Peters saga developments

NZ First has announced its support for the Government’s emissions trading scheme (ETS), following the Green’s signing on yesterday. Some might add, and following the PM’s continuing support for Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Peters says his party has “secured a package that will ensure that all households will receive a one-off payment to mitigate the impact of the ETS”, which includes increases to power and fuel costs.

“As well, all those on low incomes, including New Zealand superannuation, will receive a front-loaded CPI adjustment to ensure that they keep ahead of the projected cost of the ETS to their households.”

He also said that NZ First have ensured that within the one billion dollar energy efficiency fund negotiated by the Green Party and available to all households, a dedicated portion will go to SuperGold Card holders which will reduce their costs and create warmer, healthier homes.

And that’s it in terms of detail. Overall, it is better that the proposed ETS proceed rather than gets kicked into touch as big business and its National Party clients want. The idea that National can magic up a scheme that doesn’t entail major costs is fairy story stuff.

But, as Gordon Campbell points out, any meaningful ETS scheme is going to result in major transfers of wealth, however many hundreds of millions are spent to mitigate the effects.

Meanwhile, John Key has declared that Peters, “would be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by him unless he [Peters] can provide a credible explanation on the Owen Glenn saga.” Such a man of principle. After National’s reluctance to attack Peters until today’s bambshell, I can’t see National getting much credit for this move, however much Farrar and the right-wing bloggers may crow about it.

But Labour could have a much bigger problem on its hands should it be seen as protecting Peters just to cling to power. It’s a pity the ETS doesn’t have more substance. Then it might be able to convincingly sell its association with Peters from a higher moral plane.


Tags: ,

9 Responses to “Peters saga developments”

  1. AndrewE Says:

    Such a tough time to be a hack eh! 🙂

  2. MacDoctor Says:

    Then it might be able to convincingly sell its association with Peters from a higher moral plane.

    I’m sorry, JP, but how can working with a morally bankrupt sleaze-ball EVER come from a “higher moral plane”? The two are mutually incompatible.

    And you are certainly wrong about John Key. The contrast between him and Helen Clark is now stunningly obvious. Many people will be wondering tonight whether they can vote for such a venal person as Clark has now shown herself to be.

    “How can working with a morally bankrupt sleaze-ball EVER come from a “higher moral plane”?” MacDoc, Something about doing our bit to save the planet. This week’s news from the arctic is even worse than last week’s. Scary.

    Also, I don’t think that the difference is “now stunningly obvious.” Had Key acted weeks ago, perhaps. What is stunningly obvious is that Key hedged his bets for a long time.

  3. ak Says:

    ***NEW RELEASE!!!***

    Out now on Crosby-Textor in association with Gullible Media, another popular classic from Slippery and the Hollaboys:

    “The man’s a rat – unless he ‘aint”

    (B-side: “If we need him he’ll be credible”}

    Available now at selected outlets – hurry, offer may be withdrawn depending on polls!

  4. just visiting Says:

    “The contrast between him and Helen Clark is now stunningly obvious.”

    Really? What prompted Key’s new stance, today? The letter from Owen Glenn, contradicting Peters. How did that come to light? The Privileges Committee inquiry. Which National MP made that happen? Um … nobody.

    No Rodney, no revelation. A simple fact, lost in all the drama, but pertinent nonetheless.

    Key is playing the odds. When the odds were that Peters could emerge on the other side of the election, he did not condemn him. Now he judges (probably rightly) that Peters won’t be there, so he plays phoney-principle. Because it’s a safe bet.

    When Key takes a stand that might – gasp! – be even slightly risky, even unpopular, let us know.

  5. Inventory2 Says:

    Agree wholeheartedly MacDoc. Clark could have gazzumped Key today by dropping Peters from his Ministerial roles, but politics got in the way because she still needs him. Even if she sacks or suspends him now, she is a follower, not a leader.

  6. Redbaiter Says:

    Macdoctor is right. Even to one such as myself, who has such low expectations regarding the left, it is still astonishing to witness how absolutely amoral the Klark gang are in the pursuit of power.

    Of course after Mr. Glenn’s letter wherein he states he made the $100,000 donation to NZF for the good of the Labour party, the big question now is how much did Helen Klark know about this?

    I cannot believe Glenn would give this amount of money to one party for the good of another, without the second party being aware of it. IMHO Klark knew of the $100,000 donation and has always known of it.
    Redbaiter, given that National have only just got around to distancing themselves from Peters, I take it that you’re not overly impressed with them either. You raise a fair question. But please save the Ks for KKKiwiblog. Oops, now you’ve got me doing it too.

  7. macdoctor01 Says:

    JP: so you consider a just cause an adequate reason for ditching principle. How very socialist of you. This is precisely the argument that Pol Pot used for the genocide in Cambodia (Note: I am illustrating the logical result of the argument, not suggesting that Helen Clark is going to go Pol Pot on us).

    What is stunningly obvious is that Key hedged his bets for a long time.

    Interesting. At what point would you have ditched Winston. At the time of the original Owen Glenn “scandal”? (like National would be upset about wealthy Donors). At the time of the Spencer Trust revelations? (Yeah, like secret trusts worry politicians). Up until now all you could accuse Peters of was hypocrisy – hardly a hanging offense in political circle. Now you have Peters bang to rights in a bare-faced lie. Being caught in a lie is the cardinal sin of politics. Now is the right time to reject Winston – Key has done it, but Clark has not. How socialist of her.

  8. jafapete Says:

    MacDoc, There’s an interesting disconnect between the rhetoric of the National Party shills like Farrar and the Herald, who have been condemning Peters for his lies for many weeks, and National leadership’s studied inaction.

    Reminds me that Rove-style politics is mostly about fixing nasty counter-narratives in people’s minds through the use of proxies.

  9. AndrewE Says:

    JP is arguing the party line that he has NOT yet been caught in a lie. There are allegations but the man is innocent until proven guilty.

    Personally I think the fact that Winston has repeatedly failed to explain what happened is evidence enough. He is in a public position that requires the trust of the public. He has treated the public with contempt and so is being found guilty by the court of public opinion.

    Unsurprisingly certain commentators who should know better are supporting him because Helen needs his votes.

    Andrew, You may call it a party line, but to some it is the basis of our justice system.

    “Repeatedly failed”? Actually, Peters has explained how it was that Owen Glenn did not donate money to NZ First, which is what the Herald accused Peters of lying about. Some people are trying to overlook that point, but in the interests of fairness it ought to be recognised.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: