KEY POINTS:
An election series in which a panel of readers answers questions on the big issues.The panel of 120 eligible voters has been selected by the research company Nielsen to reflect the age, gender and regional spread of the voting-age population.
Many, including the man himself, believe all publicity is good publicity for Winston Peters.
But if the recent disclosures about his political finances have generated more support for him, the Herald's focus group research has not found it.
Of a panel of 120 people demographically selected to reflect the voting population, 95 replied to emailed questions about the financial disclosures, only six favourably.
The proportion is broadly in line with the last election result and would be enough to put New Zealand First back in Parliament. A party needs 5 per cent to be awarded seats under MMP.
Of the six panellists who supported Mr Peters, two saw him as the victim of a witch-hunt, two said he had been a good Foreign Minister, one thought the failure to account for the Owen Glenn contribution was not his fault and the other felt there was not enough evidence.
They were among the majority of the panel, 56 per cent, whose opinion of Mr Peters had not been changed by the recent disclosures, but most of the others already had a low opinion of him.
Five took a neutral view, describing him as a "character", a "charmer" and "a bit of a rascal", and said their opinion had not changed.
Almost 40 per cent of respondents said their opinion had changed. Of them, 14 no longer trusted him, 12 decided he had been dishonest, three said he had lost credibility, two thought him self-serving, and two said he hid behind the law or considered himself above it.
The rest accused him of being hypocritical, playing the victim, undermining democracy, and proving "politicians are all the same", and one said he had to go.
A South Island panellist said, "I used to think he performed a useful role as a voice for the little guy. His true colours have now been revealed as a self-serving charlatan."
And from the upper North Island: "I voted for him once, now with deep regret as he has shown himself to be a very dishonest, manipulative, smarmy, smug, unprincipled rogue. He has no moral scruples, has lied, is abusive, rude, insulting to anyone who dares question his integrity."
But when asked for a broader assessment of Mr Peters' contribution to New Zealand politics, the panel was more evenly divided. All told, 40 per cent think his career overall has been negative and 38.9 per cent think it has been positive for the country.
Of the latter, most mentioned his support for the older generation and saw him as "a devil's advocate" who was willing to ask tough questions and generate debate.
Many thought he had done a good job as Foreign Minister, though just as many in the negative camp believed he had been bad for the country in that role.
Some gave him good marks for free medical care for under-6s, opposition to asset sales and immigration. Two mentioned the wine box, support for Maori and his representation of Tauranga.
QUESTIONS
* Has your opinion of Winston Peters changed as a consequence of recent disclosures?
* Do you think Winston Peters' career has made a mainly positive or negative contribution to the country's affairs?
