..." using economic theories that had largely been discounted amongst most economists some 15 years before.

Notwithstanding Winston's accuracy on some things, he's still pandering to a rather sad and disaffected constituency who are still running scared of the 'Yellow Peril'.

Likee blogpost.

Maybe this is good for us. Maybe New Zealand will develop a reputation for being inscrutable in its political dealings. Maybe political studies departments of universities overseas will employ Zealologists, who will interpret the strange and often contradictory messages coming from that odd country at the end of the world.

a subtle massage

now thats Foreign Affairs....

I'd like to think I was channelling Marshall McLuhan in an Inspector Clouseau accent when I wrote that but it was just the usual typo that slips through and then glares back at you as soon as you hit 'Post Reply'.

he is the Huey Long of New Zealand politics

Huey Long, although corrupt in many ways, did believe in wealth redistribution to the poorest: he was far more of a progressive than Winston, I think.

(My grandmother loved Huey Long. 'Ma chere, before he was governor we didn't even have roads!')

Muldoon-ist tizzy

It's become this clincher in NZ debates. A bit like Godwin's Law, all you have to do is say "Muldoon did that" and you win.

I mean, I have it on good authority that he liked bacon sarnies - does that make them bad?

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

You don't make friends with salad, Andrew, so I'm pretty sure you don't make Free Trade Agreements with salad, either.

Don Brash's legacy is the destruction of any chance of consensus between our most important political forces.

LOL... I do try to avoid lazy and trivial invocations of Orwell (my personal Godwin's Law), but doubleplusgoodful doublethink there, Don.

You don't make friends with salad, Andrew

Apparently not - check this out

"6000 slices of bread, 4000 sausages, two tonnes of meat ... and three lettuces,"

That's what I call a balanced diet!