Just what do the Conservatives & National agree on?

108 comments on “Just what do the Conservatives & National agree on? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. chris73 1

   28 November 2013 at 7:34 am

   They also agree that a Labour/Greens coalition should be avoided for as long as possible
   • framu 1.1

     28 November 2013 at 8:12 am

     you mean they agree their opponents shouldnt get into govt?

     thats surprising
   • Matthew Hooton 1.2

     28 November 2013 at 10:00 am

     That’s enough isn’t it?
     • Tom Gould 1.2.1

       28 November 2013 at 10:38 am

       Yep, to the Tories.
     • Tom Gould 1.2.2

       28 November 2013 at 10:38 am

       Yep, to the Tories.
     • Ake ake ake 1.2.3

       28 November 2013 at 10:57 am

       Enough for the two to be like a mad dog with two heads joined at the hips and wanting to run off in different directions.

       But not enough to govern the country responsibly now and into the future.
     • gobsmacked 1.2.4

       28 November 2013 at 11:21 am

       They don’t want Labour and the Greens?

       Then they share that view with Allan Titford, John Ansell, Muriel Newman and the Celtic conspiracy people. National should gift these guys a seat too! What could go wrong?
     • Rogue Trooper 1.2.5

       28 November 2013 at 11:23 am

       ahhh, Comrade Matthew, how’s that structural analysis -based political punditry of yours coming along.
     • Ad 1.2.6

       28 November 2013 at 12:27 pm

       It’s enough.
       It’s pretty close to everything.
     • Ad 1.2.7

       28 November 2013 at 12:28 pm

       It’s enough.
       It’s pretty close to everything.
2. Tracey 2

   28 November 2013 at 7:36 am

   To be fair if nats hadnt been in partnership with mp they would probably agree with abololition of maori seats.

   if craig won a seat and got 2.5% party votes how many mps? Cos if he has a serioys charge we need to start examining the lust
   • Will@Welly 2.1

     28 November 2013 at 1:21 pm

     Go back and look at your early history of John Key in Parliament. He was firmly in favour of abolishing the Maori seats, and whatever you think, all the Maori Party has ever got out of National, is pure tokenism. With Pita and Tariana both stepping down, and if Te Ururoa loses his seat to Annette Sykes, expect to see Whanau Ora to hit the skids real fast. Even Maori such as Tau Henare are more like “Uncle Tom’s”, than genuine representatives of Maori in Parliament.
     • tracey 2.1.1

       28 November 2013 at 3:22 pm

       agree and was my point
   • Will@Welly 2.2

     28 November 2013 at 1:22 pm

     Go back and look at your early history of John Key in Parliament. He was firmly in favour of abolishing the Maori seats, and whatever you think, all the Maori Party has ever got out of National, is pure tokenism. With Pita and Tariana both stepping down, and if Te Ururoa loses his seat to Annette Sykes, expect to see Whanau Ora to hit the skids real fast. Even Maori such as Tau Henare are more like “Uncle Tom’s”, than genuine representatives of Maori in Parliament.
3. Tracey 3

   28 November 2013 at 7:48 am

   It would be interesting to present craig and his list with BLiPs post and see how they explain it away.

   people like chris and infused just ignore it but they are not standing for parliament on a moral platform
4. Tracey 4

   28 November 2013 at 7:50 am

   My first comment contains some interesting freudian slips. Fat fingers on the mobike
   • karol 4.1

     28 November 2013 at 8:01 am

     I’m with examining the “lust” for power by Triple C and Jonkey.

     [Triple C – Colin Chemtrails Craig]
     • Craig Y 4.1.1

       28 November 2013 at 10:55 am

       Strange sect relationships end in tears. Remember the Christian Coalition (1996-1997) and United Future (2000-2007)? If I were the Nats, I’d be very careful, given the track record of religious social conservative purist political parties. And Matthew? This one is no different. It’s comparatively easy to do background research and verify that the Conservatives are a predominantly fundamentalist microparty. And therefore, a political liability to the centre-right…
     • Ake ake ake 4.1.2

       28 November 2013 at 11:00 am

       And unite the Triple C with the Big C of John the Con Man.
5. vto 5

   28 November 2013 at 7:56 am

   Colin Craig is misleading people by calling his party Conservative. It is nothing of the sort. He is engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct which is legislated against in the Fair Trading (Politics) Act.

   (oh, hang on, there is no such rrequirement on politicians to not mislead or deceive, that is just for the punters in the real world)

   His party must be called and referred to as the Craig Party.
6. Brian 6

   28 November 2013 at 8:29 am

   Craig is a dangerous man that, sadly, has far too big a chance of wielding authority riding on the coattails of National. It will take more than his god to help the nation if he ever sits on the govt. benches.
   • infused 6.1

     28 November 2013 at 11:46 am

     Change Craig with Russell Norman and national for labour and it reads the same.
     • aerobubble 6.1.1

       28 November 2013 at 11:55 am

       What gives? The US prints money, yet when Norman just talks about the idea….

       …but when Joyce denies Climate Change, Craig gets called in to take the policy off National yet keep it in the frame.

       Norman isn’t crazy, crazy Craig is
     • Naturesong 6.1.2

       28 November 2013 at 1:24 pm

       Sure,

       Russel Norman: Co-leader of democratic party that promotes good governance, evidence based policy and a recognition that the economy is a subset of the environment

       … is the same as

       Colon Craig: Bases his social policies on leviticus. Denies that client change is man made and give credence to chem trails consiricy. Wants to increase gun ownership and legislate the castle doctorine (’cause thats working out awesomely in the US.)

       There does seem to be an agreement with the greens:
       “I am 100 per cent behind schools teaching children how to raise/tend a garden.”

       I’m loath to call him crazy.
       He is however potentially more dangerous that Rodney Hide/John Banks.
       • Naturesong 6.1.2.1

         28 November 2013 at 1:32 pm

         In moderation again.

         😯
       • newsense 6.1.2.2

         28 November 2013 at 6:06 pm

         Shelley Bridgman isn’t sure about Chem-trails! Craig already has one big name media backer…
7. felix 7

   28 November 2013 at 8:53 am

   Just what do the Conservatives & National agree on?

   Much, much more than National will admit.
   • Ake ake ake 7.1

     28 November 2013 at 11:06 am

     Especially the bit about being Con men.
   • MrSmith 7.2

     28 November 2013 at 6:53 pm

     To tru Felix the conservatives stance in all Michaels points are just the fine print that National never had to write down.
8. rich the other 8

   28 November 2013 at 8:53 am

   The only ones talking this potential coalition is the left.
   Scaremongering is the normal tactic used by green/labour and they are at it again.
   If they are needed by the Nat’s, the conservatives will have no real power .
   green/labours biggest problem will be the booming economy next year , the greens will destroy labours chances next year.
   Vote labour get green, this reality makes voting for the left far to risky .
   • northshoreguynz 8.1

     28 November 2013 at 8:57 am

     Vote National get the crazies.
   • framu 8.2

     28 November 2013 at 10:11 am

     “Scaremongering is the normal tactic used by green/labour and they are at it again.”

     didnt know steve, john and bill were in the lab/greens

     And while the left may be the only ones discussing it publicly, to deny that the idea has some substance, and that its not being discussed behind nationals doors, means you must have been in a cave somewhere for some time
   • karol 8.3

     28 November 2013 at 10:24 am

     Rich – “scaremongering” as a “normal tactic” – you mean talking about the “green Taleban” and John key talking about the Greens as “far left”.

     Or… remember Helengrad” etc?
   • Craig Y 8.4

     28 November 2013 at 10:57 am

     Shame the opinion polls don’t seem to reflect that, isn’t it? However, many do seem to show National’s voter share ebbing as that of the Cons rises. Evidently, some voters are more uneasy at the prospect of a National Party dependent on the Cons for survival.
     • tracey 8.4.1

       28 November 2013 at 3:25 pm

       which shows how many are ignorant of what lies beneath the surface of National when you scratch it
   • Craig Y 8.5

     28 November 2013 at 10:58 am

     Shame the opinion polls don’t seem to reflect that, isn’t it? However, many do seem to show National’s voter share ebbing as that of the Cons rises. Evidently, some voters are more uneasy at the prospect of a National Party dependent on the Cons for survival.
9. Tracey 9

   28 November 2013 at 9:16 am

   Agree with felix.

   politicians are not “in trade” vto. No matter how much we dislike them the fta could never apply to them.
10. Tracey 10

    28 November 2013 at 9:21 am

    Rich the other. You mean like act has no real power. As for scare tactics being the domain of the left you are deluded or suffering from alzheimers.

    you need to ask if its really the left generating the press coverage for craig or others.
11. aerobubble 11

    28 November 2013 at 9:40 am

    Craig got more votes than Banks at the last election. Key is doing nothing, No! worse, Key is gong to support Craig into a seat and own everything crazy Craig does.

    National supports ACT because its simply obvious that the system provides perverse incentives, losing one National constituent seat and gain a list MP instead and a potential one or more favorable minor party MPs. Labour did it with Anderson.

    It was always wrong to have no 5% rule for a single minor MP.
12. Matthew 12

    28 November 2013 at 9:43 am

    I thought National did want to abolish Maori seats, but has put that policy on hold while in coalition with the Maori Party?
13. Matthew 13

    28 November 2013 at 9:45 am

    I thought National did want to abolish Maori seats, but have put that policy on hold while in coalition with the Maori Party?
14. jcuknz 14

    28 November 2013 at 9:52 am

    Did you give Pete George permission to copy and paste to Kiwiblog? 🙂
15. Chooky 15

    28 November 2013 at 10:43 am

    Good informative Post: ( and I am probably stating the obvious) ….But Craig and his advisers have a ‘Cunning Plan’!!!!…The point is NOT about what the Conservatives and National agree on… but how to COUNTER the Conservatives’ subterfuge!

    The Conservatives are a ‘Hoover UP’ and ‘Mop Up’ party….that is they are acting as a magnet to hoover up and mop up votes from strongly alienated or sympathetic voters on single issues…..even and especially if these issues are against National Party policy….then by adding up these disparate single issue votes ( completely at odds with NACT ) the Conservatives hope to be strong enough to form a viable coalition partner for a National 2014 win!

    eg Vote ‘Big Winners’ for the Conservatives :

    1.) Conservatives want to make the first $25K of income tax-free ( very strong appeal to low income earners and economic underclass…strikes at heart of Labour and Mana and Green vote )
    2.) Conservatives support binding referenda on all significant issues ( strong appeal to pro-democracy Labour, Liberals and Greens…strikes at this vote)
    3.)Conservatives oppose National’s asset sales( strong appeal to everyone who is not NACT ….ie undermines ANTI NACT vote…and majorly undermines NZF, Labour, Greens , Mana vote )
    4.)Craig wants NZ to stand up to Big Oil ( strong appeal to Green voters…undermines Green vote…how to be vote green and environmental without voting Green)
    5.) SkyCity deal: Conservatives oppose the deal on moral grounds( strong appeal to Green , Mana , Maori and Labour voters …will take votes from these parties )
    6.)The Conservatives want conscription and to increase the military budget by $2 billion a year ( strong appeal for those concerned with youth unemployment and those who feel NZ is under threat from outside and want to strengthen ties with US etc)
    7.) Pro- smacking….(strong support from authoritarian Christians and conservatives)
    8.) Climate change denial…..Craig denies climate science ( strong support from Moral Majority and Conservative Christian business eg Exclusive Brethren…also laissez faire amoral Capitalists)
    9.)Maori seats: Conservatives want them abolished ( strong appeal to anti Maori, First People, Tangata Whenua vote )
    10.)Foreign investment: Conservatives want to stop land being sold to overseas buyers ( strong appeal to NZF, Greens , Labour Maori, Mana voters ….will potentially canabalise NZF vote)
    11)Land-banking: Conservatives would confiscate land held by land-bankers that they don’t develop ( strong appeal to new would be developers who want a foot in the door to develop anything and everything….and politics of envy …those anti and envious of all land owners ie some sectors of working class who regard all farmers and land owners ( even the environmentalists) as the enemy
    12)Constitutional review: Craig wants this stopped ( appeal to anti Maori Party and Maori rights voters)
16. mikesh 16

    28 November 2013 at 10:50 am

    If the Conservative Party did not exist, where would its support go? Presumably to either National or United Future.
    • aerobubble 16.1

      28 November 2013 at 11:05 am

      What and nobody ever votes randomly?
    • Chooky 16.2

      28 November 2013 at 11:35 am

      Where is the Conservative Party and Colin Craig really at?

      “Colin Craig announced his undying affection for Sarah Palin.”!…..this is where Colin Craig and the Conservatives are really at!………hence the Moral Majority Teeth !

      …all the rest is subterfuge to CHEAT more votes from the other side ( our Left side)… and win/ CHEAT the next 2014 election as a coalition party for National
17. Craig Y 17

    28 November 2013 at 11:04 am

    Er, not United Future. Dunne now hates his former fundie allies collective guts, given the fact that ex-United Future List MP Gordon Copeland goosestepped out of UFNZ, then ended up in the resultant badly organised Kiwi Party fundamentalist microparty and is now ensconced in the bosom of Colin Craig. Which does raise an interesting question about who the Con Party members really are, besides fundies. How many of them are former ACT populist neocon fruitcakes of the Muriel Newman/Stephen Franks variety, former Christian Heritage Party activists, or former New Zealand First apparatchiks?

    Declare coalition partners in haste, repent in opposition at leisure…
18. Craig Y 18

    28 November 2013 at 11:04 am

    Er, not United Future. Dunne now hates his former fundie allies collective guts, given the fact that ex-United Future List MP Gordon Copeland goosestepped out of UFNZ, then ended up in the resultant badly organised Kiwi Party fundamentalist microparty and is now ensconced in the bosom of Colin Craig. Which does raise an interesting question about who the Con Party members really are, besides fundies. How many of them are former ACT populist neocon fruitcakes of the Muriel Newman/Stephen Franks variety, former Christian Heritage Party activists, or former New Zealand First apparatchiks?

    Declare coalition partners in haste, repent in opposition at leisure…
19. amirite 19

    28 November 2013 at 11:31 am

    Paddy Gower in his farticle on TV3 claims that the Greens’ leadership challenge is way crazier than Colon Cray’s belief in chemtrails. It must be a part of Right’s propaganda to somehow make look Craig less crazy, but alas, I don’t think people are THAT stupid.
    • tracey 19.1

      28 November 2013 at 3:28 pm

      for some reason political journalists love to sniff out a challenge but hate the democracy of it all
20. captain hook 20

    28 November 2013 at 11:44 am

    colin craig thinks he is moses and doncoyote thinks he is napoleon.
    phewwwww…
21. captain hook 21

    28 November 2013 at 11:46 am

    Craig thinks he is Moses and Don Coyote thinks he is Napoleon.
22. Crunchtime 22

    28 November 2013 at 12:02 pm

    They agree on the essential thing: that money is god. That rich people are automatically “hard workers”. That those who work far longer hours in multiple jobs on the minimum wage are “lazy”. That the rich deserve to get richer, the poor deserve to get poorer “for their own good”.

    The rest I’m sure they will agree to disagree. Non-money stuff is where Craig can claim some sort of superficial point of difference from the nats.
23. gobsmacked 23

    28 November 2013 at 12:13 pm

    As a special service to the National Party (and Mr Hooton!), today sees the start of a brand new series on The Standard: “100 ways that Colin can cost you votes”. To be updated regularly …

    Part One:

    https://twitter.com/ColinCraigNZ/status/228614074622173186
    • Rogue Trooper 23.1

      28 November 2013 at 12:46 pm

      “Don’t Miss Any Updates From Colin Craig”
24. Ennui 24

    28 November 2013 at 12:13 pm

    The names Labour and Green roughly describe who and what the parties stand for….National one assumes adopted the name at a time when the “nation” was the “establishment”, Queen and Country, what ho!! A piece of populist “patriotic” positioning. What the fuck it represents today is, well who knows?

    Conservative, hmm…what is so conservative about being religious fundamentalists? Why don’t they call themselves the Christian Fundamentalist party (as opposed to Christian Mainstream party)? How about the Mad Mullahs?

    A tenet of Christianity is to declare yourself as such, and to follow a code of honesty and integrity. What is so honest and integral as a bunch of “born agains” calling themselves Conservative? Is it the recognition that the honest title of the Born Again Fundamentals Christian Party might just be too honest to garner votes?
25. Rich 25

    28 November 2013 at 12:21 pm

    The Conservatives want conscription

    I’ve never understood why conscription supporters don’t just join the Army themselves, rather than trying to foist it on other people,
    Craig must still be of military age.
26. Ad 26

    28 November 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Can someone do a post on what Labour and Mana agree on.
    And don’t agree on. Just like we are doing with the Conservatives.

    Labour will clearly need Mana. At least for Confidence and Supply..

    Personally can’t stand him, but then … no one here seems to like the Conservatives.

    Either side is going to have to hold their nose with one hand, and hold the bag of stinking Coalition partner in the other.
27. Ad 27

    28 November 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Can someone do a post on what Labour and Mana agree on.
    And don’t agree on. Just like we are doing with the Conservatives.

    Labour will clearly need Mana. At least for Confidence and Supply..

    Personally can’t stand him, but then … no one here seems to like the Conservatives.

    Either side is going to have to hold their nose with one hand, and hold the bag of stinking Coalition partner in the other.
    • Tat Loo (CV) 27.1

      28 November 2013 at 12:45 pm

      The maturity needed for making full use of MMP comes slowly and grudgingly to the Left.
    • tracey 27.2

      28 November 2013 at 3:30 pm

      could you do it?
28. Paul 28

    28 November 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Power.
29. Draco T Bastard 29

    28 November 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Maori seats:
    The Conservatives want them abolished, National says it’s up to Maori.

    But wants them abolished as well. In fact it was, IIRC, one of their policy platforms a few years ago but they back tracked on it as it kicked up quite a stink.
30. Rodel 30

    28 November 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Craig-Copeland-Rankin..? laugh it off.Think about something relevant.
    • Craig Y 30.1

      28 November 2013 at 2:35 pm

      This is relevant. The Nats seem to get themselves into these predicaments at nine year intervals and have done so ever since 1987. ie

      1987: Coalition of Concerned Citizens antigay group infiltrates weak Nat branches. Due to extremism and misbehaviour in cities, it ends up costing the Nats metropolitan support. Lange wins a second term.

      1996: Christian Heritage and Christian Democrats form a “Christian Coalition” but disclose in the fundamentalist newspaper Challenge Weekly that this is a cunning plan to get themselves into Parliament and then dissolve the coalition of con-venience. The ruse is revealed. Due to the “toxic trio” scenario involving National, ACT and CC, Bolger repudiates Graham Capill of CHP. Due to the resultant backlash, the CCs fail to pass the threshold, but the damage is done to the centre-right, leading to an ill-fated National/New Zealand First coalition (1996-1998)

      2005: Don Brash does a deal with the Exclusive Brethren for anonymous attack pamphlets and logistical support. Disclosure of this improper relationship results in the defeat of National and Brash’s subsequent downfall, leading to the Key ascendancy.

      2014: The Conservative Party…
    • tracey 30.2

      28 November 2013 at 3:32 pm

      what about the gisborne candidate who is on the hospital board and runs a sports promotion business.

      would not like to see rankin in the halls of power.
31. Tanz 31

    28 November 2013 at 4:19 pm

    yay yay yay. Colin Craig is such a relief to the Nat Lab potporri Good on them, they stand on principle.
    • Lightly 31.1

      28 November 2013 at 4:44 pm

      yeah, crazy principles
      • Rogue Trooper 31.1.1

        28 November 2013 at 6:16 pm

        and not Lightly either
    • Daveosaurus 31.2

      28 November 2013 at 8:42 pm

      And what principle would that be? Chemtrails?
32. chris73 32

    28 November 2013 at 5:54 pm

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    – So what stage is Colin Craig at now?
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 32.1

      28 November 2013 at 6:25 pm

      The part where anyone ignored him, Chris. Oh, and the part where he represented some sort of grass-roots political movement. The part where he wins is similarly dubious.

      On the other hand, for you, that’s quite an original remark. Is it yours?
      • chris73 32.1.1

        28 November 2013 at 6:49 pm

        Naah some guy named Goosey Goosey Ghandi…a smart guy not sure what became of him
        • gobsmacked 32.1.1.1

          28 November 2013 at 7:02 pm

          He was shot by religious extremists. Let’s get some more of those.
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 32.1.1.2

          28 November 2013 at 8:13 pm

          Um, no, Chris, not the Mahatma’s famous aphorism. The comparison with Colin Craig. Is it yours?
      • gobsmacked 32.1.2

        28 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

        It’s Mahatma Gandhi, that well-known multi-millionaire property developer who took on the might of the British Empire, on behalf of the poor and powerless, just like our Colin.

        So, it’s about as relevant as Thatcher quoting Francis of Assissi.
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 32.1.2.1

          28 November 2013 at 9:13 pm

          Much as he might limpidly dream, Chris73 is no Margaret Thatcher.
33. gobsmacked 33

    28 November 2013 at 6:15 pm

    And there it is again … the six o’clock freak show – on your TV every night!

    Banks slags off Craig. Craig knifes Banks.

    Key is frozen-smile “relaxed”.

    Keep it up guys, it’s gold.
    • Rogue Trooper 33.1

      28 November 2013 at 6:17 pm

      True, thanks for the heads-up
34. Wayne 34

    28 November 2013 at 9:04 pm

    You are ignoring the basic level of agreement between the Nats and Conservatives on a broad range of things including:
    1. Broad agreement on welfare accountability
    2. RMA reform
    3. Lowish taxes – they differ on how to do this
    4. A general belief in markets
    5. Schools accountable to parents
    6. Tougher on crime
    7. Not saying “no” to virtually everything that would boost growth
    8. Not instinctively hostile to the US

    John Key is not focussed on specific political differences, but on the broad direction of the two parties (which is a general characteristic he has in his overall political approach).

    Now there a lot of things the Conservatives may want, but which they will not get from the Nats. Michael Valley identifies quite a few of them.

    Much smarter to work out where the real negotiations would sit. In my view probably around more charter schools, maybe more ethics and values in schools (to deal with Roastbusters attitudes), probably some issues around crime – more police perhaps, income splitting, more welfare accountability. There will be other issues. I am sure the Nats would agree to a couple of hundred million extra annually on defense (maybe a third frigate) and some form of wider voluntary national service.

    And come the election, it will be Colin Craig and Christine Rankin as their public face. So it will be much harder to simply call them the Colin Craig Party. They have identified there is a consistent 3 to 5% vote in this electoral space, and that it just needs a motivated political vehicle to harness it. And Christine has a respectable political personna in the northern part of North Shore (and I have a very good understanding of the political dynamic of the old North Shore City).
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 34.1

      28 November 2013 at 9:19 pm

      “4. A general belief in markets”

      No, Wayne, Colin believes in his invisible friend, not his invisible hand.

      Oh, and where do you get off pretending that the Left is instinctively hostile to the USA? Republican bullshit, maybe, but can I perhaps rub your face in David Cunliffe’s overseas business experience?
    • gobsmacked 34.2

      28 November 2013 at 9:19 pm

      So Wayne, would you be happy for National’s MP to stand aside for a Conservative candidate in the North Shore electorate?
      • Wayne 34.2.1

        28 November 2013 at 10:27 pm

        Won’t be happening in the North Shore electorate, but the old North Shore City covers four electorates. North Shore electorate is probably the most liberal of the four.
        • felix 34.2.1.1

          28 November 2013 at 10:34 pm

          So, Wayne, would you be happy for National’s MP to stand aside for a Conservative candidate in the North Shore electorate?
          • Colonial Viper 34.2.1.1.1

            28 November 2013 at 10:53 pm

            to stand aside for Colin Crazy Craig as a candidate

            For clarity…
          • gobsmacked 34.2.1.1.2

            29 November 2013 at 11:41 am

            Awaiting your reply, Wayne.

            First you might want to consider Colin’s latest headline-seeker …

            http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-Colin-Craig-on-chemtrails-I-dont-know/tabid/506/articleID/39302/Default.aspx

            More to come, every day for the next year. Seriously, you want this?
            • gobsmacked 34.2.1.1.2.1

              29 November 2013 at 12:18 pm

              Oh look, there’s more already:

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/9457152/Craig-says-defence-needs-a-lift

              Colin says National’s defence policy is “an affront”, “a tragedy”, “embarrassing”, etc.

              Hey Wayne, what was your old job again? Something to do with defence? You must be delighted with your new friend.

              Colin keeps talking, National keep squirming. You just couldn’t make this up.
              • Rogue Trooper …

                29 November 2013 at 12:33 pm

                hee hee, well, it is approaching the season of giving, and New Zealanders are reportedly “world-leading re-gifters” (The Herald). One of the “Three Wise Men”, Colin Craig is not, more the wealthy man who went away sad.Mark 10:22
35. Tanz 35

    29 November 2013 at 10:53 am

    At least Craig has a spine, unlike the smiling wanna be celeb we have in charge.
    He is a true Christian, and he listens to the electorate unlike the arrogant mob-rule approach NZ is suffering under right now.
36. Tanz 36

    29 November 2013 at 10:53 am

    At least Craig has a spine, unlike the smiling wanna be celeb we have in charge.
    He is a true Christian, and he listens to the electorate unlike the arrogant mob-rule approach NZ is suffering under right now.
37. Tanz 37

    29 November 2013 at 10:53 am

    At least Craig has a spine, unlike the smiling wanna be celeb we have in charge.
    He is a true Christian, and he listens to the electorate unlike the arrogant mob-rule approach NZ is suffering under right now.
    • Anne 37.1

      29 November 2013 at 12:22 pm

      Yes, so you’ve told us. If he is an example of a true Christian, then no wonder the world is going to hell in a handcart!
38. captain hook 38

    29 November 2013 at 11:51 am

    the one thing they agree on is that they want to kick people that are in no psition to fight back.
    craig thinks he is a christian when he is more like and eastern despot and all key can think about i show much he is going to make on the next deal.
    like crummy dood.
39. gobsmacked 39

    29 November 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Wayne hasn’t responded on here, and you can understand why. There aren’t many good ways for a National supporter to say “Aaaaaarrgggh!” on a left-wing blog.

