Talk:Winston Peters

Classifying his politics

Considerable debate has centred on how to classify the politics of Winston Peters...

He should be classified with Pim Fortuyn I think. Both populist charismatic nationalistic and with various idiosyncratic ideas, and better in opposition than in government (Fortuyn never got a chance to take part in government but his party was a complete shambles. Just like NZ First.)

It's very difficult to qualify Peters or New Zealand First in any category...his recent comments regarding immigrants, as well as his past statements about the "grievance industry" sound rather populist. On the other hand, he also seems to be willing to present NZ First as a centrist party, as the current debate on NZ First's coalition options proves.

Another instance that would speak for the theory of Peters being a charismatic leader is the fact that the media hardly perceives anyone else...After all, both Labour and National (with Cullen and Key, respectively) have personnel that is distinct from its leaders. Even ACT is associated with people apart from Rodney Hide, most notably Roger Douglas.

Consequently, one could fairly say that NZ First is a case of charisma-driven populist centrism in action. (Prqc)

Blaming all the problems with crimes and economy on the immigrants cannot be counted as tackling the crime and economy issues, so that leave him with only one policy: to reduce immigrants from different backgrounds.I agree with you on the charisma driven populist part, but other than his racist comments he does not have any real policies, so I wouldn't call him centrist.

I believe he is racist instead of just anti-immigrant because his comments about immigrants and refugees only target at people from non-european backgrounds, and it's okey for people from the UK to come here without any knowledge of what's going on in NZ and still be accepted by him (or the "NZ publics represented by him"), for example, his righthand man Peter Brown. So much for retaining the NZ way of life aye.

Regarding how the media hardly perceives anyone else from his party, that's because it's HIS party, there's only one voice: his voice. There's not much point to ask someone else to speak for him when you can ask Peters directly. It's rather similar to Jim Anderton and his Progressive Party. Bobbybuilder 22:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Peters v Collinge

Hello, Peters did lose this case. Although the court found that contracting out of the ability to stand for an electorate was not possible (which the National Party had tried to force Peters to do) he lost on attempting to gain an injucntion stopping the National Party from disapproving his nomination for Tauranga. The National Party never did disapprove Peters nomination but this was because Peter never put his nomination up, as the court refused to review the internal party process of deciding candidates beyond requiring adherance to the party rules because it was a private body. Peters was therefore unsuccessful in attempting to stop the decision to disapprove his nomination. See the case Italic textPeters v CollingeItalic text [1993] 2 NZLR 554 at page 575 and the discussion on judicial review of party process at page 566-571.

First to be minister in both National and Labour govts

Will Peters be the first person to hold office in both a National and Labour ministry? If so this should be noted? Adam 12:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the first person I can immediately think of to hold offices in both Labour and National governments would be Peter Dunne. He was originally a Labour minister (appointed in the final year of the Fourth Labour Government), but then joined United and served as a minister in a National government — he was Minister of Internal Affairs and Minister of Inland Revenue for a short period before the 1996 elections. (Now, he's going to serve in a Labour-led administration again.) There may be other people before him, but I can't think of any. -- Vardion 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. How long will it be before Winston self-destructs again? Adam 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Again? National was responsible for the demise of their last government, not Winston. One good thing about Winston: we can continue to stem the Asian invasion and get more jobs into New Zealanders' hands, where they belong. WikiMonster 05:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And these people claim they are not racist. Bobbybuilder 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He won't, there's too much riding on this being successful and stable. -- Greaser 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you got proved wrong! Ha! --203.211.79.64 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Privy Council

When did Winston become a member of the Privy Council?

I believe it was when he was Deputy Prime Minister in the Bolger government after 1996. See [1]. New Zealand senior politicians are regularly appointed to the Privy Council. I have no idea whether he's still a member. The category was added to the article on 4 July 2004 by User:Jdforrester.

Ah, I see: it was part of that very special coalition deal. I knew he was deputy prime minister, but I never thought of him as a "senior politician" since he was merely the leader of a party with just 17/120 seats. On the other hand, New Zealand order of precedence has it that "In New Zealand, Privy Council appointees are former Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers, other cabinet ministers who were both senior and long-serving, Chief Justices and senior Court of Appeal justices."

Elderly supporters

The one thing I felt this article didn't cover was that a large number of Peter's supporters are the elderly. I remember going to a local NZ First rally with my grandfather (who still supports NZ First) and the whole room was old people. He appeals to traditional values and as such the majority of his supporters are the elderly, while very few younger people will support him. It's an important aspect to mention, though I don't have any reputable sources that I could cite if I added this statement. Perhaps an article from a newspaper or a book on Peters could be found that supports such a claim? Richard001 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Baubles of office

This section seems biased. For example, the heading, which could be 'The 2005 election' or 'Coalition with Labour' or something, seems intended purely to criticise him. Most of the text has the same tone. I realise hardly anyone under the age of 70 likes Winnie, and therefore Wikipedia users are unlikely to disagree with this, but this is an encyclopaedia and contributors should at least try to sound neutral. --Helenalex 08:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the heading is too pointed, and have changed it. I've also changed some wording for the loss of support and the Tauranga seat in the election. Do you think further changes are necessary?-gadfium 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Catalyst for breakup of National - NZ First coalition

Article states that the proposed sale of Auckland Airport led to the breakup of the coalition. However, I recall that it was Wellington Airport. I think this was in 1998. Can anyone confirm this? Canopus1968 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it was Wellington Airport. I've fixed the article and added a ref. The situation is confusing because Auckland Airport was privatised about three weeks earlier, with Peters' full consent.-gadfium 04:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Incumbent minister of finance

The incumbent minister of finance is actually Micheal Cullen. Can someone fix this? It says that Winston is at the moment. 125.238.177.86 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that. If you still see such a statement, could you say where in the article it occurs, or give the precise wording.-gadfium 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)