The Dim-Post

December 6, 2011

Historical perspective

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 4:07 pm

So I’m thinking National’s ‘deal’ with ACT – in which Key bent over backwards to extend life-support to a discredited, crackpot joke of a political party, then gave its sole MP two Ministerial portfolios and major un-mandated far-right policy concessions on the grounds that the MMP coalition process forced them to cede them during coalition negotiations – is the second sleaziest, most disgusting backroom deal in our modern political history. The champion is Winston Peters’ 1996 decision to enter coalition with National after promising during the campaign that he wouldn’t go into coalition with National. And I think his 2005 refuse-the-baubles-of-power-hey-look-I’m-Foreign-Minister stunt is number three.

So only the second worst. But still pretty loathsome.

11 Comments »

  1. What happened to your blog esse?

    Comment by Orlando Figes' ghost-writer — December 6, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

  2. I/S raises a good point when he asks regarding Key, “Or is he setting himself up for another broken promise, a second referendum whether we voted for one or not?”

    Key has been repeating lies about MMP since the election result, and I suspect will keep doing it.

    (new theme not the greatest, imho)

    Comment by PGM — December 6, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

  3. Is this satire?

    Comment by Will — December 6, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

  4. “Two Ministerial portfolios” is stretching it.

    I guess being Minister of Regulatory Reform will mean something in terms of stewarding the Regulatory Reform Act (or whatever it’s called) through Parliament, but him being the Minister of Small Business is about as meaningful as Idi Amin being the King of Scotland.

    Banks’ only meaningful roles are his two Associate Ministerships. Which means in twenty years he’s gone from being Minister of Police to Associate Minister of Education. These conservatives are such dynamic, ambitious go-getters!

    Comment by Hugh — December 6, 2011 @ 5:08 pm

  5. Spot on, Dunn sort of made sense Chauvel might have come through the middle, I am guessing they managed not to discuss it over that cup of tea… or did they ? Is Peters holding onto the ultimate card in this house of cards?

    Comment by Hamish Stewart — December 6, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

  6. @ Hugh. A few years back I got a letter from a guy in Scotland who shares my surname seeking my support for his ascendance to the Scottish throne. I on that basis wouldn’t underestimate the importance of Banks role.

    Most of us work in small businesses I reckon we could make his next 3 years into a nightmare.

    Comment by Hamish Stewart — December 6, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

  7. @ Hamish: Silly guy, everybody knows that the legitimate Stuart claim to the English throne is the King of Baviara! Jeesh, the imagination on that kid!

    I guess it is within the realms of possibility that he will be given an actual Ministry of Small Business with some policy grunt and decision-making power but I’d put it pretty low down the totem pole of probability. (Then again, I broke the only cast iron rule of Political Science and Ruled Winston Out (TM) so I’d understand it if you take what I say with a whole mine full of salt)

    Comment by Hugh — December 6, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

  8. Comparing Banks’ deal with Winston’s 1996 flip flop approaches Godwin-levels of hyperbole. They aren’t even in the same ball park.

    Comment by Adze — December 7, 2011 @ 10:13 am

  9. “in which Key bent over backwards to extend life-support to a discredited, crackpot joke of a political party” –

    What would you have said if Labour/Greens had got enough votes to form a governement by including Winston in a coalition? Winson doesn’t join a government without plenty of influence coming his way. Key had the decency to rule out a coalition with Winston, so the voters certainly knew what they were voting for. Goff didn’t.

    Comment by annie — December 7, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

  10. Winston is making the right noises already on income disparity and taxes. Louder than Labour at any time in the last three years.

    Comment by Andrew R — December 7, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

  11. “Yup! Loathsome is as loathsome does”.

    Comment by Mr February — December 7, 2011 @ 11:28 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: