Now that final confidence motion is out of the way, we can have a sweepstake on how long Peters will keep his baubles. Any time between now and the time that the ministers would ordinarily hand in their warrants. (If I recall correctly, ministers may continue in office for up to 28 days after the election.)
Of course, the right-wing bloggers who have been predicting Peters’ imminent demise for some weeks now should be disqualified from entering, but they’re welcome to nonetheless.
I’m picking he will get dumped in the first week of September. Clark won’t want him strutting his baubles during the election campaign proper, especially as the Herald and DomPost will continue to dish the dirt in their carefully choreographed campaign to eliminate him.
Tags: Winston Peters
Jafapete's Weblog 
August 7, 2008 at 9:58 am |
My guess is: no sacking
Clark has an ongoing need to keep Peters sweet. If she’s got any chance of forming a 4th term Labour-led government she will need Peters if NZ First is returned after the election, so it would be very risky to piss him off by firing him weeks before she would need him again.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 7, 2008 at 10:23 am |
Bryce, I thought about that very clearly. Then I thought, we’re dealing with someone here has no shame, and who would probably see the upside in getting sacked just before the election: he’s paid his price, distanced himself from a not especially popular government…
August 7, 2008 at 10:38 am |
JP – when you say “we’re dealing with someone here has no shame” – did you mean Peters, the PM, or both?
For what it’s worth, I think the PM will not act against Peters unless either (or both) the SFO or the Police launch investigations. Now that the final confidence vote has passed, Peters is no longer critical to the government’s survival. In contrast, it’s now too late for the PM to be seen to be upholding her principles in sacking him, and a sacking now would be a victory for Peters. He will stay, baubles and all, until the PM names the date for the election, after which he will campaign divested of all baubles.
August 7, 2008 at 11:03 am |
Or the Leader of the Opposition, dobbing in Young Labour without the slighest skerrick of evidence to back that up? Just to divert attention away from his deputy “Loose Lips” English and others’ candid comments.
If the Police or SFO launch investigations, she would stand Peters down, but not sack him. Given his repeated denials — which the Speaker, herself a former law professor found “compelling” — it would be unfair to do otherwise. Peters, BTW, has a very refined sense of the principles of natural justice. I well remember him invoking these when National was trying to set up a kangaroo court to shanghai him out of the Party.