Talk:Winston Peters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classifying his politics[edit]

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)[reply]

Peters v Collinge[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
And these people claim they are not racist. Bobbybuilder 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He won't, there's too much riding on this being successful and stable. -- Greaser 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got proved wrong! Ha! --203.211.79.64 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it should be mentioned that he is the longest serving Maori politician and also the longest serving politician all together. Also, let's not forget that he was the first maori politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.209.50 (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would certainly mention that if it was true. However, he certainly wasn't the first Māori politician, he certainly wasn't the longest serving politician, and he wasn't the longest serving Māori politician. Peters served nine terms in office; Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan served ten.-gadfium 09:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peters was not the first Maori politician, not by a long shot. Sir Apirana Ngata entered parliament in 1905 and was dead two and a half decades before Peters became an MP. Akld guy (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Privy Council[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Baubles of office[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Catalyst for breakup of National - NZ First coalition[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Incumbent minister of finance[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deleting political commentary[edit]

I've deleted sections of this article about Peters' views and policies ("some claim" .... "some observers say" etc) and his "trying to appeal to Asian voters without much success" etc. These are blatantly subjective political commentaries, completely unsubstantiated claims despite citation tags since August and warnings on those sections of the article warning that unverified material may be challenged and removed. This is unsupported, unencyclopedic and can't remain. Grimhim (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:WinstonPetersEuropa.jpg[edit]

Possible copyright violation? The uploader is newish, has a lot of warnings and isn't around anymore, and it says that the image "is owned by the European Union Centres Network.", which presumably isn't synonymous with the user. It shouldn't be difficult to get a replacement image in any case. Richard001 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winebox[edit]

No mention of the Winebox Inquiry? Surely this was the defining moment of Winston Peters' political career? ElectricRay (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that should certainly be in the article. There is a link to Winebox Inquiry but it's hidden in a collapsed section. You are welcome to add a summary paragraph to the article. I don't recall the exact timing of Peters' exposure of the case, so I'm not sure if it should go under the "National Party" or the "New Zealand First" section of the article.-gadfium 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the perks[edit]

The article says that before the 2005 General Election, Peters said he would not seek the "baubles of office". It also says that in 2008 he greeted Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on her arrival in NZ. Could we describe this encounter as a Rice bauble? Akld guy (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distrust of corporate world not left wing[edit]

The claim that "He says he distrusts the corporate world, a fact sometimes used to label him as left-wing" is simply an error. He distrusts capitalism, which is or at least was a common thing. He supports free enterprise. That is an entirely different thing. Capitalism used to be opposed - or at least viewed with suspicion - by both left and right. Years of propaganda by capitalists in the USA - particularly their use of 'capitalism' as a false counterpart to 'communism', has shifted opinion - but only due to the misuse of the term capitalism. To summarise, Peters is distrustful of capitalism, which does not make him left or right wing. He was however originally a National Party minister, which makes him centre-right.122.59.213.148 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13th/19th Deputy PM[edit]

@Ollie035:: are you sure? From what I see in Grover Cleveland, Shinzō Abe and Juan Perón, it seems to be conventional to include the later numbering as well, as they served more than once in the same role. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many times Winston Peters assumes the role of Deputy Prime Minister, he stays the 13th Deputy. The 19th person would be the next person to hold the position provided they haven't also held the position in the past. Its how we've done it with New Zealand political pages for a while, such as with Bill English / Minister of Finance. Bill English served the role twice, but still remained the 39th Minister of Finance, even after he regained it from Michael Cullen in 2008. The number just skips to the next person who is new to the role, leaving repeat holders with the same number.--Screwdriver10 (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Screwdriver10: Is there discussion anywhere that led to that consensus because, without seeing more comment, it sounds wrong. I also wonder if there is a justified reason for numbering ministers anyway. It seems that over time the sensible reference to, for example, "the second (or fourth etc) National govt", has turned into a numbering frenzy that will soon lead us to talk about, for example, "the 89th minister of transport". Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with the government numbers (such as the Fifth National Govt) is that they are different governments elected at different times and have significant changes to their structure. With the numbers of a role a minister has served, like with Winston Peters, it's just an observation I have noticed across the pages with different Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers of New Zealand that if a member was to retake a role, they would remain the same elected number they did when they first assumed the position. Its my thought that the numbers are there to mark the amount of people who have served in the role - saying Winston is the 19th person to serve as DPM is misleading because he has held the position before, so we lose count if we keep including people who have served before. We have had 18 DPMs, two have served twice (Jack Marshall and Winston Peters) - does it suddenly become 20? That implies 20 different people held the role. Also, didn't know we have had that many Transport ministers that's amazing lol. --Screwdriver10 (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Put like that the ministerial numbering system seems obvious. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An ip has changed the infobox to 19th, apparently unaware of this discussion. I do not agree with this discussion by the way. We're not counting the number of officeholders here, we're counting the number of appointments to the office. Paula Bennett was the 18th to serve, therefore Peters is the 19th appointment. Akld guy (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The numbering convention is country-specific. In the US, Peters would currently the 19th deputy but given that we are in New Zealand, he is the 13th. Just look how American presidents and NZ prime ministers are numbered. Schwede66 14:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Winston Peters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political views[edit]

Being bold I have removed the paragraph about gay rights. It was totally misleading and biased towards a POV. The sources did not back up the statements made. This conclusion - Peters has generally opposed LGBT rights in New Zealand is drawn from an MP voting against a bill in the House. Where is the link? There is not one. The first source even quotes Peters as saying he would not have voted against the 1986 bill had he known about future medical advances regarding AIDS treatment. Again, where is the link with discrimination? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acting prime minister[edit]

Has anyone else heard that he will actually be sworn in as prime minister rather than being acting prime minister? If so,assuming we can back it up,shouldn't the article be updated to reflect this? Warspite85 (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TV 3 gave us a serve on the main news tonight[edit]

Our article today said Winston was acting PM because Jacinda Ardern was "unable to perform her prime ministerial duties due to six months maternal responsibility", and TV3 mentioned that tonight. Well, so we did, but we corrected it to six weeks. Has anyone seen TV3 correct any of the inaccuracies they have reported? Ever? Moriori (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of New Zealand-specific vocabulary[edit]

This article is about a New Zealand politician. That does not mean it is for New Zealanders, or read only by them. It is part of an encyclopaedia aimed at all English speakers. The term "Pakeha" is understood within New Zealand but not elsewhere, and does not need to be used to describe New Zealand European society. The plain English "New Zealand European society" says everything that needs to be said, clearly and accessibly. Quite why people wish to force this Maori word into the article is not clear. Doktor Rotkod (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because it is (a) a word that is well-embedded into New Zealand English and (b) it means something more complex than the plain English translation. Schwede66 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

Peters ethnicity - being Maori - is a significant factor in his notability and has been for half a century. That means it is relevant and should be mentioned in the lead. The WP guidelines that user:Alexeyevitch is using to justify its removal is being misunderstood by him/her and therefore applied incorrectly. I suggest you first find out why his ethnicity is notable and then why you have misread the guidelines. As I said on my talk page, if you want something to do, try working on sources. In fact, you have been on WP long enough IMO to progress from mass standardised changes to articles to edits that require a bit more thought than just button pressing. I hope you enjoy your time here. You might benefit from spending more time perusing WP more to see how it works in reality before leaping in with so many changes to articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winston_Peters&oldid=1190804402"