He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy

Written By: - Date published: 6:21 am, May 8th, 2012 - 136 comments
Categories: human rights, religion, workers' rights - Tags: ,

Don’t get me wrong. Apart from a couple of policies (asset sales, overseas investment, no borrowing for tax cuts), Colin Craig’s politics are bad.

But I like his Boscawen-like mad honesty.

It’s fun. He makes you wonder, as did Boscawen, how someone with such a loose grip on reality, who is so open about it, got to be a multi-millionaire. Mainly it’s fun because it makes him so uncomfortable for his new National suitors.

But his up-frontness ends when asked about his employment practices, which apparently breach the Human Rights Act by requiring attendance at prayer sessions.

Dear oh dear. It’s embarrassing enough that Peter Goodfellow has been openly splashing about National’s dumping of ACT and publicly courting a party that differs from National on its signature policy while Banks is still in Key’s administration. But when it turns out the new party’s headed by a law-breaking Christian fundamentalist…

Where will National look for a new boyfriend now?

136 comments on “He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    8 May 2012 at 6:40 am

    Colin Craig’s signature “populist” policies are opposition to the partial asset sales and opposition to Crafar farm sale to the Chinese.

    With the collapse of ACT and after receiving the royal nod from John Key, Colin Craig was sort out by the media for comment on this development.

    The first thing he was reported to have said, was that neither asset sales, nor the Crafar farms sale would be a “deal breaker”.

    What does this say about Craig?

    • Jenny 1.1
      8 May 2012 at 6:46 am

      A good follow up question for Colin Craig from the media would have been:

      Will you ditch your Climate Change Denial policies as easily?

      What about your well known desire for massive benefit cuts?

      Are you prepared to compromise on this policy too?

      • Dr Terry 1.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 8:21 am

        This is much better Jenny, your first comment had me worried for a while! As a Christian, I question much Mr Craig’s brand of the faith!

    • felix 1.2
      8 May 2012 at 8:34 am

      Indeed Jenny, if he’s this flexible on asset sales then he’s of no use to us at all.

      National certainly seems to think he’s flexible. When questioned about Craig’s pro-assets policy yesterday National president Peter Goodfellow wasn’t bothered at all, saying Craig was “just representing what his views are on those issues now”

      http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20120507-0818-conservative_party_gains_nationals_attention-048.mp3

      • grumpy 1.2.1
        8 May 2012 at 11:35 am

        Flexibility on Asset Sales seems to be a requirement for political life at the moment, with a huge number of Labour senior MPs having that attribute in spades…………..

        • felix 1.2.1.1
          8 May 2012 at 11:53 am

          Haven’t seen anyone in Labour supporting asset sales since the disasters of the 80s and 90s.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.2.1.1.1
            8 May 2012 at 11:57 am

            Only if you don’t count the proposed sale of 22.5% of the shares in Air New Zealand to Qantas in 2002.

            Yeah. That doesn’t count.

            • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1.1
              8 May 2012 at 12:32 pm

              I think selling less than 1/4th of the shares to a specific company is really quite different to open slather on the stockmarket where any foreign interest can buy up the company.

              • grumpy …
                8 May 2012 at 12:53 pm

                …so, it’s OK at less than 1/4 but not at less than 1/2???

                • Lanthanide …
                  8 May 2012 at 1:21 pm

                  Try reading the complete sentence.

                  • felix …
                    8 May 2012 at 1:58 pm

                    Might be expecting a bit much.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      8 May 2012 at 2:42 pm

                      So this is the new standard? You can sell up to 1/4 of anything to one specific foreigner? Even if that foreigner is, like Qantas, owned by a whole bunch of other foreigners?

                      Seems sensible and well-thought out.

                    • felix …
                      8 May 2012 at 3:04 pm

                      No, the new standard is you can sell as much of them as you like.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      8 May 2012 at 3:12 pm

                      Fair enough. It’s Lanthanide’s standard, then.

                    • felix …
                      8 May 2012 at 3:19 pm

                      What’s yours?

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      8 May 2012 at 3:23 pm

                      You can sell as much of them as you like.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      8 May 2012 at 8:00 pm

                      “You can sell as much of them as you like.”

                      Now all we need to decide is which assets?

                      The Police asset? The Court asset? The Prison asset? The law-making asset?

                      National’s well ahead of the game on the last two of course – just a matter of time for the others i suppose.  

  2. tc 2
    8 May 2012 at 7:10 am

    Swap a set of looneys for a single looney……this man is pythonesque is a scary way as he is serious and loaded and being a developer has a unique moral compass.

    Shows you any nutter could have gotten wealthy off property over the last 20 years though it wasn’t tough just buy, develop, hold or sell and don’t over leverage to ride out bumps in the market.

    Christianity and religion in general can justify a lot of anti social atitudes in today’s world cos Jesus, bryan, whoever on the pulpit said so or it’s in the bible literally.

    Bring it on shonkey, what lovely company you choose.

    • Dr Terry 2.1
      9 May 2012 at 5:52 pm

      tc, any enlightened Christian knows well that the entire Bible is NOT meant to be taken literally.
      Certainly, I for one, do not understand Jesus to have said one thing that would support the right-wing policies of Key and his kind. Quite the opposite is the case. Jesus was executed because he was a Dissenter (but the rich and powerful interpret him as “Gentle Jesus meek and mild” who would pour blessings on their foul ways. Craig is a so-called “Christian FUNDAMENTALIST” – may his God spare us from him!.

      • Vicky32 2.1.1
        9 May 2012 at 5:57 pm

        tc, any enlightened Christian knows well that the entire Bible is NOT meant to be taken literally.
        Certainly, I for one, do not understand Jesus to have said one thing that would support the right-wing policies of Key and his kind.

        Seconded Dr Terry! 🙂 I agree 100%
         

  3. muzza 3
    8 May 2012 at 7:25 am

    What you really have to respect about the political system, is its unwaivering ability to suck people in, hold their gaze a while by deception, then the mirror cracks as it was always going to do!

    A gap seldom goes unfilled in politics, because you have to keep as many people sucked in and confused as often as possibe, which is my the conservatives were invented in the first place, and also why so many people did not bother to vote…turning them away is as good as sucking them in!

    People might one day realise that they need to take the political system, not just sit back and wait for others to fill the gaps.

    Anyone ever bothered to stop and think why certain types of people are so comfortable in this space, they seem so share the same traits, and once you dig into it, they share all the same connections.

  4. Frida 4
    8 May 2012 at 7:40 am

    Reading about this man’s employment practices and other beliefs (anti gay adoption, anti teenage adoption etc etc) last night I gave a shudder. It’s a slippery slope if people like him and his fundamentalist cronies anywhere near our secular Parliament. Mind you, I suppose there are a few of them in there already (Banks, Collins etc).
    Nice one National, you really know how to pick your nutty bedfellows.

    • Matthew Whitehead 4.1
      8 May 2012 at 1:11 pm

      Actually, I’d rather have one or two of them inside parliament where they can be safely laughed at than have the idiots feel marginalised and ready to do something stupid that could hurt someone. Let’s just hope they don’t make it unless/until National loses power.

      • the pink postman 4.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 3:29 pm

        This is just what was said about the Nazi Party in the 1920/30s and look what happened.
        I find Colin Craig a dangerous man in the same mould as Key, and Key is the most dangerous NZ PM ever even more than the fascist Holland.
        Beware of this Right Wing Religious Neo -Con .And stop calling him Craig before he becomes a household name .

        • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.1
          8 May 2012 at 4:12 pm

          Wise words, Postie. No point pumping up someone who is almost certainly going to turn out be just another Tory when push comes to shove.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2012 at 4:15 pm

            There is no point being worried about him. He is a nut with as much electoral appeal as Quade Cooper.

  5. Kevin Welsh 5
    8 May 2012 at 7:47 am

    Best title for a post, ever 🙂

  6. framu 6
    8 May 2012 at 7:49 am

    best. post title. ever

    but the thing i find disturbing is the media reporting this as a situation where by the Nats are choosing their coalition partner – as opposed to asking the question “who does epsom want?”

    The media aiding nationals rather obvious attempt at a political setup is simply wrong,

    Sure many of us have a grudge with epsom for saddling the country with act – but its still their choice if a by-election is held.

    • Pete George 6.1
      8 May 2012 at 7:57 am

      National aren’t in a position where they have to choose a coalition partner. They may or may not get to choose in 2014.

      Would Labour have chosen to go into coalition with the Colin Craig Consevative Party to get an ally against asset sales? Would they consider that in 2014?

      • higherstandard 6.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 8:00 am

        Labour like national would sell themselves to any and all to gain the treasury benches.

        • North 6.1.1.1
          9 May 2012 at 12:47 am

          Yeah……..’96 ? Clark coulda had it then if she’d taken Winnie on board. She turned him away. Get it right, obviously young man…….or oldie with a Botox Banks recall.

          • higherstandard 6.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2012 at 7:18 am

            From memory that was one of the few times Winston did what he said he was going to do and went with the party that had the highest percentage of the vote.

            However judging by the many weeks that it took to form a government there can be no doubt that the national and labour parties were in a bidding war for his services so to suggest clark turned him away is laughable.

            • felix 6.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2012 at 8:03 am

              Seeing as how Clark didn’t win said bidding war it’s clear that at some point in the negotiations she said no and National said yes, in other words she turned him away.

              As for “did what he said he was going to do” – if there was any truth in that then there wouldn’t have been a bidding war. Obviously.

              He actually campaigned hard against the Bolger govt and many of his supporters abandoned him for doing a u-turn and getting in bed with them.

              • higherstandard …
                9 May 2012 at 11:45 am

                There is nothing to suggest that Clark said no to Winston.

                Looking on the net I see I was wrong about the comment he made of going with the party with the largest % of the vote.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Peters

                As usual it appears that Winston’s primary interest was in Winston howver, that can hardly be an accusation leveled at only him in relation to the self serving politicians in this country.

                • felix …
                  9 May 2012 at 3:24 pm

                  “There is nothing to suggest that Clark said no to Winston.”

                  Was she engaged in the bidding war you mentioned?

                  If so, at some point she said no.

                  • higherstandard …
                    9 May 2012 at 3:42 pm

                    “However, after over a month of negotiations with both parties, Peters decided to enter into coalition with National. Michael Laws, the party’s campaign manager, later claimed that Peters had already decided to join forces with National and used his negotiations with Labour simply to win more concessions from Bolger.”

                    There is nothing to suggest that “…..it’s clear that at some point in the negotiations she said no and National said yes, in other words she turned him away.”

                    • felix …
                      9 May 2012 at 4:32 pm

                      Sure, as long as you pretend you don’t know what the words “bidding war” or “negotiation” mean you could definitely make the technical point that nothing actually says Labour said no to Winston.

                      But if you put all of the above statements in context, then obviously National was willing to offer Winston more more than Labour was.

                      (The clue is that National formed a govt and Labour didn’t, btw.)

                      Also, Laws shmaws.

                    • higherstandard …
                      9 May 2012 at 7:41 pm

                      “But if you put all of the above statements in context, then obviously National was willing to offer Winston more more than Labour was.”

                      Ummm- only if you ignore the only person in the know and on record about Winston having already decided to go with National.

                    • felix …
                      9 May 2012 at 9:27 pm

                      Fair enough. Let’s abandon logical and reasonable interpretation of the known facts…

                      …and just go with whatever Michael Laws said.

                    • higherstandard …
                      9 May 2012 at 9:41 pm

                      Colin James tends to concur with Laws

                      http://www.synapsis.co.nz/speeches_briefings/Parlt_group_05Nov30.htm

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      9 May 2012 at 9:52 pm

                      James is just quoting Laws’s version of events to support his own thesis, HS. They concur, but that’s hardly independent confirmation.

      • felix 6.1.2
        8 May 2012 at 8:19 am

        “National aren’t in a position where they have to choose a coalition partner”

        Doesn’t that make you wonder why they’re doing just that then, Pete?

        • Pete George 6.1.2.1
          8 May 2012 at 8:44 am

          I wasn’t aware that they were choosing. Weren’t they asked by media if they would consider it? I don’t recall seeing them make commitments to 2014 coalition negotiations now.

          • felix 6.1.2.1.1
            8 May 2012 at 8:58 am

            Pete sometimes it’s what people don’t say that counts. A bit like when MPs are asked about their leadership ambitions.

            For example when Key or Goodfellow or anyone else in the Nat hierarchy is asked if they’ll consider a deal with Colin Craig, if they don’t say:

            “We’re very happy with our current coalition arrangements and we have full confidence in all of our coalition partners”

            then the writing is on the wall. Dead man walking.

            • Pete George 6.1.2.1.1.1
              8 May 2012 at 9:30 am

              I haven’t heard David Shearer say anything about who he would go in to coalition with if he gets a shot at that in 2014. And I think that says nothing except that it’s far too soon to be bothered about things like that.

              Yeah, maybe, but see what happens over the next couple of years.

              • felix …
                8 May 2012 at 9:38 am

                David Shearer is not the Leader of a coalition government Pete. There’s nothing to ask him in that regard.

                ps You don’t seriously think this is about 2014, do you? Banks ain’t going to see out the winter.

                • Lanthanide …
                  8 May 2012 at 10:19 am

                  “ps You don’t seriously think this is about 2014, do you? Banks ain’t going to see out the winter.”

                  As a minister? Maybe. As an MP? I don’t think he’ll resign.

                  • felix …
                    8 May 2012 at 11:56 am

                    Banks has exactly one card left in his hand. It’ll be interesting to see how he plays it.

                    i.e. if you were booted out of your plum ministerial job, and you knew you didn’t have a shit’s show of getting re-elected, how keen would you be on sticking around to support the man who sacked you?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      8 May 2012 at 12:34 pm

                      Depends whether has another job to go to. And whether he wants to delay the asset sales programme, or keep it on track so he himself can benefit too.

                    • felix …
                      8 May 2012 at 2:01 pm

                      Good point.

                • Chris …
                  8 May 2012 at 10:23 am

                  Even if Banks doesn’t see out the winter why would National choose to gift the byelection to the Conservative Party as some here seem to imply they are planning on doing. If they win the byelection they get an extra person who is a member of their own party rather than having to rely on another party.

                  Edit: Just saw someone’s comment below about how they will want someone to blame stuff on and that seems reasonable.

                  • Carol …
                    8 May 2012 at 11:04 am

                    And because National are looking to cultivate (and control) a new right wing party as a potential coalition partner for the next parliamentay election.

                    Probably (as we’ve seen with ACT), for the National Party manipulators Craig himself is probably expendable in the longer term.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      8 May 2012 at 1:13 pm

                      I still don’t see how the conservatives are functionally different than the “new” ACT party, ever since it gave up its pretense of being libertarian. Perhaps a little bit of the same only a little more so.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    8 May 2012 at 11:05 am

                    Because the conservatives could realistically get votes from NZFirst.

      • framu 6.1.3
        8 May 2012 at 9:08 am

        well thats bleedingly obvious pete – so what do you think about the media stories that are laying the groundwork for the conservatives to be seen as one?

        And what do you think about the MSM basically reporting it as a choice of the nats instead of the local electorate?

        • felix 6.1.3.1
          8 May 2012 at 9:19 am

          Frankly framu I’d prefer the media to report it as National’s choice because that’s more honest.

          And if the voters of Epsom find it demeaning to be referred to in such a way then they can fucking well prove it isn’t so.

        • Chris 6.1.3.2
          8 May 2012 at 10:26 am

          Why would the media not report it as National’s choice when it obviously is?

          Whether you like it or not when a byelection is held Epsom voters will vote for who National tells them to vote for just as they have done for the last 4 or whatever elections.
           

          • framu 6.1.3.2.1
            8 May 2012 at 11:47 am

            im not trying to deny what actually happens in epsom in regards to this. And it is pretty obvious that National IS making a choice here (i didnt come down on the last cabbage boat 🙂

            Im more talking about the way the issue is framed in the media – not just for epsom voters, but as it relates to the current trends of political reporting as a whole.

            the reporting isnt so much “national would like X and is laying the ground work, will epsom vote for them?” its more “(insert ruling party), is laying the ground work to install their choice”

            Its part of the whole trend to report politics as a continual horse race with journalist opinions layered over the top instead of any actual analysis or fact checking

    • Frida 6.2
      8 May 2012 at 8:11 am

      Really good point Framu. Shows what a farce of an electorate Epsom is.

      • Chris 6.2.1
        8 May 2012 at 10:31 am

        How is it a farce for voters in an electorate to vote for the candidate that helps the party they want to win win? 

        • fatty 6.2.1.1
          8 May 2012 at 10:41 am

          “How is it a farce for voters in an electorate to vote for the candidate that helps the party they want to win?”

          True…Epsom know how much power they have, they can control NZ through a strategic block vote. They piss me off, but in a way I admire them cause they know how to work MMP.
          Labour, the Greens and their voters need to wake up and learn from them. Its simple.
          Sure, I hate on Epsom, but I hate on the average NZ voter more

        • framu 6.2.1.2
          8 May 2012 at 11:34 am

          ” Epsom voters will vote for who National tells them to vote for” – is the farce bit, im pretty sure epsom voters dont need to be told to figure it out

      • grumpy 6.2.2
        8 May 2012 at 11:42 am

        You mean like Sydenham was with Anderton??

        • fatty 6.2.2.1
          8 May 2012 at 11:55 am

          “You mean like Sydenham was with Anderton??”

          Wrong. Sydenham voted Anderton, and Anderton had barely changed his spots during his whole career. Epsom in the past voted for a liberal candidate, but last election voted in a conservative candidate. That’s a massive change in ideology…your link to Anderton is way off.
          Epsom flip-flop on the nature of their MP to suit the National coalition….Sydenham did not.

          • felix 6.2.2.1.1
            8 May 2012 at 12:09 pm

            Indeed.

            Anderton held Sydenham in every election from 1984 until he retired regardless of which party he was in, thus he was clearly the choice of the voters to represent them.

            If anything it’s the polar opposite of the Epsom scenario.

            • alwyn 6.2.2.1.1.1
              8 May 2012 at 12:52 pm

              You mean, I suppose, that Sydenham electorate is like Ohariu rather than like Epsom?

              You will presumably agree with the following statement –

              Dunne has held Ohariu in every election from 1984 regardless of which party he was in, thus he is clearly the choice of the voters to represent them.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                8 May 2012 at 1:17 pm

                Remember when Labour signalled to all it’s voters in Sydenham to vote for Jim because otherwise the National candidate might win?

                *laughs*

                • Chris …
                  8 May 2012 at 3:00 pm

                  The parallel to the Epsom electorate would be more:

                  Remember when Labour signalled to all it’s voters in Sydenham to vote for Jim because otherwise the Labour candidate might win?

                  • felix …
                    8 May 2012 at 3:17 pm

                    If they did, then yep that would be it.

                    It’s kinda the fact that they didn’t that makes it not.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    8 May 2012 at 3:36 pm

                    Where it’s congruent with reality is the one where Labour couldn’t have won Sydenham off Jim if they tried, so they didn’t.

    • Uturn 6.3
      8 May 2012 at 8:51 am

      Asking what the people want is a brand of politics that National were created to oppose. It’s a cliché to say the government exists because of and for the people, not the other way round. But what that now ingenuine call for respect to the needs of people from a government conveniently hides, is that a representative of the people is a representative, not a surrogate parent. That is were the problem starts.

      In the context of The Conservative Party, all National want is a brand of nuttiness on which to blame all the things they want to do, but are too cowardly to try. National are proven to be a party of no care, no liability, no responsibility.

      • framu 6.3.1
        8 May 2012 at 9:05 am

        “all National want is a brand of nuttiness on which to blame all the things they want to do, but are too cowardly to try”

        agreed – and thats the entire reason for acts presence now, and the positioning of the conservatives – its not about the numbers because epsom is blue regardless.

  7. toad 7
    8 May 2012 at 7:52 am

    What’s Graham Capill up to these days?

    • higherstandard 7.1
      8 May 2012 at 8:00 am

      Why is the whereabouts of a convicted paedophile relevant to this thread ?

      • felix 7.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 8:22 am

        Presumably because he was cut from the same political cloth as National’s new BFF.

        Why the focus on his pedoing?

        • higherstandard 7.1.1.1
          8 May 2012 at 9:03 am

          If that was Toad’s intent why not ask what’s become of the christian heritage party ?

          Because Capill is far better known for his conviction than for his political career it appears to be a cheap smear against Colin Craig.

          • felix 7.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2012 at 9:15 am

            “If that was Toad’s intent why not ask what’s become of the christian heritage party ?”

            Exactly the same issue, surely. The CHP is far better known for having a pedo leader than for any other achievement.

    • BLiP 7.2
      8 May 2012 at 1:30 pm

      Oh, c’mon, mate!! Whatever people say about Capill at least he never speeds when driving past schools.

      Meanwhile, many of the characters associated with that Christian Heritage Party / Christian Democrat Party / Future New Zealand / United Future / Kiwi Party milieu are now involved with the Conservative Party. Here’s a list of Conservative Party candidates in the last election, join the dots if you can be bothered:

      Colin Craig
      Kathy Sheldrake
      Larry Baldock
      Fa’avae Gagamoe
      Brian Dobbs
      Roy Brown
      Simonne Dyer
      Simon Kan
      Litia Simpson
      Kevin Campbell
      Paul Young
      Leighton Baker
      Feleti Key
      Claire Holley
      Frank John Naea
      Frank Poching
      Jesse Misa
      Bob Daw
      Lance Gedge
      Robyn Jackson
      Pat Gregory
      Timothy de Vries
      Melanie Taylor
      Cynthia Liu
      Craig H Jensen
      Oliver Vitali
      Danny Mountain
      Ivan Bailey
      Brent Reid
      Michael Cooke
      Andrew Marquet
      Bruce Welsh
      Daryl Smith
      Gordon Copeland
      Grace Haden
      Hugh Rurehe
      Ian Robertson
      John Ryersson
      Mark Breetvelt
      Mark Peters
      Matthew Webster
      Paul Stipkovits
      Peter Redman
      Richard Addis
      Rick Drayson
      Roger Larkins
      Ross Calverley
      Ross Craig
      Stephen Greenfield
      Stephen Woodnut
      Stephen Jenkinson
      Wilton Gray

      . . . heh, Gordon Copeland.

  8. Carol 8
    8 May 2012 at 8:04 am

    And what does Winston have to say about the Conservative Party now?

    I recall Winston, in the run up to last year’s election, saying on TV that he had done some research and found that the Conservative Party had been set up by the National Party.

    Does anyone else remember this?

    • felix 8.1
      8 May 2012 at 9:02 am

      Yes Carol I seem to remember something about that too. And Anne was dropping some interesting hints about this and the formation of ACT the other day.

    • Lanthanide 8.2
      8 May 2012 at 10:23 am

      Someone (PG?) linked to a story on Whaleoil by David Garrett, the 3rd part of the rise and fall of the Act party, where he said that the Conservatives were a new party in the planning by Brash and others and he eventually went on to takeover Act instead.

    • Vicky32 8.3
      8 May 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Does anyone else remember this?

      I seem to remember something like that… also that Craig stood in the local body election in 2007? He seemed reasonable, but then I did some research and discovered that he’s a nutmeg…

  9. vto 9
    8 May 2012 at 8:22 am

    As far as I can recall each and every single politician who came to Wellington riding some white steed of morality has been shunted out at some later point with tail between the legs and all covered in eggs.

    How long until this well intentioned but short-changed-in-the-brain fulla does the same? And he aint even there yet.

    The TAB should get in on the ludicirous shenanigans that go on.

  10. tracey 10
    8 May 2012 at 8:55 am

    “Peter Goodfellow wasn’t bothered at all, saying Craig was “just representing what his views are on those issues now” ”

    Isn’t that the basic MO of National since 2007, say something now but intend changing once you are elected?

    These kind of guys (Craig) sunk United Future from ever being just PD, Graham Capill anyone? Those who preach morality and judgment the loudest often have the murkiest stuff lying beneath the surface

    • felix 10.1
      8 May 2012 at 9:10 am

      Yeah pretty much. I guess from the Nats’ philosophical point of view it’s just a bunch of stuff he said. It’s not like it means anything.

      • Puddleglum 10.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 10:07 pm

        I think that’s it. And it pretty much describes the modern world – PR, marketing, advertising, business lingo, politics-speak, etc.. It’s all about which words work now.

        The pragmatist’s view of language. There’s no sense that one is committed to the conventional meaning of what one says. That would be so 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th ??? century. Not a ‘today’ kind of approach. Something for losers who don’t get what it’s all about.

        The kind of ‘losers’ who could never run a successful business or make it in the ‘real world’… where self-interested deception and infinite moral ‘flexibility’ reigns supreme.

  11. Rosie 11
    8 May 2012 at 8:58 am

    Although I was distracted at the time I’m sure I heard news last week on RNZ that the Conservative Party received the second largest amount of electoral campaign donations last year, only just behind the National Party and well ahead of Labour.

    This didn’t surprise me – when you think about how much money the nutty religious right threw at the 2005 campaign. These kinds of would be politicains remind me of those whacko republican fundamentalists they lampoon on the Daily Show. Lotsa money, lotsa biggotted ideas, lotsa hate and completely clueless to the point where they are just fodder for comedy.

    • Deano 11.1
      8 May 2012 at 9:09 am

      they spent the second most, which I guess means they also got the second most donations. It was mainly Colin Craig’s own money.

  12. KJT 12
    8 May 2012 at 9:15 am

    In case any one hasn’t noticed.

    Employment contracts that require Christian beliefs are common.

    Every State integrated school.

    What do you think “Teachers must support the special character of the school”, means.

    • Stephen Doyle 12.1
      8 May 2012 at 9:47 am

      That you get involved in netball, rugby, the environmental group, production etc etc; nothing to do with religion at all.

      • KJT 12.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 10:14 am

        Wrong. Helping with sports etc is advertised as “must participate in the schools co-curricular program”.

    • ianmac 12.2
      8 May 2012 at 11:04 am

      Non Catholic teachers at the Primary School across the road do sign up for “special character” but are not compelled to attend prayers or church services. Some do out of goodwill.

    • Vicky32 12.3
      8 May 2012 at 4:48 pm

      In case any one hasn’t noticed.
      Employment contracts that require particular beliefs are common.
      Every State integrated school.
      What do you think “Teachers must support the special character of the school”, means.

      FIFY…. You do know there are Muslim, Theosophist (Steiner) and Jewish  schools as well, right? In this case, it’s fair enough.
      Why did strike-through not work?

      • Puddleglum 12.3.1
        8 May 2012 at 10:14 pm

        Fair comment.

        My daughter attends a ‘special character’ school that is not remotely religious – unless ‘tree hugging’  and being nice to each other counts as a religion. 🙂

        And, as a parent, my expectations are that the teachers sign up to that ‘creed’ – wouldn’t want any businessy types contaminating the mix 🙂

        (P.S. I really am being humorous – but the point remains and I do agree with you). 

  13. just saying 13
    8 May 2012 at 9:38 am

    I remember Craig filmed campaigning by a busy road during the election campaign. He was accompanied by a large group of young women who were holding up placards and smiling and waving to drivers, and it was clear to me that they were models who had been hired as a job-lot. I know there are many fundamentalist Christian young women, who might, one day be attracted to Craig’s party, but these people were professionally trained imo.

    What bothered me at the time was that the TV interviewer lapped-up Craig’s effusive enthusiasm and asked not one question about blatantly trying to buy power and governance via a seat (or seats) in parliament, about his obviously hiring attractive people to pretend to be supporters of his party, or about the morality of the action’s of a candidate who was lobbying on a morality ticket.

    Craig is a different kind of Christian-far-right candidate, and potentially more appealing than previous politicians of his ilk, because he espouses his bigotry with smiles and enthusiam and charm, rather than the dour disapproving tones of Chrsitian Heritage for example. And he might be more dangerous to the left for it.

    • Uturn 13.1
      8 May 2012 at 9:55 am

      More dangerous to Labour only if The Conservatives become more popular than National. In the medium term, there is more threat of a right wing faction within the Greens winning power before that happens. But The Conservatives are not at all dangerous to the Left, because the Left know about smiling snakes and Labour are smiling snakes.

      Using a bit of crystal ball gazing, with Labour gone, a vacuum would be created that will either lead to the immediate emergence of a new and accurately oriented Left Party or the roundabout way of getting there would open: through the route of oppressive governments and the natural end of violent upheaval. It amazes me that people still believe that a morally corrupt political force can stand indefinitely. None has, ever. In the end, the people free themselves. Every act of oppression is one step closer to emancipation.

      • grumpy 13.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 11:49 am

        As PB pointed out earlier, the danger to Labour is that the Conservative Party could draw off support for NZ First and by association Labour.

    • Stephen Doyle 13.2
      8 May 2012 at 10:04 am

      More along the American model?

  14. captain hook 14
    8 May 2012 at 9:41 am

    I guess ole craig knows how to exist in a dynamic environment eh?

  15. Tom Gould 15
    8 May 2012 at 10:08 am

    Just another rich guy buying a political party. We’ve seen it before. Maybe he’s just bored? Or maybe it’s his only shot at fame?

  16. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16
    8 May 2012 at 11:58 am

    This is why the left’s wet dreams that he will win Epsom are just such bullshit. He spent a billion dollars at the last election and garnered the votes of his mum and six lay preachers with gun-nut side burns.

    • s y d 16.1
      8 May 2012 at 12:24 pm

      gun nut side burns LOL….what a great turn of phrase.

    • Lanthanide 16.2
      8 May 2012 at 12:35 pm

      You mean a million dollars, right?

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.2.1
        8 May 2012 at 2:43 pm

        No. I meant a big number out of all proportion to the number of votes he garnered.

        • Lanthanide 16.2.1.1
          8 May 2012 at 4:46 pm

          Typically one would say something like “he spent buckets of cash” or “he spent a butt-load” not “a billion dollars”, if that is what you meant.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.2.1.1.1
            8 May 2012 at 4:55 pm

            I also said he got the votes of “his mum and six lay preachers with gun-nut side burns” yet you found no fault with that.

            Dick.

            • felix 16.2.1.1.1.1
              8 May 2012 at 5:23 pm

              I think you mean a squillion.

              Or maybe even a gazillion.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                8 May 2012 at 5:50 pm

                Please, no exaggeration for comic effect. Instead refer to the amount that can be fit inside a pail or up a bottom.

                It is funnier and will cause Lanthanide less confusion.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 16.2.1.1.1.2
              8 May 2012 at 5:33 pm

              Ah, yes, yet another right-winger who believes in lay preachers with gun-nut sideburns. Link or they don’t exist! 😉

  17. coolas 17
    8 May 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Craig’s interpretation of the Zacchaeus story is telling. He sees a short guy showing initiative by climbing a tree to get a better view (of Jesus)

    But the point of the story is that Z was a tax collector who ripped people off, and when he ‘converted’ he swore to repay all the people he stole from.

    Totally understandable that a multi-millionaire property developer can’t see the message. And he probably thinks the, ‘it’s easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle,’ story is about not making the needle big enough.

    • seeker 17.1
      8 May 2012 at 11:07 pm

      Good comment Coolas. I noticed his “reinterpretation” of the story. It bothered me that he could spin Christ’s teaching for his own ‘conservative’ teaching/preaching. But perhaps he did not realise that he was doing anything amiss. Wonder if this reinterpretation was his own idea,or if someone had given it to him. I noticed on the news that he swallowed quite hard before minimising the story.I think he is an anxious, and probably confused, man.

  18. captain hook 18
    8 May 2012 at 12:57 pm

    craig is a theologaster and an idiot.
    having money does not make you intelligent.
    mainly just sly and overbearing.
    theologaster: holder of a shallow and paltry theology.

  19. tracey 19
    8 May 2012 at 4:25 pm

    “No. I meant a big number out of all proportion to the number of votes he garnered.” That’s always been true of ACT too

  20. Kotahi Tane Huna 20
    8 May 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Religious fascism will always have a broader popular appeal than ACT’s blend of Randist dribble and corruption.

    That said, the Conservatives will still have to compete for votes with Winston First, they won’t attract the schoolboy libertarians, and National will cut the purse strings if they start attracting too many white supremacists.

  21. AnnaLiviaPluraBella 21
    8 May 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Tommy Tiernan explores Zaccheus, the cowardly corrupt tree climbing taxman in this clip.

  22. QoT 22
    8 May 2012 at 7:04 pm

    His response to the contraception issue is fucking priceless.

    “Why should a seventy year old, who has had the same partner all their life, have to pay for a young woman who wants to sleep around?”

    He’s right, you know. All [heterosexual, obviously] 70-year-olds who are still married to the only sexual partner they’ve ever had should be exempt from all taxation on the grounds of being miraculous.

    • fender 22.1
      8 May 2012 at 7:41 pm

      +1 fucking priceless

      Only a dropkick equates contraception with “sleeping around”. Don’t see how the bill for contraception is passed on to 70-year-olds. More like the young end up paying for the 70-year-old hip replacement.

      Warped cult wannabe freaks don’t belong in parliament and only slimeball parties like National would cuddle up to them.

    • felix 22.2
      8 May 2012 at 9:18 pm

      Weird thing is, he’s only bothered about young women sleeping around.

      Which doesn’t really require any contraception, innit.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 22.3
      8 May 2012 at 9:38 pm

      Sounds like he’s on the same side as you. Neither of you wants beneficiaries to have something for free.

    • Vicky32 22.4
      9 May 2012 at 4:38 pm

      All [heterosexual, obviously] 70-year-olds who are still married to the only sexual partner they’ve ever had should be exempt from all taxation on the grounds of being miraculous.

      Point of order – such people do exist and are actually not that uncommon! (They’re not common either, but I just love the way you think they’re mythical 😀 )

      • QoT 22.4.1
        9 May 2012 at 6:38 pm

        I said “miraculous”, Vicky. As in “really really really rare confluences of events which seems marvellous to the human brain”. If you’re going to insist on picking fights with me at least learn what words mean, k?

  23. Than 23
    8 May 2012 at 8:38 pm

    My fondest hope is that Colin Craig retires from politics entirely. Unfortunately that seems unlikely, which leaves two possibilities;

    1) His party polls between 2%-4.99% – less than the threshold to get into parliament, but wasting a significant percent of the right-wing vote. Which leaves the door open to the Labour/Greens/NZ First monstrosity coalition to form a government.

    2) His party polls more than 5%. In which case National needs him to form a government, and we are at the mercy of his religious beliefs.

    I voted National last election, ACT the two before that. If in 2014 my options are Labour with Greens/NZ First or National with Conservative, then I honestly don’t know which I find worse. Both are ahborent enough to make me seriously look at career opportunities overseas.

    • Descendant Of Smith 23.1
      8 May 2012 at 8:53 pm

      Labour’s still predominantly rightwing so it ain’t so bad a choice for you yet.

      When they show some truly progressive policies such as:

      1. Reinstating the 40 hour working week
      2. Increasing taxation substantially at the top ends
      3. Increasing benefit rates substantially
      4. Increasing the minimum wage substantially
      5. Removing employer welfare such as WFF
      6. Investing in employment creation and regional development
      7. Re-instating cross-employer collective agreements so businesses compete on product and service – not low wages
      8. Shut 99% of businesses down on Sundays so workers can have a proper day off
      9. Make it compulsory that trusts are accessed before the welfare system
      10. Remove underage partners from getting NZS
      11. Put limits on what banks can lend above the actual cash they hold

      and so on

      then you might have to start worrying about a left wing party

    • fender 23.2
      8 May 2012 at 9:02 pm

      Better make sure the country you move to has had recent elections and you are happy with the Government, or else you may have to keep running.

  24. rosy 24
    8 May 2012 at 10:51 pm

    Colin Craig has sorta got that Cliff Richard clean cheesy thing going on, don’t you think? You know, before the botox hit. I wonder if he sings…

  25. ropata 25
    8 May 2012 at 11:33 pm

    Mandatory monty python clip for your enlightenment 🙂
    It seems that National needs a joke party in Epsom to make themselves appear reasonable.

    If Colin Craig wanted to actually emulate Jesus he would be washing the feet of prostitutes and “sinners”, feeding the hungry, and helping the poor and downtrodden. Not flouncing around in wealthy Auckland suburbs with glamorous models.

  26. felix 26
    9 May 2012 at 7:00 am

    There’s been a bit of murmuring about backing Craig in Epsom because of his pro-assets stance and a couple of other pleasant noises he’s made, and I admit I was superficially attracted to the idea at first. After all, if he’d just shut up about all the awful anti-women, anti-gay, and other horrible stuff he believes and stand in the way of the asset sales then no harm done, right?

    Sadly no. As Carol has pointed out, he’s ‘flexible’ on the asset sales and conservative economics stuff. And the Nats know it or they wouldn’t be batting their eyes at him. What fundies are not flexible on is, well, the horrible fundie stuff.

    So the Nats will give him a couple of horrible fundie concessions, promise not to give teh gays any christmas presents etc, and he’ll back them all the way.

    • Pascal's bookie 26.1
      9 May 2012 at 8:01 am

      Yep.

      It’s about priorities, and fundies prioritise their social agenda over the economic. That’s fine, but it’s something liberals need to be clear about, both in their own thinking, and in their campaigning.

      When liberal Nats say they are really are liberals, put them on the spot about it. Does their liberalism take priority over a few points on the top marginal tax rate? If it doesn’t, their liberalism isn’t worth much.

  27. Jenny 27
    9 May 2012 at 7:07 am

    How come no one wants to challenge Craig over his climate denial?

    Surely this is his Archillies heal, particularly in the Epsom electorate, where social issues are not so important but the population are generally well off, educated, travelled, and liberal. And could easily be made aware of the danger (even to them) of climate change.

    • felix 27.1
      9 May 2012 at 7:19 am

      What makes you think they’re ready to stop voting for climate change deniers?

      • higherstandard 27.1.1
        9 May 2012 at 7:33 am

        What makes you think that people vote on the basis of a politician’s views on climate change ?

        • felix 27.1.1.1
          9 May 2012 at 7:49 am

          What makes you think I think they do? My comment, in context, would seem to imply exactly the opposite.

  28. Craig 28
    9 May 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Meanwhile, here’s what I think about the current Nat/Con wooing…

    http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/31/printer_11718.php

    Craig Y