Following on from Was Peters unfairly ejected from the Chamber? – does John Key get away with too much in the Chamber? Is his behaviour unbecoming of a Prime Minister?
“…cantankerous, disrespectful and disruptive behaviour…” are lovely descriptions and could be particular to Winston Peters in general or specifically the behaviour which saw his latest ousting.
I don’t quite know if that group of decriptors would apply to the consistent behaviour of say, John Key. ” Disrespectful and disruptive”, yes but not cantankerous. To the former two I’d add “smart arse” and “sneering.” Maybe “wily” also because he knows he can get away with whatever he likes and you always play to the ref.
I think this is fair comment. I agree that Key escapes the cantankerous label, but I think ”disrespectful and disruptive” could easily describe how he often acts in Parliament. And “smart arse” and “sneering” also seems appropriate descriptors.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I think Key’s behaviour often goes too far and can be a piss poor look at times.
But he’s also wily and knows what he can usually get away with.
Peters has been around long enough to also know how to be wily, but there’s a significant difference with what he does.
Key always directs his barbs and excesses at opposition MPs. While sometimes excessive it is seen as part of the cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate. He doesn’t argue with the Speaker, as Duperez says, he plays to the ref but he doesn’t play the ref.
In contrast Peters seems more intent on needling and questioning and defying and antagonising the Speaker. Tuesday’s clash on it’s own may not have seemed particularly bad but in the context of a long running battle with Carter then I don’t think the Speaker’s reaction was over the top.
Peters is one of the most experienced combatants in the Chamber. He should know how to play to the ref. He seems to frequently choose to fight with the ref. His questions often seem to begin targeting Government MPs or the PM but divert into spats with the Speaker.
Both Key and Peters display behaviour unbecoming of senior representatives of the people. They set a poor example and lower the tone of Parliamentary debate.
The difference is that Key fights his opposition while Peters seems obsessed with fighting the Speaker and the System. It’s hard to see how he can every win those battles, and his war his futile.
I don’t think either Key or Peters behave appropriately in Parliament, I don’t like the excesses of either. But Key keeps winning while Peters seems determined to continue battles he will mostly lose.