Vote Key, get Colin

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, September 18th, 2014 - 97 comments
Categories: colin craig, conservative party, election 2014, john key, national - Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The latest Reid Research poll has the Conservatives a hair’s breadth away from being, officially, a necessary coalition partner if National wants a third term.

For a party which has been campaigning on a “let’s just keep skimming forward across a placid lake” narrative, this has to be seriously worrying for the Nats. The kinds of centrist voters who think John Key would be a nice bloke to have a beer with are not the kinds of people who want Christine “$235,000 for a management course” Rankin or Garth “abolish parole” McVicar at the table. And on 5%, they’ll also get Edward “young people commit suicide because we don’t smack them enough” Saafi.

Women voters, who received wisdom says John Key appeals to, aren’t going to be enamoured with Colin “Kiwi women are promiscuous” Craig. And when you think of a stable government, you probably don’t include parties whose leader’s press secretaries resign two days out from an election – without telling him.

Just today Bill English was comparing beneficiaries to cocaine addicts – so moderate voters can’t assume that National would be loath to lurch to the right if they had to. Right now, Key is doing his damnedest to distance himself from Colin and Friends, because he knows what a massive turn-off they are – but if it gets him three more years as PM, he’ll do it.

97 comments on “Vote Key, get Colin”

    • aerobubble 1.1

      Twice as destabilizing should Key be returned. Key is pretty much screwed if he wins, he’ll be looking to meet with Peters, he will try to put Collins back into cabinet, he’ll have to deal with a number of inquiries. And a large base of business will wonder what they’ve voted for for. Three years of unstable rancor.

    • Worse. Act were just about the money, these nutjobs want to change the world.
      Enough is enough is enough already.

      • Tom Gould 1.2.1

        Isn’t there some tie-up with Destiny Church and those [extremists]?

        • The Al1en 1.2.1.1

          I was using a variation of the slogan to deride Colin’s christian extremist party, though It wouldn’t surprise me if you are correct about a destiny tie in somewhere down the line.

    • McFlock 2.1

      apart from the fact that he doesn’t believe in AGW, and might be able to influence the next government.

      • aerobubble 2.1.1

        Its a strange myth that the right have nurtured, without talking about the economy they have become its guardians, its experts, its chosen. Should they talk sense they’d be exposed for their reckless disregard. I mean how could Key have introduced a tax cut in the middle of a NZ recession, during a GFC, that gave 40% of the tax benefit to the top 10%. Only one way, with a pandering media desperate for attention, to justify their high salaries, and little regard for the consent they were manufacturing. And you can bet, once the world dumps big oil, the media will get out and start reworking that into their right wing adoration scripts.

        • Nic the NZer 2.1.1.1

          The problem was never the tax cut, it was raising GST to balance it out.

          Australia went great guns through the GFC (proper) by giving a broad based tax cut out at the right time to keep spending going, this worked great (kept unemployment down) until both sides of the house decided the govt was spending too much and cut back.

          • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1

            the more effective option is to improve tax proportionality and boost lower-income economic activity.

            I.e. raise taxes on the rich, which cutting gst, increasing benefits and minimum wage, and government spending on large infrastructure projects that support economic activity.

            • Nic the NZer 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Raising taxes may in fact be counter-productive. The French have been trying to raise more taxes, in order to allow their government to engage in more spending. France has a real issue here in fact because if it runs a greater than 3% of GDP deficit its in violation of Euro area rules. The French economy has also been slowly degrading (e.g this doesn’t work).

              In order to actually boost the income of the real economy (and therefore contribute to unemployment decline) the government will need to run a deficit. So raising taxes may not be a great idea until the economy is doing better (especially if this makes it harder to be or remain in government). New Zealand does not have the same problem as France and can run as large a deficit as it see’s fit at any time.

              Targeting tax breaks at the low end of the income spectrum is however going to be more effective because the higher income end of town are just likely to save the extra and not spend it any further. Spending is what keeps the economy ticking over of course.

              • McFlock

                Assuming your attribution of cause and effect in france is correct, then the french economy is so different from new zealand’s that the relationship you observe is not applicable here.

                That’s exactly why economics is largely bunk – any use of a real-world example simply reinforces one’s own religious biases, or can be regarded as being inapplicable because of differences between economies and times.

                What we do know is that with high levels of poverty, unemployment and hardship, what’s been done over the last 6 or 30 years hasn’t worked.

                So raise the minimum wage, cut taxes that hit the poor, and reduce the skyrocketing government debt by using tax hikes on the rich to make up the difference. Because at least it’s an attempt to help people in need, rather than 1% who don’t need a damned thing.

                • Nic the NZer

                  We are almost certainly on the same page on the goal, but I think you miss-understand due to some neo-liberal myths which are hard to escape.

                  You don’t want to reduce the govt debt, because the govt debt is irrelevant (it doesn’t constrain the governments spending in any way shape or form). In order to reduce the government debt you will need the government to run a surplus, and if the government is running a surplus it is subtracting income from the economy and in doing so increasing unemployment.

                  Also if you try too hard to tax further the rich you are simply likely to end up out of government, so you have to earn the popularity to allow the government to do this. Its clearly more important for the government to reduce unemployment than to worry about how much wealth people have. Unemployment has many effects, particularly in driving down wages, so by supporting more full employment you will be doing a lot towards equality and improving the wage/profit balance of the economy as well.

                  • McFlock

                    Debt might or might not be an issue, but personally I suspect that there is a limit to it before it starts affecting confidence in the entire economic system. So credit dries up and we GFC ourselves.

                    If taxing the rich is matched by increases in the standing of living in the 99%, then that can only be a vote winner. It’s not like the rich are particularly highly taxed after the last 30 years of neoliberalism.

                    I agee with a full employment objective, but we also need free healthcare and education, and dignified benefits for those who can neither work nor study.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      The govt debt will never be an issue for NZ. The following link shows Japan dealing with its huge govt debt easily because its a non issue. NZ will in a similar way be able to rely on the RBNZ to keep credit working. NZ creates the finance needed for the economy to function and talk of external credit sources drying up is wholy missleading and feeds into the neo-liberal myth that the country can go broke (nonsense).

                      No problems with state services being a major contribution to full employment.

                      http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=28918

                    • McFlock

                      although govt debt seems to have been a bit of an issue for argentina & co.

                      It’s not so much the direct effect of the government going broke that I have concerns of, it’s more slowing down the private sector economy which might lead to more problems for people in need of work.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      “although govt debt seems to have been a bit of an issue for argentina & co.”

                      Nope, Argentina had problems getting enough US$ to fix their exchange rate. They have never had any issue getting access to enough Peso however. NZ has not had a fixed exchange rate for decades.

                      http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11444

                      “It’s not so much the direct effect of the government going broke that I have concerns of, it’s more slowing down the private sector economy which might lead to more problems for people in need of work.”

                      And they are doing much better following the default and taking back control over their economy again.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      although govt debt seems to have been a bit of an issue for argentina & co.

                      it boils down to an issue of currency sovereignty. I back Nic’s general comments, and only add that many of Argentina’s current bond repayment woes are due to it issuing bonds in foreign currencies ie. debt which it needs to pay back in Euros or USD – currencies which Argentina does not control of, is not sovereign over, and generally lacks enough of.

                      If those bonds were payable in Argentinian pesos on the other hand – do you think the Argies would have any difficulty at all in paying them back?

                    • McFlock

                      apart from the fact that NZ is a trading nation.

                      So sooner or later there needs to be a bridge between what shit costs overseas and what it costs in NZ, and if our currency collapses (as opposed to a gradual shift) we’re in the crapper.

                      I think you’ll find that the lenders to argentina stipulated non-argenitinian currencies because they wanted to be paid back in something that was worth the paper it was printed on.

                      Basically, I’m not convinced that large amounts of crown debt would be a tremendous problem, but nor am I convinced that its a blank cheque the government can pay everybody with and not expect consequences. My main concern is to improve the economy, rather than create the massive changes that would leave many ordinary people in hardship if they can’t adapt quickly enough. That’s why I reckon surpluses should be run by taxing the rich.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      “apart from the fact that NZ is a trading nation.”

                      Just like every other ‘trading nation’ in the world. Your further statements are just nonsense.

                      “I think you’ll find that the lenders to argentina stipulated non-argenitinian currencies because they wanted to be paid back in something that was worth the paper it was printed on.”

                      By lenders you mean the IMF?

                      “Convertibility was also the idea of the major international organisations such as the IMF as a way of disciplining domestic policy. While Argentina had suffered from high inflation in the 1980s, the correct solution was not to impose a currency board.” – Bill Mitchell.

                      The government in Argentina determines what currency they borrow in as a sovereign. Lenders don’t, IMF influence not withstanding.

