Colin Craig and the Conservative Tea Party are National’s best chance

Written By: - Date published: 8:08 am, November 14th, 2013 - 109 comments
Categories: conservative party, john key - Tags:

colin craig

National has signalled early that it is looking towards the Conservative Party as a potential coalition partner.  There appear to be a few rather huge policy dead frogs that it must swallow if it is going to cement relations.  But already it appears to be getting ready for the big swallow.

This week John Key raised the prospect of a coalition when he said:

“…in principle if he [Craig] won a seat it would be a guaranteed National-Conservatives Government.

Now, there is an awful lot of National supporters I think who would say, ‘I don’t want a far left-wing Government that the Greens and Labour represent’, so as he [Mr Craig] himself said these things are all about give and take and compromise. That’s the nature of government.

But my expectations are that we will have discussions with Colin Craig at some point, as indeed we will with hopefully a number of other parties.”

In terms of give and take yesterday showed that National may be prepared to put protection of kids from brutality on the table and and protection of the environment from devastation may not be far away.

Firstly Key deflected criticism from Labour about his obvious refusal to abide by the likely no asset sales referendum result by getting stuck into Labour for failing to abide by the result of the anti smacking referendum.  There is one slight problem with this, as Karol and Gobsmack pointed out, National was elected to power at the same time that the results were declared so if anyone could be criticised then it should be National.

Also his comments refuse to acknowledge the deal that he reached with Helen Clark to amend the bill to show his magnanimity and ability to reach across the aisle not to mention that all National MPs voted for the compromise bill.  Blaming Labour for the passage of the bill and the refusal to change it is surreal in the extreme.

As for climate change the conservatives are people who believe completely a seemingly unusual story about someone being raised from the dead and ascending to heaven three days after he was crucified on a cross despite there being no evidence that this occurred, yet they will not believe that man made climate change is occurring, even though the evidence is overwhelming.  While my Irish Catholic upbringing opens my belief systems to accept the possibility of all sorts of unlikely things I struggle to see how the overwhelmingly evidence in favour of the existence of human induced climate change can rationally be met with such a belligerent refusal to accept it.

The Conservative Party website contains the following passage:

In respect of Climate change we see climate changes as largely a natural phenomenon driven by factors beyond human control. Human influence has been quantified and it is very small. New Zealand’s influence is insignificant. We believe that climate has fluctuated throughout history  and will continue to do so. Unlike National/Labour/Greens we DO NOT support the ETS scheme which is effectively an extra tax on ordinary New Zealanders for no justifiable reason in our view. It did not have a public mandate. National who introduced the ETS in fact campaigned against a carbon tax. It’s introduction was a betrayal of the electorate.

National has in the past acknowledged that human induced climate change is a reality.  In 2008 National’s blue green vision document said:

Most scientists consider that continuing high emissions of carbon dioxide and methane present a risk of destabilising the global climate, possibly leading to irreversible consequences.

How big is this risk? Many years of scientific work, summarised by the National academies of Science of all the main countries, including the United States, and by the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirms the risk is serious, although uncertainty remains about the rate and timing of global climate change and its regional effects. These uncertainties are not an excuse for doing nothing.

The blue green policy suggested as a goal that there should be a reduction in the output of our CO2 by 2050 of 50% from current levels.  Recent predictions are that our net emissions will increase by 50% by 2040.

Yesterday in Parliament Tim Groser said that the Government had a plan, of sorts, for modest reductions.  It had a braver plan but would only commit to this if there was significant agreement from throughout the world for similarly brave targets.

Get that?  If a lot of other countries promise to do something NZ will do more.  But if they won’t then NZ will do very little.  I would have thought that it would be more important for NZ to be brave if other countries are dragging their feet.  Otherwise inevitably our world’s climate will spiral out of control as every country looks to other countries to do their bit before committing.  National’s stance gives it plenty of wriggle room to allow it to do very little and this will no doubt keep the Conservative Party happy.

Overall the prospect of a National/Conservative coalition is a real one.  But a deeply, deeply terrifying one if you care about our young or the future of the world’s climate.

Update:  As my choice of a description of Colin Craig has attracted some negative comments and so that the discussion can focus on the post itself I have changed the headline.

109 comments on “Colin Craig and the Conservative Tea Party are National’s best chance ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    14 November 2013 at 8:40 am

    I think the “no more change to the world” conservative streak is a broad open field in New Zealand politics, inhabited only by Winston Peters until now. There’s I’d say a shrinking 8% of the vote for sale.

    They are found in towns with a single main street and muddy utes, and gather in clubrooms, memorial halls and the Cossie Club. They’ll describe themselves as hard working, understated, resourceful, hospitable, deceptively smart. Their advertising images are found in the Speights shepherds, the Mainland Cheese old blokes, and Toyota’s “bugger”-cursing farmer.

    They are expected to be resilient and tough, making do with what they’ve got and solving their own problems, hard working and never flashy.

    They live in areas that don’t change much. They have a greater sense of being part of a community and in touch with neighbours, and a stronger sense of how things used to be. Helen Clark came from this tribe.

    It’s not a predominantly Christian group; but dammit they just want things to stop moving sometimes, so people can just get on with it. The subgroup of those that are Christian are low church evangelical; these days that means usually Pentecostal or at most Baptist. Pentecostal churches – other than those on the North Shore – are deeply head-down conservatives who surprisingly can be relatively wealthy but hate the flashy; people who shout about how good they are are heading for a fall.

    This lot don’t give a good goddamn about climate change, unless there’s a flood, in which case they are the first people filling sandbags, pulling out the tractor, and opening their homes for anyone needing it.

    Colin will have to watch his political ego with this lot; they are people who don’t mind seeing the smarties pulled down a peg or two. And they loathe government and love complaining about it. Winston gets that: the perpetual outsider is the way to play it. Does Colin understand these people?

    • Zorr 1.1
      14 November 2013 at 8:51 am

      I don’t think Colin is aiming for these people

      The people he is aiming for are those that are like an acquaintance of mine. Everything wrong with the world is the result of leftist socialist decisions that have been made on the back of communist propaganda. These people believe that the world owes them a living, just not the government – so therefore they should be able to put their hand to anything to make a buck and there should never be any red tape in the way. This particular acquaintance was severely brain damaged (*cough*I mean hyper-religious*cough*) who denies evolution and climate change and home educates in order to ensure his children are never exposed to these lies. Colin speaks to the crazies.

      And the sad thing is – in my extended circle of acquaintances – he is by no means the only one. And it is very disturbing.

    • Colonial Viper 1.2
      14 November 2013 at 8:51 am

      Nice one.

      Given the last 30 years of socioeconomic change in NZ, the group who believes that taking things slow and steady – without putting academic propeller heads in sole charge – probably feels highly vindicated.

      They have seen their small towns lose meat works, mills, tanneries, wool spinners, post offices, bank branches (albeit some have returned over time), young people, and employment in general.

      In 1984 they voted against Rogernomics before it started, and in 1987 they voted against Rogernomics after it started.

      This lot don’t give a good goddamn about climate change, unless there’s a flood, in which case they are the first people filling sandbags, pulling out the tractor, and opening their homes for anyone needing it.

      There’s a fair bit of variation in this crowd as well. These people have long memories. If they see the climate today around their farm behaving differently to 40 years ago, they’ll know it. Its just that they won’t be bothered having a stand up fight on a blog on the subject. They’d prefer to check out the latest seed catalogue to see if there’s a better rye grass for next season.

      I can’t see many of them being the Colin Craig type, personally.

    • JK 1.3
      14 November 2013 at 8:59 am

      But Colin Craig is going to be “gifted” with a seat in blue country – somewhere north of Auck City itself – urban Nats – aspirational, not interested in climate change or anything much except themselves and their own families . Key will do a deal with Craig and stand a soft Nat whose job is to leave the seat for Craig to win. These people are not your tough country types who fill the sandbags, or pull the tractor ….. they will be falling over themselves to vote for Craig so the Nats can have another term of office.

      • Puckish Rogue 1.3.1
        14 November 2013 at 9:50 am

        Thats MMP for you

        • Zorr 1.3.1.1
          14 November 2013 at 11:28 am

          National likes MMP when they can rort it to suit their needs but any other time they would much rather just have it be FPP

          Bunch of hypocritical bastards

        • phillip ure 1.3.1.2
          14 November 2013 at 12:55 pm

          it’ll be a shame if the progressives lose the next election..

          ..just ‘cos they haven’t yet got their heads around how to help their ‘friends’ in an mmp environment..

          ..as national clearly has..

          ..labour seems still locked into f.p.p.-mindset…

          ..a folly of some magnitude..i wd submit..

          ..phillip ure..

    • Labour Voter 1.4
      14 November 2013 at 6:50 pm

      Our favourite Roy-Morgan poll is out brothers – National Party (45.5%) now ahead of Labour/ Greens (44.5%) as Labour’s new policy on female representation drives men to support National and away from Labour . I am not happy.

      [You are also not a labour voter. Final warning for trolling – MS]

      • weka 1.4.1
        14 November 2013 at 6:52 pm

        I’m not either. But then I’ve lived in a sexist culture all my life so I guess it’s nothing new.

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    14 November 2013 at 8:55 am

    Wow I didn’t realise just how scared of Colin Craig the left really are…

    • Zorr 2.1
      14 November 2013 at 9:07 am

      He is a scary man

      Crazy people with power should scare the sane

      • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1
        14 November 2013 at 9:12 am

        No not really if, and thats still a big if, he gets into parliament he’ll have very little power to affect change and any change that is effected will be minor

        • Zorr 2.1.1.1
          14 November 2013 at 9:17 am

          He will still be the tail wagging the dog and National will play it for all it’s worth

          Progressive policies out, regressive policies in and all under the cover of “we’ve made some deals with our good bud over here Colin Craig – and btw Colin, don’t stop being crazy, we love your work”

          Anyone who is interested in policies made using evidence, science and rational thinking should be the enemy of the Conservative Party.

          • miravox 2.1.1.1.1
            14 November 2013 at 9:43 am

            “Progressive policies out, regressive policies in and all under the cover of “we’ve made some deals with our good bud over here Colin Craig “

            That’s the way I see it too – just like Charter schools in the Act agreement… As if Act would have walked away if it didn’t happen.

            • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1.1.1
              14 November 2013 at 9:49 am

              I don’t think the conservatives policies when they come in will be as bad as everyone thinks…John Keys a smart guy remember

        • Tracey 2.1.1.2
          14 November 2013 at 10:35 am

          you mean like ACT has effected no change?

          Oh how the right wailed about tails wagging the dog when Winston was in parliament with about 8 MPs…

      • David H 2.1.2
        15 November 2013 at 6:46 am

        Yeah but the one and admittedly small upside to Craig’s mob joining with Key the political Vampire, is that the conservatives will be used up, sucked dry, and discarded onto the pile of National party wanna be coalition partners graveyard.

    • The Pink Postman 2.2
      14 November 2013 at 3:19 pm

      That just what the Fascist said about the Jews. I believe this Right-Wing nut Craig is to be feared.
      By bringing a couple or more of his vicious members the present Fascist policies that he Nat’s are not getting through at the moment would be passed in double time. the political Left must organize ! Organize ! Organize. !!!

  3. Raymond a Francis 3
    14 November 2013 at 9:07 am

    Nasty
    And in more than one way
    Because I am talking about your nasty meme “Crazy” Colin which appears twice on the Standards headlines
    Sorry but I think you should rethink this as it demeans your message

    [So that the discussion can focus on the post which does not mention the word I have changed the title – MS]

    • Zorr 3.1
      14 November 2013 at 9:08 am

      How is he not crazy? Please explain

      Crazy is actually the best word to describe him as it isn’t one of the adjectives that demeans other people who may share a condition…

      • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1
        14 November 2013 at 9:16 am

        He has different beliefs to you (and me) but that doesn’t make him crazy…

        • Zorr 3.1.1.1
          14 November 2013 at 9:18 am

          He denies reality

          That’s enough for me to label him crazy

          • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1.1.1
            14 November 2013 at 9:30 am

            Cunliffe is the son of an Anglican minister, and was raised in the Church of England. He has described himself as a “liberal Anglican, and an infrequent attender of church, but it’s a big part of my life.”

            He attends St Matthew’s Anglican Church in Auckland, and is a supporter of the Auckland City Mission, an Anglican charity, and serves as a budget advisor for the Wellington City Mission Budget Service

            – I think believing in god is denying reality but I don’t think Cunliffes crazy…misguided and deluded maybe but not crazy

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1
              14 November 2013 at 9:41 am

              Colin Craig believes in God too. But that’s not why Craig’s perspective and politics are crazy.

            • Zorr 3.1.1.1.1.2
              14 November 2013 at 9:48 am

              I never stated that having belief in a god/gods makes someone crazy. I was raised in an Anglican household myself and still get approached by people who remember my grandfather (who was a minister) who died over a decade ago now.

              There is a difference, however, between being religious and letting your religion subsume your ability to make rational evidence based decisions.

              David Cunliffe is still able to make decisions without relying on his religion to tell him what to do. Colin Craig, very obviously, makes his decisions based upon what his religion tells him.

              Big difference

              • Colonial Viper …
                14 November 2013 at 9:51 am

                Given his position on climate change, I think it should be asked if Colin Craig is for, or against, the End of the World?

                • Zorr …
                  14 November 2013 at 9:55 am

                  Nah CV – we all know he’s for the end of the world

                  We just need to ask him what are the correct dance steps required in the Middle East to meet his personal expectations of the Second Coming

              • Puckish Rogue …
                14 November 2013 at 9:54 am

                Theres a large number of people (South Auckland springs to mind) who do just that…people make decisions based on lots of different things

                I just think to label Colin Craig as crazy is otp and lazy

                • Colonial Viper …
                  14 November 2013 at 10:29 am

                  So you want us to take Craig’s crazy positions as serious policy?

                  No doubt he’s undergoing a whole lot of intensive media training now so we may not see much more of this side, for the moment.

                  • weka …
                    14 November 2013 at 10:56 am

                    “So you want us to take Craig’s crazy positions as serious policy?”

                    There is a difference between calling someone’s positions carzy and calling the person themself crazy.

                    I’m in two minds about what Raymond has said. I think we need to be careful about labelling people crazy, and if the left is going to lable Craig crazy it needs to understand what it is doing and why. Having had the GP written off for all these years as nutjobs, I think care is required.

                    • Zorr …
                      14 November 2013 at 11:25 am

                      If someone’s positions are crazy, doesn’t that make the person themselves crazy for holding them? Or are they allowed to claim logical rationality following the form of:

                      crazy precept + rational argument still equals crazy answer?

                      This becomes difficult because the Greens were attacked (unfairly imo) for speaking truth to the establishment. Colin is speaking for the religious establishment here.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 November 2013 at 11:34 am

                      Having had the GP written off for all these years as nutjobs, I think care is required.

                      I don’t think we can ignore that it’s been a two step process.

                      1) A lot of the radical fire and activism has gone out of the Greens (literally – they’ve walked) as the party has inched towards being mainstream.

                      2) Society has moved towards the Green position on many issues. This certainly is a mark of how successful the Greens have been in promoting not just specific policy, but their big ideas.

                    • weka …
                      14 November 2013 at 11:37 am

                      Depends on what you mean by ‘crazy’. I like what karol said below about Craig not being insane. It’s risky implying his is. If we mean crazy in the sense of at odds with what the rest of us think, then that’s also problematic. How many get labled crazy for thinking differently. It’s the principle I’m pointing to here (obviously I think his beliefs are bizarre).

                      Plenty of people are sane and have crazy beliefs.

                    • Zorr …
                      14 November 2013 at 11:53 am

                      Can I call him a “wack-a-loon” then? 😛

                      I like that word. 🙂

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 November 2013 at 12:03 pm

                      However, despite the multiple linguistic sensitivities, NZers will get straight away what is meant when Colin Craig is described as “crazy.”

                • Rodel …
                  14 November 2013 at 11:36 am

                  I mean..just look at his photo..it’s so obvious!
                  Jack Nicholson couldn’t have done it better.

              • Ad …
                14 November 2013 at 10:26 am

                If you don’t enable your spiritual values to assist your judgement it’s not worth having them.

                President Kennedy went through this whole debate a little while back.

                • Zorr …
                  14 November 2013 at 11:27 am

                  I would disagree with President Kennedy there because I think it can be better stated that it is important to enable your moral values to assist your judgement.

                  For religious people, their spiritual values shape their morality and that feeds in to that.

                  As an atheist, I like to make the distinction between morality and spirituality as they are very different and I can have morals without any spiritual guidance.

                  • Ad …
                    14 November 2013 at 11:30 am

                    As a practising Catholic, I am sure you can judge whatever you want with the values you have. So can I. So can any decent politician.

                    • Zorr …
                      14 November 2013 at 11:39 am

                      I think you missed the point I was trying to make and that it is potentially a discussion for another place and time as it is more “an atheism thing” 😛

                      When I look at Colin Craig I see a man who believes in moral absolutism and it scares the hell out of me. And it should scare anyone with any progressive values whatsoever. And anyone who is anything but white, male, rich and straight.

        • RJL 3.1.1.2
          14 November 2013 at 9:24 am

          Ah, but these “different beliefs” are crazy.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.2
      14 November 2013 at 9:13 am

      In terms of the way it stigmatises mental illness?

    • mickysavage 3.3
      14 November 2013 at 9:38 am

      RaF

      It is the word that sprang to mind when I thought about the Conservative Party’s views on climate change and its attitude to social issues.

      But point taken.

      • Colonial Viper 3.3.1
        14 November 2013 at 9:45 am

        I think your original description is fairly apt. Persons who espouse what amounts to a gradual process of collective civilisation suicide over the next 100 or so years, if not crazy, could be better described how?

      • Zorr 3.3.2
        14 November 2013 at 9:53 am

        I don’t really get how we should be mincing words with regards the Conservatives?

        They are a generally not nice bunch – what are we going to call them to get the message across that they are completely unsavoury?

        “That Not Nice Guy Colin”
        “Unsavoury Colin”

        The list could go on but every time I think of him the words just get worse and worse.

        “Crazy” is the most apt and easily least offensive epithet I would use for him – I know that we should be careful of what the language we use means to people of different backgrounds (and I have a strong personal history of crazy) but sometimes when the shoe fits…

        • Puckish Rogue 3.3.2.1
          14 November 2013 at 10:20 am

          and thats why the left is described as “nasty”

          • Zorr 3.3.2.1.1
            14 November 2013 at 10:25 am

            Who is this “left” you speak of?

            I only speak for myself… and yes, I am not actually that much of a “nice” person because I do speak my mind honestly.

            Better than Puckish “Hollow Puppet” Rogue

            • Colonial Viper 3.3.2.1.1.1
              14 November 2013 at 10:31 am

              To RWNJs leaving 200,000 NZ children in poverty and simply paying lip service while taking more income away from their families is not “nasty.”

          • Tracey 3.3.2.1.2
            14 November 2013 at 10:33 am

            as opposed to the right’s “silent T’ which is all homely and loving…

            Key deliberately lied in parliament yesterday… referendum 2009, govt = National.

          • framu 3.3.2.1.3
            14 November 2013 at 12:28 pm

            considering that the left doesnt have a monopoly on saying dumb or offensive things i have to conclude that, no – thats not why the left are called nasty

            the left are called nasty because a bunch of well paid PR people and their internet proxies consistantly frame it that way despite any rational analysis.

          • millsy 3.3.2.1.4
            14 November 2013 at 8:28 pm

            And you dont think that calling for homosexuals to be exterminated systematically is nasty?

            Best enjoy your Darwin books — they will become illegal if the Conservatives had their way.

      • Raymond a Francis 3.3.3
        14 November 2013 at 4:36 pm

        Thanks ms

        • gobsmacked 3.3.3.1
          14 November 2013 at 4:54 pm

          Dear Raymond

          Please read Hansard. Start with today’s. If “crazy” is not acceptable on a blog, what is acceptable from John Key, Simon Bridges or Jonathan Coleman, as descriptions of other parties and MPs?

          Muppet? Monkey? Taliban? Suicide bomber? – and many more.

          As you put it, “Nasty”. Would you like the e-mail addresses of these Ministers, so you can register your complaint? Or have you already told them how “nasty” they are? If not, why not?

          Your outrage wouldn’t be conveniently selective, would it?

    • karol 3.4
      14 November 2013 at 9:52 am

      I used the term in “Crazy” quote marks in my headline, quoting Cunliffe.

      I actually wouldn’t describe Craig as in any way insane.

      • Puckish Rogue 3.4.1
        14 November 2013 at 10:18 am

        Fair call but Cunliffe was wrong…it just gives even more publicity to Colin Craig and all those voters who believe as Craig does might just start to see him as someone to get behind

    • millsy 3.5
      14 November 2013 at 8:26 pm

      Cool, so you dont think it is crazy to be pulling every book on sex (and evolution) out of our school libaries and burning them.

      Yes, under Assosciate Education Minister Colin Craig, our church run privatised schools will be burning scientific books and books about sex, and our kids will be taught that the sun revolves around the earth, and that homosexuals are vermin to be exterminated in death camps.

  4. Tracey 4
    14 November 2013 at 10:32 am

    I suspect his comment about funding rape prevention programmes in school was also directed tot he benefit of Craig and his ilk… he said there must be a balance between sex education which is the parent’s decision and preventing harm to victims.

    • millsy 4.1
      14 November 2013 at 8:35 pm

      If CC had his way, school kids would be taught that sex is dirty and grubby, and the only acceptable form is sex is a 5 second in out to make a baby.

  5. bad12 5
    14 November 2013 at 12:31 pm

    If the people of Epsom were quite willing to elect to the Parliament John Banks on the strength of one ‘chimps tea party’ that individual had with Slippery the Prime Minister then i think we all would just about have to take it as a ‘given’ when we think of election 2014 that Craig and the Conservatives will be represented in the next Parliament,

    It was obvious to at least myself in the days leading up to, and including Labour Day, that National was in the process of calling in favors from it’s willing supporters amongst the editors and news programers of this countries mass media where at a time that Colin Craig had done nothing more noteworthy than to continue on a daily basis to steal God’s oxygen across the media spectrum Craig and His Conservative Party were being talked up as National’s coalition partner after November 2014,

    The culmination of this media fest, barracking for Craig was the Reid/TV3 poll released this week and showing Craig, should National gift Him an electorate, would just about save Slippery’s ass,(believe me He needs that donkey more than ever to provide for His expanding bald spot),

    While dubious of the veracity of the Reid/TV3 poll, i cannot discount it out of hand as it’s result mirrored the Conservatives 2011 election result which i suggest is a fair point to start to judge that particular party’s % of electoral support from, the upcoming Roy Morgans will make an interesting read as far as Craig’s support goes,

    When i look at the results from the 2011 Rodney electorate where Craig run a distant 3rd it’s easy to see that Craig all but gutted the ACT party support from within that electorate and took from both National and Labour around 2000 votes each,

    Craig’s boast of in essence dealing to NZFirst by cannibalizing that Parties vote is in fact a boast of little substance as in the Rodney electorate in 2011 NZFirst dropped a couple of hundred votes and i would suggest that Craig will in any electorate contest have to rely upon National Party goodwill and votes to win,

    That’s exactly how easy it is for National to keep it’s sticky fingers firmly on the purse strings of Government, a nod and a wink in 2011 and National’s hostile takeover of the ACT Party gave them the majority in the House, that same nod and wink in 2014 might just propel Craig and a couple more of the Conservative’s into the position of allowing Slippery what was 3 months ago an unlikely third term as Prime Minister,

    What of Labour, the Greens, and Mana tho, are those parties advanced enough in their understanding of MMP politics to be able to advise their relative support bases ‘how’ to tactically vote in certain electorates so as to maximize the ‘lefts’ votes,

    From where i sit it appears not, while Mana have had ‘a’ discussion with the Maori Party with what appears to have been a negative outcome, the major player on the left, Labour, appears to be sailing along happily resting on it’s laurels of having elected a ‘new’ leader in what appears to be a dreamworld of hope that having done so it’s,(Labour), vote will also be lifted into the high 30’s as far as the party vote goes,

    Meanwhile at electorate level both Labour and the Green Party seem to have completely forgotten the lesson of MMP, Labour claiming loudly that it will ‘take back’ all the Maori electorates in what can only be seen as Neanderthalic FFP politics best left in the dustbin of history,

    The Green Party, what has mostly been a party of MMP where the Party vote is of the utmost importance still choose to pour resources into electorates they cannot possibly hope to win, sometimes to the detriment of the Labour candidate who could,

    Where i ask is the ‘deal’ between Labour and Mana over the Maori seats where Labour agree not to contest Te Tai Tokerau and Waiariki while Mana agree not to contest Tamaki-Makaurau and Te Tai Hauauru,

    Where i ask is the ‘deal’ between the Green Party and Labour where the electorates are left to Labour while the Green Party concentrate on the Party Vote,

    The 2014 is there for ‘the left’ to win, or lose, my view is that it will be the latter occurrence if at some point in the next 3 to 6 months some realistic agreements are not sought and reached within the parties of the left, it’s as simple as that, National do it as a matter of course with ease, why are not the partie of the left able to adopt such a position…

    • bad12 5.1
      14 November 2013 at 12:44 pm

      That’s interesting, i edited the above comment, the editing didn’t stick and i am now undefined, Lolz, unrefined, unrepentant, uncouth, definitely, i disagree tho with undefined…

    • xtasy 5.2
      14 November 2013 at 8:28 pm

      “It was obvious to at least myself in the days leading up to, and including Labour Day, that National was in the process of calling in favors from it’s willing supporters amongst the editors and news programers of this countries mass media where at a time that Colin Craig had done nothing more noteworthy than to continue on a daily basis to steal God’s oxygen across the media spectrum Craig and His Conservative Party were being talked up as National’s coalition partner after November 2014,

      The culmination of this media fest, barracking for Craig was the Reid/TV3 poll released this week and showing Craig, should National gift Him an electorate, would just about save Slippery’s ass,(believe me He needs that donkey more than ever to provide for His expanding bald spot)”

      How bloody OBSERVANT, and I noticed the same, as it was one PAT (VULTURE) GOWER, who was presenting this “news item”, for what peculiar reason one may ask?!

      Gower tries to become the “machinist” in the backroom in NZ politics, the ultimate manipulator, as I observe, trying to create a hype and support momentum for a party that so far has hardly polled over 1 per cent. Why is he doing it for the Conservatives and not Mana, one may ask? The answer is clear, (VULTURE) Gower is out on the attack again, against Labour and “da left”. He seems to be having ulterior motives, as he has not gotten over the challenge and exposure, that his whole manipulations about the supposed Cunliffe challenge to Shearer were proved rotten crap.

      Now he is getting back at Labour and Cunliffe, wherever he has a chance, and there was one, to create a NEW party momentum, supported by a once off, questionable poll. Gower, get a life, you are a loser, and it is time to find another job, where you will actually “produce” something tangible.

  6. Brett Austin 6
    14 November 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Within the context of this debate it was fascinating to read John Armstrong’s article in yesterday’s Herald about the GG’s speech. The speech was a reminder that he doesnot have to appoint a PM from the group with the most seats. He wants to insure that parties involved make unambiguous explanations of their intentions on confidence motions in post-election negotiations. All fair enough I guess.
    What is interesting to me is why the GG has decided to speak to this now. Who put him up to it. If not the GG himself then who? It seems to me to be clearly a shot across the bows of the left. There could be real risks that if too many parties are involved in a possible coalition and if things drag on or get messy he might not appoint the group with the most seats.

    • Pascal's bookie 6.1
      14 November 2013 at 12:46 pm

      He can only appoint the side with the confidence of the house.

      it’s completely non-controversial and nothing new at all. Armstrong and Bomber’s weird imaginations notwithstanding.

      • aerobubble 6.1.1
        15 November 2013 at 3:28 pm

        Yes. Only some idiot blogger would believe the GG would establish a minority government when there was a majority with the confidence of the house.

  7. Crunchtime 7
    14 November 2013 at 12:58 pm

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/12/colins-hot-milo-with-key-how-the-left-need-to-adapt-to-tactical-mmp-voting/

    Agree with the sentiment in this article – Labour, Green, Mana all need to get a bit more savvy about tactical voting to maximise their chances.

  8. NZ Femme 8
    14 November 2013 at 1:53 pm

    Her Name Was Kristy Rose.

    (Trigger Warning: This comment references suicide. Should you decide to use the links, please be aware that the blog referenced can be difficult and painful to read.)

    I stumbled on her blog in March this year while weaving through a series of winding links that snake through the clashing adoption discourses online. Sometimes called Adoptoland, this corner of the internet is the realm of the Adult Adoptee Activist Movement, Relinquishing First/Natural Mothers and Fathers, and Adoptive Parents. There, buried amongst the relentless 24/7 jangle of fast paced opinion blogs, news sites, facebook pages, twitter feeds, and miscellaneous debris, was Kristy’s last post, dated January 6th, 2011. She wrote:

    “…I am currently being held under the Mental Health Act in hospital since the 19th of December. A few days ago I got moved out of the ICU unit to the ‘open ward’ and I now am able to take trips out of the hospital. I can barely walk though which makes things a bit difficult, and I am not used to all the colours and movement in the outside world. I am currently at uni as I have been given permission to attend class today. I need to get back to the hospital soon but I am looking forward to getting back to blogworld. Although the hospital world has broken me and I am officially a different person.”

    I clicked on the comments. Perhaps there would be more; a “taking a break” comment to a regular reader. Anything rather than this last small painful remnant of a confessional blog left hanging in perpetuity.

    One of the comments :

    “…I just heard. Rest in Peace. Love you always…”

    So I went back, to the beginning of Kristy’s blog, and I read until the early hours of the morning. And this is what I learnt about a young woman named Kristy Rose. These are her words.

    “…I was coerced into adopting out my child when I was sixteen, told that I would be ‘selfish’ if I didn’t and I have been in constant agony since.”

    “…Age 16:- fell pregnant, didn’t feel that abortion was an option and decided to turn my life around
    – did a year of correspondence school (6th form/year 12)
    – gave birth to a girl (Rose)
    – coerced by parents into a private adoption (i consider it to be ‘forced’)
    – immediately regretted signing the papers and had to have Rose at home for a month as my case was flagged as suspicious by cyfs (child, youth and families)
    – refused to sign more papers and got threatened by the adoptive couple”

    “…Age 17:- Judge signed adoption off without the extra papers that I was supposed to sign but had refused, I wasn’t consulted…”

    “…Age 21: – The adoptive ‘father’ organised a widely publicised pro-smacking march (under the guise of ‘democracy’), investing approx. half a million $ into his belief that he should be able to smack my child…”

    “…Age 22: – Adoptive ‘father’ ran for mayor, investing a lot of money into his campaign (and consequently getting a lot of exposure)…”
    http://lifenarratives.wordpress.com/category/personal-history/

    “…I told her about the adoption I was forced into as a sixteen-year-old girl, and how despite the agreement for it to be an ‘open adoption’ the adoptive parents treated me terribly and I haven’t officially seen my first born daughter since, though my parents have. I also told her how much it is haunting me more than usual at the moment having the adoptive father running for mayor. How I am faced with his face on billboards everywhere I go, his advertisements on the side of my facebook page and him speaking at my university (my safe place). He has featured in my nightmares for years, now he is not only haunting me every time I shut my eyes; but wherever I go and whatever I do…”
    http://lifenarratives.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/hello-world-2/

    “…Today the mayoral results were released. The adoptive ‘father’ did not win luckily, although it was obvious that he wouldn’t. He did come third though, which is worrying for the future as he is likely to run for more things and taunt me some more. My current worry is that the local online newspaper is putting up photos of the mayoral events throughout the day as they obtain them (with candidates’ friends and family), I keep refreshing the page in case some come up of my daughter. Why do I punish myself so much?…”
    http://lifenarratives.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/rage/

    “…I am anti-adoption following my personal experiences and have been for many years, however this aspect of my political life has remained silent and needs to be developed further. So I am starting to follow the blogs of people who hold this view. At this stage I feel it is a feminist issue that is unknown to many feminists. I feel a need for many feminists to be made aware of the issue of adoption and to attach it to their own feminism. We shall see…”
    http://lifenarratives.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/hello-world-2/

    Her name was Kristy Rose. RIP.

    http://notices.nzherald.co.nz/obituaries/nzherald-nz/obituary-preview.aspx?n=kristy-rose-kearney&pid=147752678&referrer=2865

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      14 November 2013 at 5:54 pm

      ^^^ Needs to be moved to Open Mike.

      • ropata 8.1.1
        16 November 2013 at 10:54 pm

        @NZ Femme great link … an excellent depiction of the sort of abuse that ideologues like Craig are capable of. The abductive ‘father’ of Kristy Rose’s child seems a lot like creepy Craig

  9. JK 9
    14 November 2013 at 4:30 pm

    What has NZ Femme’s comment got to do with Colin Craig ? and ….. haven’t I seen this before on The Standard ? ? ?

    • bad12 9.1
      14 November 2013 at 6:01 pm

      Was pondering the very same question myself, perhaps Kristy Rose’s story is the end result of the Christianity practiced by those of Colin Craig’s ilk????,

      Stories abound where in 1950’s New Zealand supposedly Christian families forced their children who had children of their own at a young age and outside of marriage to adopt those children out,

      Then again perhaps the commenter just had to put it somewhere…

      • NZ Femme 9.1.1
        14 November 2013 at 6:07 pm

        Hi Bad12, the relevance is hidden in plain sight in the detail, or perhaps it’s just not appropriate for this thread (or site).

        From Kristy’s blog, as above:

        “…Age 21: – The adoptive ‘father’ organised a widely publicised pro-smacking march (under the guise of ‘democracy’), investing approx. half a million $ into his belief that he should be able to smack my child…”

        “…Age 22: – Adoptive ‘father’ ran for mayor, investing a lot of money into his campaign (and consequently getting a lot of exposure)…”

        “- coerced by parents into a private adoption (i consider it to be ‘forced’)
        – immediately regretted signing the papers and had to have Rose at home for a month as my case was flagged as suspicious by cyfs (child, youth and families)
        – refused to sign more papers and got threatened by the adoptive couple”

        I do understand if this needs to be moved, or removed entirely.

        • NZ Femme 9.1.1.1
          14 November 2013 at 6:36 pm

          PS: And yes, Kristy was brought up in what appears to be a fundamentalist Pentecostal Christian family.

        • bad12 9.1.1.2
          14 November 2013 at 8:26 pm

          Yeah i took all of that to mean the ‘adoptive father’ was the person featured in this post, if so then your comment is entirely appropriate,(within the bounds of that ones right to protection from slander),

          If the ‘adoptive father’ of course is someone else entirely then of course your comment is probably more appropriate for ‘Open mike’, not that you need listen to or take any notice of me a i am but a mere commenter too and the master of the inappropriate…

          • miravox 9.1.1.2.1
            14 November 2013 at 9:30 pm

            Mayoral election 3rd place-getter – blog date – Oct 9 2010 … wiki is the answer, I suspect. But even so, what’s to be done with this tragic story? There is a child involved.

            • karol 9.1.1.2.1.1
              14 November 2013 at 9:39 pm

              CC on Wikip Auckland Mayoralty results 9 Oct 2010.

              It is a tragic story. But it also needs verification of CC’s role. Sometimes a person can get focused on a public figure and mistake them for someone they know or are close too.

              Still a tragic story though.

            • bad12 9.1.1.2.1.2
              14 November 2013 at 9:46 pm

              i would suggest not a lot, to be done with this ‘story’ that is, even from one describing self as a master of the inappropriate this could be a step too far,

              Of course if NZ Femme while considering everyone’s right to be free from slander wishes to make ‘a debatable point’ or provide verifiable information that might then lead to a debatable point i would have to say bring it,

              Some tragedies tho are best left in the closet with all the other skeletons although i do see the hypocrisy in ‘Him’ fighting for the right to ‘smack’ someone else’s child…

              • miravox …
                15 November 2013 at 5:56 am

                +1 yeah, that’s my thinking too.

                It’s all too terribly sad, and if someone is getting away with dodgy dealings, an injustice. But for me, if a child is getting caught up in this, that makes progressing this in public pretty much out of the question.

                • bad12 …
                  15 November 2013 at 12:29 pm

                  i will tho leave a question here, were the parents of Kristy Rose, prior to the pregnancy, involved in a relationship with ‘He’ who we speak of which had as it’s basis a definite ‘power imbalance’,

                  In other words were the God fearing church going parents of Kristy Rose put in a position by say the head, or someone seen as a leader of their church where it was made clear to them that it would be unthinkable for their young daughter to keep the child,(the answer to this question of course would then suggest another)…

  10. xtasy 10
    14 November 2013 at 8:18 pm

    I really like Colin Cringe (Craig), as he is so honest and exposes the idiots and blinkered nut cases in NZ society. He is a likable chap, quite honest and open on his views, and those of his followers. He is also an “entrepreneur” who knows how to work the well oiled machinery of business and bureaucracy, to get deals he made.

    He gets away with much, because sadly a fair few share his narrow views, and also self serving interests.

    It should be well exposed here, that former WINZ boss Christine Rankin is now one of his top dogs in his “Conservative Party”.

    She is known to only serve herself, as even a disillusioned early supporter of the Conservatives told me. He resigned in disgust about some of what she stands for.

    I sense a great opportunity here for the left, as Colin Cringe (aka Craig) is with his party leaders an “expert” at digging their own grave, before they have even had a good breath of life.

    Welcome to the politosphere, Mr Cringe, you will be gone the sooner than you ever thought, and no cuppa will save your survival.

  11. millsy 11
    14 November 2013 at 8:19 pm

    If you are a homosexual teacher (or CYPS worker) I suggest you start updating your CV.

    The HLRA may not be able to repeal, but Craig can get a progrom on homosexuals in any sector that deals with children going.

    Like wise if you are a high school biology teacher. Evolution will be gone by lunchtime from the school curriculum. Public schools by smoko I would wager.

    To me, the only difference between the Conservatives and the Taliban is that Colin’s mob know what razors are…

  12. Jilly Bee 12
    14 November 2013 at 8:31 pm

    Oh dear, just watched Citizen 1 with Bomber, Colin Craig and Matthew Hooten. Sheesh I don’t know who were the most crazy (excluding Bomber B of course). Thank goodness, Bomber kept his cool. CC seems to be wasting away (physically) every time I see him on TV – maybe his better half isn’t feeding him sufficiently!

    • karol 12.1
      14 November 2013 at 8:49 pm

      Someone needs to tell Hooton that the rape debate has included loads about Rape Culture. ie he said what he learned is that rape is the responsibility of the rapist. So in future he wants only to hear that the murderer is responsible for murder, the burglar responsible for murder….end of.

      CC never seems as off the wall in a longer discussion as he seems in short answers.

      • Rhinocrates 12.1.1
        14 November 2013 at 9:00 pm

        Hoots is a cynical, amoral opportunist. He sees this as something he can ride to make himself look “credible” and that’s all. He doesn’t care about anything but himself and he’s fumbling, like the bad impressionist that he is.

        As for “Bomber” -he’s a joke. Always has been, always will be… and also a never was.

    • Tracey 12.2
      15 November 2013 at 7:47 am

      I actually cant think of 3 people I would less like to watch talking, ever.

  14. BrucetheMoose 14
    15 November 2013 at 7:37 am

    Team Talentless Fruitcakes just got bigger.

  15. Rogue Trooper 15
    15 November 2013 at 5:03 pm

    Christianity for Skeptics and The Case FOR Christ.

    • ropata 15.1
      16 November 2013 at 11:00 pm

      There’s no shortage of academic material in defense of the Christian faith. As a cornerstone of Western civilization we should expect no less. But Christianity is a broad river and Creepy Craig represents a muddy backwater occupied by such luminaries as GW Bush, the Tea Party, and science deniers of all stripes. Blecch

  16. sarah mckay 16
    16 November 2013 at 2:02 am

    I have grown up in Christianity and the sad thing is that there is a proportion of the church in nz that is so insecure about its marginal place in a secular society that they will jump at the chance to vote for a party that they will be told is the ‘christian’ vote. That the nz conservative party is the christian vote may not be said explicitly in their church (although is some churches it will be) but it will at the least be implicitly communicated. I am already seeing this among Christians I know.

    I cant see that there will be much challenge to this in the church – which is sad because the policy positions of the nz conservatives don’t reflect the core theology of Christianity in my opinion.

    There is a name for people in the new testament bible who lorded their righteousness over everyone else -who looked down on people like the poor. They blamed peoples bad circumstances on their sin. These people were called the pharisees and Jesus had some pretty strong words for them. He said they were like white washed tombs – decaying on the inside and that their self righteousness was like filthy rags. You could argue that the nz conservative party are like modern day pharisees. For instance they do not support food in schools because they believe that this will only encourage the lazy parents who choose to let their children live in poverty to take even less responsibility for their children. They are happy to let children go hungry for their so called religious principles. There is no acknowledgement of the other circumstances that may cause people to end up in poverty. When Christine Rankin was challenged about families living on the minimum wage only having $80 a week left for food her comment was – $80 buys a lot of weetbix.

    The nz conservative party supports the free market – a economic system that has done more to destroy New Zealand families than many of the things that they say are the problem in society. Since free market policies were introduced to nz thirty years ago child poverty has doubled. How convenient for Colin Craig to blame the poor for their own circumstances. why would he challenge a free market economic system which he has personally done very well out of – even if it is at the expense of 1000’s of nz families who have been destroyed by it.

    • xtasy 16.1
      16 November 2013 at 2:20 am

      sarah – I know so many pharisees, and having had some involvement with Christian groups way back, I chose to no longer bother, because there are also within them so many pharisees. I have a family that is not religious, but most in them also match the description of pharisees. I fear that most of society is made up of pharisees, as they want things to be the way they see fit, for themselves, their interest groups and so forth, but they fail to understand that every human has a special identity, particular life experiences, and must be understood on a one by one case.

      We have the “drawer putting” mentality all over society, and that is also where the bureaucracy is coming from. So once you end up on the “wrong” side of society you are likely to be labeled for the rest of your life, no matter what.

      Colin Craig and his Conservatives are just exploiting the same biased mentality within people, for their own ends, that is the sad fact.

    • xtasy 16.2
      16 November 2013 at 2:26 am

      Adding to your comment, one may say, that Jesus, if taken for what records say, was the first “revolutionary” there was. Challenging social values and perceptions as he did, was certainly revolutionary. And I agree, the system we have, has a lot to answer for, as we can try to lay all blame on individuals, to not meet expectations others have, but the injustices that the system embodies, that is one of the core issues we have to address.

      There will be no better society if we continue to divide, to blame, to stigmatise and punish people, for whatever reasons. Societies that work on more balance, inclusiveness, and social justice just function better, all over. And that is where we again may need to look at some Scandinavian countries, who have a better record, certainly better than the UK and the US.

    • ropata 16.3
      16 November 2013 at 11:26 pm

      In NZ churches there is a very strong influence from the American Southern Baptist style of Christianity based on ignorance and fear. You can hear it on Radio Rhema, where they regularly play stuff by noxious groups like “Answers in Genesis“, “Focus on the Family” or Chuck Missler — generally popular among the flashy new televangelist style churches, where charisma and loud music are valued more than facts and evidence.

      The more traditional congregations (Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian etc) are a bit more circumspect, socially aware, and receptive to science

    • Rogue Trooper 16.4
      17 November 2013 at 3:21 pm

      Love It!

  17. Craig Y 17
    18 November 2013 at 4:45 pm

    …of losing the election. For example, take this utterly bizarre website, linked to in a past Conservative Party newsletter. Now type in “conspiracy theory’, “one world government”, “Ian Wishart” and “Uncensored” and see what happens…

    http://www.climaterealists.org.nz

    • karol 17.1
      18 November 2013 at 4:51 pm

      errmmmm… tried all those key phrases together – nothing. Separately…. nothing memorable.

      Maybe you should explain what you see?

    • Arfamo 17.2
      18 November 2013 at 4:53 pm

      Type those phrases into what? That site? Google?

    • Craig Y 17.3
      19 November 2013 at 9:12 am

      No, the search option on the Climate Realists website. Fascinating. Raving right territory, but fascinating. So the Brown Right are wingnut conspiracy theorists? Quelle surprise! 🙂