    But Wayne has revealed what he really thinks, in an awesome thread over on Kiwiblog:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/11/colin_craig_needs_to_stick_to_the_real_issues.html

    “This is much less about the 3 to 5% who may vote for him, but the 10% who swing between the Nats and Labour, who will think Colin is sounding like a loon. They will question whether the Conservatives are actually safe enough to be a coalition partner for a responsible government. At the moment Colin is scaring these voters to Labour.

    If [he] gets back to what matters (and PDQ) they will put it down to him going through a political learning curve, but if not, well I guess you can imagine what they will think; not about Colin, but about John Key’s judgement.”

    I agree entirely with Wayne. That’s why I want Colin Craig to keep talking, and National really, really don’t.
    • Anne 39.1

      29 November 2013 at 4:40 pm

      …Wayne has revealed what he really thinks, in an awesome thread over on Kiwiblog:

      Wayne is dishonest then when he comments on this site. He puts up strawmen and seems to think he can pull the wool over our eyes. He often refers to his stint as a member of the Labour Party back in the 80s decade, and gives the impression he ‘saw the light’ and transferred to the National Party. What he doesn’t reveal is that his membership covered the Rogernome years and he was an LP supporter in Auckland Central – Prebble’s electorate.
      • Anne 39.1.1

        29 November 2013 at 4:56 pm

        I should be very interested to know what years his foray into the world of intelligence covered?

        He served as a Major in 3rd Auckland (Countess of Ranfurly’s Own) and Northland Regiment Royal New Zealand Territorial Army, specialising in military intelligence and infantry.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Mapp
        • felix 39.1.1.1

          29 November 2013 at 9:14 pm

          I find it hard to believe that Wayne has ever entered the “world of intelligence” 😉
          • Anne 39.1.1.1.1

            29 November 2013 at 9:16 pm

            I suspect you don’t have to be all that intelligent to enter the “world of intelligence”. 😉
40. brian 40

    29 November 2013 at 7:40 pm

    To be up front,from some one,who origionally thought the Conservite Party had something to offer.I am now of the opion,That if they do succede in getting a number of seats.Regardless of the differences on some really major polcies.One gets the gut feeling.That Colin,will be more than favouable too put those differnces aside.And jump into bed with Mr Key.regardless of many of the Labour and Greens polcies,that have me worried.I personally would sooner that.Then,with a Goverment,that is presently eroding,many of our basics rights and freedoms.The present National Goverment(unlike the old National Party)Seems to be drifting ever further too the right..With every year that passes.One wonders how many years,down the track,before anyone,that might be considered anti Goverment.Gets a visit .From some goverment Official.While one should not get too parinoid about these things..Its amazing the amount of laws thta have been passed recently,infriging on peoples basic right to complain.They are already tampering with some of the electorial bounderys.Every democracy needs change occassionally too keep Pollies honest.
41. brian 41

    29 November 2013 at 7:40 pm

    To be up front,from some one,who origionally thought the Conservite Party had something to offer.I am now of the opion,That if they do succede in getting a number of seats.Regardless of the differences on some really major polcies.One gets the gut feeling.That Colin,will be more than favouable too put those differnces aside.And jump into bed with Mr Key.regardless of many of the Labour and Greens polcies,that have me worried.I personally would sooner that.Then,with a Goverment,that is presently eroding,many of our basics rights and freedoms.The present National Goverment(unlike the old National Party)Seems to be drifting ever further too the right..With every year that passes.One wonders how many years,down the track,before anyone,that might be considered anti Goverment.Gets a visit .From some goverment Official.While one should not get too parinoid about these things..Its amazing the amount of laws thta have been passed recently,infriging on peoples basic right to complain.They are already tampering with some of the electorial bounderys.Every democracy needs change occassionally too keep Pollies honest.
    • Anne 41.1

      29 November 2013 at 9:14 pm

      brian. Well said.

      Can I suggest you use spell check. or a dictionary. It will help to ensure your point of view is easier to read.
42. Martin 42

    29 November 2013 at 11:09 pm

    This blog seems to principally be a meeting place for people intent on tearing Colin Craig’s political image and reputation to shreds. I wonder how many contributors have actually taken the time to have a look on the Conservative Party’s website to familiarise themselves with the Party’s political objectives. Most of the recent media commentary appears to have been intent on discrediting Mr Craig and his Party by means of highly selective journalism. Further, continual negative reference to Mr Craig’s Christian beliefs is obnoxious. Mr Craig is emphatic that the Conservative Party is NOT a “Christian Party”. Surely one doesn’t have to be a Christian to live by Christian principles, which are, after all, what our country was built upon. A great number of people, including the writer, are not members of an organised religion, but uphold and endeavour to live in accordance with such values and maintain respect for others who do likewise.
    Two or three of the Conservative Party’s political objectives fail to resonate with me, but, by and large, the majority of them appear to be pretty much in accord with the hopes and aspirations of middle New Zealand. They may just be the moderating influence that the National Party is sorely in need of.
    • Pascal's bookie 42.1