                      “but nor am I convinced that its a blank cheque the government can pay everybody with and not expect consequences. My main concern is to improve the economy”

                      Its not a blank cheque (the government should consider its spending more closely at full employment levels), there will be consequences (including higher employment). That seems to be a good thing.

                      “That’s why I reckon surpluses should be run by taxing the rich.”

                      If the government is running a surplus it is always taking income away from the economy, and therefore pushing unemployment up. This will definitely hurt the lower class before the upper class (which is why National and other neo-liberals are so keen on this) regardless of attempts to extract tax from the upper classes.

                    • McFlock

                      well the highlights are:

                      The government in Argentina determines what currency they borrow in as a sovereign. Lenders don’t, IMF influence not withstanding.

                      lol
                      Yeah, nah. That assumes the freedom to dictate to the folks who have the money one wants to borrow.

                      Its not a blank cheque (the government should consider its spending more closely at full employment levels), there will be consequences (including higher employment). That seems to be a good thing.

                      Why is higher employment a necessary consequence of government debt? It doesn’t seem to be the current case in NZ.

                      If the government is running a surplus it is always taking income away from the economy, and therefore pushing unemployment up. This will definitely hurt the lower class before the upper class (which is why National and other neo-liberals are so keen on this) regardless of attempts to extract tax from the upper classes.

                      Yes and no.
                      If the government runs a surplus by skimming off the top of the economy, it doesn’t remove money as such. It stores it for when the economy cycles down and government spending is required to heat it up again.

                      This skim doesn’t affect poorer people, because trickle-down economics are a myth.

                      If the government is already at a high debt level before the economy cycles down, then your argument seems to be that internation lenders will lend the government money and be happy with repayment in a currency that is already heavily weakened by existing debt. The government then has no way to affect the economy.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      “That assumes the freedom to dictate to the folks who have the money one wants to borrow.”

                      In which way have you contradicted my statement that Argentina can select which currency it wants to try to borrow in (including its own Peso)? I don’t see it.

                      “Why is higher employment a necessary consequence of government debt? It doesn’t seem to be the current case in NZ.”

                      Its not higher debt, the connection is the deficit/surplus. When in deficit the government is spending more than it collects in taxes. This adds income to the economy. When in surplus the reverse. As income available to the economy increases then the economy will create more work in order to earn that income (for fairly obvious reasons).

                      “If the government runs a surplus by skimming off the top of the economy, it doesn’t remove money as such”

                      It does, $ for $. This is simply accounting.
                      http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21389

                      “This skim doesn’t affect poorer people, because trickle-down economics are a myth.”

                      If the government ‘skim’ inflicts sufficient austerity on people (including rich people) that they cut back on spending and this lack of spending creates unemployment then yes this affects the unemployed people (who are usually poor to begin with).

                      “If the government is already at a high debt level before the economy cycles down, then your argument seems to be that international lenders will lend the government money and be happy with repayment in a currency that is already heavily weakened by existing debt.”

                      The government debt is irrelevant for NZ when borrowing in a currency the country issues (c.f my earlier link discussing Japan). As can be seen Japan is essentially funding itself (and the ‘lenders’ are demanding that the government borrow more from them). NZ can do the same thing, so can Argentina when sticking to Peso denominated debt.

                    • McFlock

                      In which way have you contradicted my statement that Argentina can select which currency it wants to try to borrow in (including its own Peso)? I don’t see it.

                      try to borrow in wasn’t the statement.
                      One can try to do anything, but whether anyone else cooperates is an issue. And even if you get what you want, the Weimar Republic might be a cogent lesson.

                      Its not higher debt, the connection is the deficit/surplus. When in deficit the government is spending more than it collects in taxes. This adds income to the economy. When in surplus the reverse. As income available to the economy increases then the economy will create more work in order to earn that income (for fairly obvious reasons).

                      Or the value of that income decreases as the credibility of the government guarantee of value as a means of exchange becomes more farcical.

                      “If the government runs a surplus by skimming off the top of the economy, it doesn’t remove money as such”

                      It does, $ for $. This is simply accounting.

                      The government’s books are part of the economy’s books.

                      “This skim doesn’t affect poorer people, because trickle-down economics are a myth.”

                      If the government ‘skim’ inflicts sufficient austerity on people (including rich people) that they cut back on spending and this lack of spending creates unemployment then yes this affects the unemployed people (who are usually poor to begin with).

