The Nat’s don’t need to change the law on abortion, all they need to do is administer it with a different emphasis.
In the US now the Catholic Church is buying up a lot of hospitals and denying women abortions. They are also denying them contraceptives. Practices are spreading of intimidation of doctors who do provide safe abortions for women. These doctors are been threatened with exclusion from promotions etc. etc.

On June 7 in the US the pro life people staged a nation-wide protest against the pill for goodness sake so for many of the pro life pro family people its really more about sending women back to the dark ages where you do nothing but breed. Its not about protecting foetuses, Its about stopping women having any choices at all.
Many of the National pro family policies are very anti to single parents and make it difficult for a woman to leave an unhappy marriage and still sustain her family.
The child care package they promoted last election is a tax break of up to 5000 per year. But for a poor minimum wage woman alone she would probably only qualify for a small part of that. That means its not possible for her to pay for child care while she works which makes it damned impossible for some woman who don’t have family to mind their kids and help them out to get away from miserable situations etc. unless of course they go on the domestic purposes benefit which you can bet the nat’s will be attacking once in government.
They are a very backward thinking party in total when it comes to women’s rights to exist independently outside marriage. They vote against just about every initiative to help poorly paid mothers etc.

In their last period of government over 9 years the minimum wage increased by $1. Of the 91000 minimum wage earners during that time most were women.

They continually blocked attempts by nurses to get pay increases yet touted the free market and paid Don Brash 1 000 000. Yes they like cheap female workers and believe in the free market for the rich and those who in their books are worthy of such excessive salaries. They also passed the privacy act which effectively made Wages and salaries private. This in effect made equal pay legislation which has existed for women here in NZ for years almost
completely null and void. If you don’t know your boss is cheating you how can you challenge what is happening behind your back. This pay privacy can hide nepotism and all sort of shady pay practices from employees.

Of course poor prospects for pay and improvement are the things that induce women to stay in marriages when their partners cheat on them etc etc. Basically if you have kids to feed its very hard to stand up for yourself and leave. The Nats want to keep it that way.

They believe in the coercion of women to remain married through their impoverishment. Having looked at their voting history and having spoken with some of the people in that party that is my belief.
Last election the Labout government introduced a penalty for employers found to be paying female employees less for the exact same job. Don Brash was incensed by this. He thought it was wrong that an employer should be penalised for knowingly underpaying women.

When Jim Bolger was Prime minister his most important first priority was to reverse legislation achieved previously by Helen Clarke which made it possible for women working in female dominated industries to compare their jobs with similar mens jobs and claim increases based on jobs which were comparable. The legislation was only passed in a very weak form and would not have increased women’s wages by much but Nationals first priority was not to woman voters but to employers. Don Brash promised to do exactly the same thing. It was a “gone by lunch time ” policy. Top priority.
Theres a lot more. Go look at their voting record in parliament and you will see that every effort to help improve the financial lot of women they have opposed again and again and agian.

I have agreed regarding the family thing. Wikipedia can only show the entirety of an edit, so the graphic includes everything that has been deleted. Perhaps that could have been edited by A_Y_B to only include references to Bill himself, but then the link to wikipedia would still show the full edit. If you have suggestions about how that could be avoided, feel free to suggest away.

However, the post made the thrust of the article perfectly clear – nary a mention of the Wife, but questioning of what he (note the bold he in the post) believes in. there’s no scoring points off his wife here and I think you’re making a cheap shot yourself by trying to bring that point into focus, you’ll notice the debate has purely centred on Bill.

For a supposed neutral, I’m not sure how you missed that. That’s why I ‘assumed you’re a rabid right-winger’ – their usual strategy is to ignore the actual substance and focus on irrelevant side issues that no-one else is actually debating. My apologies if I have misjudged you, but that’s what your approach has been. Doesn’t help whet you continuously ignore what someone is attempting to debate (when it’s what the actual post is about), while they’re answering your points. People call that trolling.

You’ve turned something about wiki editing into a debate about whether South Aucklanders would appreciate the content of said editing, yet don’t link it back to what we’re talking about.

Your comments regarding social conservatism in South Auckland are interesting but I’m not sure what I am meant to understand – their concern with the prostitution reform law has nothing whatsoever to do with wiki editing and you haven’t made any specific point.

If I started to mention the failure of Think Big to have a positive economic impact of the residents of Tolaga Bay you’d probably equally confused, for example.

I think you’re overestimating that sense of betrayal however, there are more issues out there that people are concerned about. On the day though, people do often vote based upon a single issue.

Yes, I have spoken to people in South Auckland recently about what is of concern to them. I have family who live there. They worry about the same things like every other New Zealnder; employment, education, health and taxes. But they are more concerned about the social changes like the Prostitution Reform. Before you jump to conclusion, and make a leap into the ridiculous, I agree the Bill needed to be introduced. However, the local community are worried that youngsters are moving into the profession. With South Aucklanders traditionally being social conservatives, there is a deep sense of betrayl from the Party they have always voted for. They don’t agree with the Nats as they remember what happened to them in the 1990s. But they do know Bill is a Christan and he has married a Pacific Islander. They still adore Helen Clark but they are wondering if there is much more they can handle regarding social change. Do you understand now? If not, get out of your seat and engage with some people face to face. Interfacing with a computer screen doesn’t count.

You argue the major concern is that his populist stance disguises his stong views. There is no disagreement about that. But it’s cheap political point scoring to mention his family, even if they are not the main thrust of the post.

You say: If someone doesn’t answer a question and blatantly avoids it there’s a fair obvious conclusion to be made there. So what’s the obvious conclusion? That I’m a rabid rightwinger hell bent in seeing the current Government lose, so the strong views of Nat MPs can be then unleashed on the NZ public? Wrong. I stress again since you miss the point, if I don’t agree with you, that does not mean that I am on the other side. This is no “You either with us or against us situation”? Ever heard of neutrality? I was disturbed a MP’s family can be published on a pro partisan website as supporting evidence for political points. Do you understand now? If not, then there is not much I can do to help you.

Do you think they care about some discussion that is happening right now in this post about deleted references? Have you bothered to ask?

No mandy I haven’t travelled to South Auckland in the last day or so with the express purpose of asking voters whether they would be more likely to vote for National because the Clutha-Southland MP and deputy leader’s wikipedia entry used to say that he has strong christian views. Have you?

I’m also not enough of a conspiracy theorist to imagine that someone from the left would be editing religious views of National Party MPs to forestall some form of religious resurgence in lower socioeconomic circles in Auckland. That you consider my failure to draw this most tenuous and desperate of a connection a failure of my logic and intellect speaks volumes about your lack thereof.

My intention was never to explain nor defend those who have obscured the religious views of Bill. So why you would be asking me to answer such a claim demonstrates your flawed logic.

You said they were bringing his family into it. I mentioned it was about his christian views, and nothing to do with his family. You made another obscure and non-sensical comment about conservative views of other MPs – if that’s not about why someone would be obscuring Bill’s christian views that what on earth have you been writing about?! That was my point the whole time, so you’re trying to say my logic is flawed, because I’m asking someone arguing against something I said to argue against something I said instead of something else entirely, which incidentally makes little sence. Intersting concept.

My questioning of your view does not mean that I support the actions of those who have deleted the Wikipedia references. Your inference that I do is just dumb.

I directly asked you somewhere in the region of five times – each time you skirted around the issue. If someone doesn’t answer a question and blatantly avoids it there’s a fair obvious conclusion to be made there. As for my dumb inference – it was never made. I simply asked what you thought – therefore any inference is yours and purely imagined.

You never bother to say who would be offended by these views? Which voters would be so appalled that they would vote another way? Isn’t the general consensus that all politicians are liars anyway?

I said this (and even told you it was a wee hint – I see that was too subtle for you, sorry about that): when you’re trying to be populist and appeal to everyone, offend no one and release as little policy as possible, do you think you’d want to publicise strong views?

The gist of that would be that if a view might not resonate with everyone, an MP might not wish it publicised. If you can’t understand that, then there’s not a lot more else that can be said to help you.

Visited the Herald today? Interesting article, something about Russell Brown and Wikipedia…

There was no putting words in mouth, but obviously you have not taken the time to logically and intelligently connect that Bill’s religous views will be recieved strongly in South Auckland. That they may vote with him or his party is democracy in action. Do you think they care about some discussion that is happening right now in this post about deleted references? Have you bothered to ask?

You never bother to say who would be offended by these views? Which voters would be so appalled that they would vote another way? Isn’t the general consensus that all politicians are liars anyway?

In asking questions, you don’t answer your flawed reasoning. Must go with the dogmatic territory.

Can you explain that, you lost me, champ… i think you’re imagining tenuous links in what i write that aren’t actually there.

If you’re implying that I think those areas of South Auckland don’t matter, you’ll find putting words into people’s mouths doesn’t do you any favours, especially when your logic skills are as weak as you’re demonstraating here. This is a democracy, and those people will vote as they see fit. If the Prostitution reform act has affected them, then they may choose to vote accordingly.

You still haven’t told me why someone is trying to obscure Bill’s conservative christian views. Why do you think that’s happening? Why do you think it’s unimportant – it seems to me that someone wants to hide any views that might offend people. Some would call that dishonest – do you support such behaviour?

Nice to see that you think poitically expedient electorates that won the election in 2005 don’t matter unless it agrees with this conspiritoral post. Poor.

Now, the rest of it, Bill English’s views (remember, Bill English is a senior MP, and therefore his views are open to scrutiny (if you can’t agree to that then this ain’t going anywhere))…

Great if “His socially conservative views would be reflected in Labour strongholds.The residents of Papatoetoe, Otahuhu and Hunters Corner would agree the Prostitution Reform Bill has had a detrimental effect on the youngsters in that area.” So why is someone trying to obsucre these views?! Are you still missing the point? It’s not that he has those views, it’s that someone’s deliberately concealing them from the public. Why?

Russell Brown doesn’t think so, http://publicaddress.net/default,4833.sm

Nobody cares about your opinion.

What does it matter that he has conservative views?

If they doesn’t matter why are they being erased by his apparatchiks?

Is it Bill English adopting the poululist stance? Remember his state assets gfaffe on Agenda? The point I reiterate, which you dsmiss and therefore miss, is that bringing a MP’s family into public view is nonsense.

It isn’t newsworthy at all, you deliberately miss the point (again). The news, and I’ll agree it’s fairly minor news, is that National is tidying up its online presence (and it’s interesting to note the items that they are deleting).