      30 November 2013 at 12:47 pm

      Sorry to say it Martin, but much of that just made me more convinced that CCCP is similar to the US christian right wing. It’s all the same language, right down to the denials that the politics is an expression of the faith.

      In the US that’s because their constitution bars religious law making, here it’s because we are largely a secular folk. So instead of pushing an explicitly religious line we get told that it’s about our founding values, nudge wink.

      So what are these allegedly christian founding values in NZ?

      Christian values are to be found in the Nicene Creed, that’s what defines Christianity. There’s loads of stuff in the bible of course, but most of it can’t be claimed as exclusively or even originally christian.

      And how do those values, once you tell me what they are, fit into NZs actual history. NZ was created through the British colonial project. If anything other than about power, you’d be hard pressed to say that the values embodied in that project were about christianity more than they were about the enlightenment.

      Certainly you could talk about the role of missionary zeal that played out in colonialism, but even if we take that on its face value we are left with the goals being explicitly christian, which is what you were trying to deny.

      the man is either a fool or a rat, hiding his light under a bushel.
43. Craig 43

    30 November 2013 at 11:29 am

    Sorry, Martin, that’s an outright lie. The Conservative Party is a fundamentalist party. One only has to take a look at the Facebook posts of its Auckland Council or 2011 General Election candidates to notice straight away that the party does consist predominantly of fundamentalist Protestant Christians, albeit with one or two conservative Catholics and Mormons also present. To say it isn’t is to collude in the stealth strategy invented to mask the actual affiliation of militant fundamentalists first devised by fundamentalist Republican strategist Ralph Reed in the mid-nineties. Its election year publisher last time was Crown, which also publishes devotional literature as well as booklets for the conservative Presbyterian Affirm group and several 2011 candidates advertised on fundamentalist network Radio Rhema, while Craig also granted interviews to the fundamentalist newspaper Challenge Weekly. Christine Rankin even admitted as much in a Sunday Star Times piece.

    If it oinks, tastes like bacon and has a curly tail, then it is probably a pig.
    • Martin 43.1

      2 December 2013 at 4:29 pm

      Many thanks to “Pascal’s bookie” and Craig for their illuminating comments in response to my post. It would seem that my knowledge regarding the political ambitions of fundamentalist, Protestant Christians and their ilk is seriously lacking. Conservative Catholics I’m reasonably familiar with but Mormons are a little beyond my experience, although they usually impress me as being good citizens.
      In response to the question raised by “Pascal’s bookie”, the “Christian principles” or values to which I alluded are just the usual, old, boring set of standards for civilised conduct. You know, stuff like honesty, fidelity, doing unto others etc etc., as per the Ten Commandments, which are, whether one is a Christian or not, a pretty good set of rules to be guided by. In my experience (70+ yrs) people who live by these rules usually make good citizens and desirable neighbours! I therefore have no problems with Colin Craig’s, or any other person’s, “Christian” principles. I am far more interested in Colin’s political objectives.
44. Craig 44

    30 November 2013 at 11:32 am

    Chemtrails and now 9/11…yeesh, I know fundamentalists tend to be prone to bizarre conspiracy theories (or should I say “gullible?), but Colin Craig seems more credulous than most. One wonders if the media needs to be pointed in the direction of the hilarious “Climate Realists” webpage and some of its more bampot pieces about “one world government”…
45. Keith 45

    2 December 2013 at 10:52 am

    Michael Valley offers us a very reliable, unbiased, objective piece of reporting that we all should believe and accept on his authority. You can’t tell which way he might vote from his manner of writing given his objectivity. TV3 also can be trusted to tell it like it is when they report on nutter Colin’s backing of Palin and those smoke trails. They all dream up their “news” it appears after they have had after hours drinks at their favorite pubs. If they really researched their subject matters and did an honest day’s reporting–hey where else would we go for gossip then? They might even lose their jobs!
    • gobsmacked 45.1

      2 December 2013 at 11:41 am

      OK Keith, here’s your chance to set things straight.

      Which of Colin Craig’s reported statements are false?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS