Peters holds all of the cards and he knows it

I was called out for gutter journalism by Winston Peters this week for – among other things – accusing him of being ‘‘up to his old tricks of keeping people guessing’’.

Peters then delivered an extraordinary 20-minute diatribe, in which he refused to give a straight answer to any of the assembled New Zealand media, wouldn’t answer a question from one journalist because he was Australian, and refused to talk about policy, bottom-lines or how he might go about negotiating the formation of the next government.

Peters then went on an Australian TV show, The Bolt Report, and talked policy and bottom lines, chiefly by dropping a hint that his hardline position on a referendum over abolishing the Maori seats may be negotiable after all.

Tens of thousands of Kiwis watched the nonsense in the Beehive theatrette, some of them for entertainment value, no doubt, but the rest of them genuinely hoping for some reassurance of stability and certainty. They might want to call Peters out for choosing to enlighten the Aussies while keeping them in the dark.

But that’s Peters. He makes Kevin Spacey’s House of Cards character Frank Underwood look like an amateur. Peters lives for the backroom deal and revels in conspiracy, intrigue – and keeping people guessing. He’s not about to change now.

The consternation in National’s ranks at having to deal – again – with Peters is as real as the mistrust on Peters’ side about having to deal with National.

That’s one reason why senior Nats started talking up the Green Party on the campaign trail. National knows the Greens will probably never bite but maybe they should – if nothing else, the illusion that both National and the Greens have options would give Peters less leverage, which can only be good for both of them. So why the fear of Peters? On National’s side, the party still remembers with great clarity the grandstanding, the weeks of hanging on Peters’ phone calls, the drama of his daily trips to and from the Beehive, the idea – floated through back channels – that it might like to put a shared premiership on the table, the work-around to his finance portfolio demand (they called him a Treasurer but left most of the power with Bill Birch as finance minister) and the $5 billion price tag extracted by Peters as the cost of his support. That might seem like chump change now but back in 1996 it was a lot of money.

But the scars are equally deep on Peters’ side. He will remember the National MPs who briefed against him and then prime minister Jim Bolger, the whiteanting and deliberate sabotage of his referendum on pensions – a compulsory savings scheme that most agree was genius and ahead of its time – and the decimation of his ranks after Jenny Shipley rolled Jim Bolger, then picked off members of Peters’ caucus with flattery and the lure of fat ministerial pay packets.

Shipley set out to destroy NZ First and very nearly did. The coalition fell apart and NZ First barely scraped back into Parliament.

John Key tried to finish what Shipley couldn’t a decade later and nearly succeeded – Peters spent three years in the wilderness after National ruled NZ First out of coalition in 2008. But revenge and ambition are two emotions that carry Peters a very long way and he was back three years later.

Peters may claim he isn’t driven by utu but he does have a very long memory, so his one and only experience in coalition with National will undoubtedly inform his negotiations this time around. So too will the Ma¯ori Party experience; wiped off the face of politics after three terms with National.

None of that precludes Peters doing a deal with Bill English – in fact, the odds are still weighted in National’s favour. Peters is an oldfashioned politician and, despite the theatre, will be taking seriously the weight of public support behind National, at 46 per cent to Labour and the Greens’ combined 41.7 per cent support (Labour’s support was only 36 per cent). National may not have won the election – yet – but it won the campaign, fair and square.

But Peters’ first priority will be to his supporters. Polls suggest a majority would prefer a deal with Labour (though Peters doesn’t believe in polls). That was also the case in 1996 – and even though Peters felt he had little choice but to go with National, he copped a backlash.

Peters’ reasons for going with National back then were the same ones that will take priority in 2017 – whichever of Labour or National he chooses, it will be based on Peters’ belief in it being the most stable and more durable of the two options. If he also demands trophy policies – and of course he will, every minor party does – it won’t be for vanity reasons, but to show his supporters that he can deliver.

But Peters will also be aware of the rumblings from within National that maybe they should sit this one out. The thinking goes like this: National will be a fourthterm government, held hostage to an unpredictable and unmalleable minor party, and the public detests any MMPscenario where it looks like the tail is wagging the dog. Better to let Labour have Peters and return in three years, credibility intact, is the logic.

Except we’ve heard it all before. This thinking relies on Labour, the Greens and NZ First proving so shambolic in coalition that voters will be desperate for a return to a sensible and stable National government after three years.

But this is not how politics works. There is a powerful force that unites parties in government and it is called self-preservation.So we have to assume that things will work just fine this time around, no matter which way NZ First goes with. It’s even perfectly understandable that Peters’ hands are tied till special votes are counted on October 7, and that negotiations must wait till then.

But if Peters really wants to start with the goodwill of the New Zealand public behind him, now is the time to stop playing up to the small coterie of admirers and supporters who hang off every insult and every cantankerous tirade, and start acting like the statesman that the role of kingmaker demands.