                      Assuming that your piddle-down theory is correct, there seems to be an implicit assumption that there is no overlap where a government surplus can be achieved via progressive taxation offsetting substantial government expenditure, while at the same time avoiding that level “sufficient austerity” which outweighs the benefits of the government expenditure.

                      We each seem to be a bit gun-shy of two different things – you seem to be in fear of declining activity as a result of a critical level of taxation, whereas I’m in fear of economic collapse as a result of a critical level of government debt.

                      The government debt is irrelevant for NZ when borrowing in a currency the country issues (c.f my earlier link discussing Japan). As can be seen Japan is essentially funding itself (and the ‘lenders’ are demanding that the government borrow more from them). NZ can do the same thing, so can Argentina when sticking to Peso denominated debt.

                      that only works so long as the government can pay the interest to its creditors at a level that the creditors find worthwhile, regardless of currency. I suspect that the Japanese example is slightly more complex that them just printing Yen, and that other factors are in play to maintain the value of the currency. Whether the accumulated debt bites them in the arse like it did many other nations (greece, for example) is a matter yet to be seen.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      “try to borrow in wasn’t the statement.”

                      Yes it was. I said this,

                      “The government in Argentina determines what currency they borrow in as a sovereign. Lenders don’t, IMF influence not withstanding.”

                      But just to repeat,

                      “I think you’ll find that the lenders to argentina stipulated non-argenitinian currencies”

                      No they didn’t. The IMF had an influence on the Argentinian government, but the lenders didn’t stipulate which currency to borrow in. When you lend to the NZ govt you don’t get to say which currency they are borrowing the govt says which currency they want to borrow.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      Then there is this nonsense,

                      “Assuming that your piddle-down theory is correct, there seems to be an implicit assumption that there is no overlap where a government surplus can be achieved via progressive taxation offsetting substantial government expenditure, while at the same time avoiding that level “sufficient austerity” which outweighs the benefits of the government expenditure.”

                      Its pretty ridiculous calling my theory ‘piddle-down’ to try to associate it with the widely discredited trickle down theory. This is pretty ridiculous because the central point of the trickle down theory is to assert that a govt running a balanced budget will result in the private sector maximizing economic activity and employment due to minimal govt interference. This is supposed to create the maximum possible amount of employment in the economy without triggering accelerating inflation (c.f the NAIRU). Its pretty ridiculous because its closely related to what you are suggesting in fact (which is that something to do with the govt debt levels will cause some kind of, probably inflation or foreign exchange, related issue so the government must run a ‘balanced budget’).

                      What you need to understand about the Cullen era surplus is that it was only possible connected to rising levels of private sector debt (referred to as the housing bubble). This course of the economy changed radically around the GFC (you can see private sector spending patterns change and unemployment rose at the same time, exactly as I have been suggesting happens). The govt now needs to compensate for a lack of private sector activity or similar levels of employment are no going to happen.

                      Yes, when govts were committed to full employment they used to run deficits to achieve that.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      It should also be pointed out that your idea of sufficient taxation to offset govt economic activity is getting a thorough try. Its being tried all over Europe, due to the criteria that govt’s in the Euro only be allowed to run a 3% of GDP budget deficit. The results are quite clear rising unemployment all over Europe. Pretty much everywhere where the govt is trying to balance its budget, and pretty much regardless of which parts of society are being made to pay as well.

                      France one of the more ‘enlightened’ nations has targeted taxes at the wealthy (causing Jerard Depardieu to leave). Here are the results,

                      http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=28785

                    • McFlock

                      When you lend to the NZ govt you don’t get to say which currency they are borrowing the govt says which currency they want to borrow.

                      That’s the “try” bit.

                      Your statement “The government in Argentina determines what currency they borrow in as a sovereign. Lenders don’t, IMF influence not withstanding” presupposes that the transaction is completed.

                      But nothing forces lenders to accept the terms. So the government doesn’t get to dictate that they can repay the lenders in scrap paper.

                      They might accept scrap paper if they think it puts them in a position to force the government to give them something useful down the line, or if they get offered a sheer volume of scrap paper that happens to be worth something, but the key point is that the lender wants to make a profit over the long term, and they wont get that if the currency is devalued due to massive borrowing.

                      At the very least, the amount of payments in that scrip will flood the exchange market, so future lenders will either want payment in a stable currency or even greater volumes of it. They then come back in and buy things of actual value with the oodles of scrip that is no longer worth a damned thing.

                    • McFlock

                      It should also be pointed out that your idea of sufficient taxation to offset govt economic activity is getting a thorough try. Its being tried all over Europe, due to the criteria that govt’s in the Euro only be allowed to run a 3% of GDP budget deficit. The results are quite clear rising unemployment all over Europe. Pretty much everywhere where the govt is trying to balance its budget, and pretty much regardless of which parts of society are being made to pay as well.

                      oh no, rich exiles, cry me a river.

                      Again, blaming all that on one factor is a bit silly, and my original point is that I can then argueany number of factors that make your alleged example irrelevant.

                      And it still doesn’t address the point about whether there’s a conceptual gap between “surplus achieved” and “overtaxed” in new zealand, and whether unlimited borrowing like we have now is a good idea.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      “That’s the “try” bit”

                      As my example of Japan shows the desire of lenders to lend is not important when issuing in your own currency. The central bank can lend to the govt if needed (not that Japan or Argentina for that matter has any trouble finding lenders).

                      “oh no, rich exiles, cry me a river.”

                      Clearly missing the point, I was simply pointing out that the French solution was quite progressive as you suggest. The issue is the high unemployment in France resulting from lack of govt deficit, not the exiles.

                    • McFlock

                      As my example of Japan shows the desire of lenders to lend is not important when issuing in your own currency in that case, all assumptions and simplifications being granted. The central bank can lend to the govt if needed (not that Japan or Argentina for that matter has any trouble finding lenders).

                      FIFY

                      I was simply pointing out that the French solution was quite progressive as you suggest. The issue is the high unemployment in France resulting from lack of govt deficit, not the exiles.

                      I read somewhere a while back that the difference between keynesian interventionism working and neoliberalism actually working by and large comes down to whether the weighting on one particular multiplier in the economic models.
                      Regardless as to whether that is true, it illustrates where we’re at in the discussion: the principles are being argued about, when in fact either or both of us might be correct or incorrect depending on whether we’re talking tax rates of 70% or 80% on income over a million, or government deficits of 0.5% or 50% of GDP.

                      Anyhoo, I’m off to the shops. Might be back later, might be drunk, might do both, it’s up to the gods to decide 🙂

                    • Nic the NZer

                      “when issuing in your own currency in that case, all assumptions and simplifications being granted. The central bank can lend to the govt if needed”

                      In this case you are talking about an accounting operation between a govt and its central bank. There really are not a lot of assumptions there. If I had said that the govt will always be able to borrow from the private sector in its own currency you might have a point.

  1. (i have looked at craigs’ party-list..whoar..!..)

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/tose-who-run-with-colin-craig-what-they-believe-and-the-ministerial-roles-they-seek-mcvicar-for-corrections-whoar/

    “..those who run with colin craig…who they are..what they have done before..what they believe..and the ministerial-roles they seek…(mcvicar for corrections..?..whoar..!..chain-gangs-alert..!..)..”

    (excerpt..)

    “..(ed:..be afraid..be very afraid..

    ..these are seriously out-there nutjobs..

    ..just slavering to be able to cut down benificiaries/rack up the punishment-levels on prisoners..etc..etc..

    ..and any national party voter..looking at the moon-landing-deniers’ party..’cos they are uneasy over the stench of corruption coming from the key govt..

    ..needs to ‘think on’..

    ..they’d be betterr off just staying at home on the day..

    ..expressing their (understandable) disquiet that way..”

    (cont..)

  2. brian 4

    What I find most disturbing is that as many as 5% of the population could agree with Colon Craig.

    And I shudder to imagine which crackpot Craig policy, Key will be willing to trade for Confidence and Supply.

  3. Naki man 5

    Garth McVicar would make a great MP. The Internet Mana freak show has made the Conservatives look very credible. Everyone is sick to death of anything to do with [Kim Dotcom] and his puppets.

    [Stephanie: This thread doesn’t need to sink into pointless abuse. Plenty of things to criticise KDC for besides his weight, nationality and clothing.]

    • framu 5.1

      you were aware that he thinks gay marriage = a higher youth crime rate?

    • Naki man – so in your world a ‘lock up for longer’ crusader is what we need. The perfect evidence of how regressive the conservative world view is. Garth McVicar I hold with the same contempt I have for John Key, John Banks, Cameron Slater, Cathy Odgers, Jordan Williams, Simon Lusk and all members of ACT.

    • Hanswurst 5.3

      I have no idea what twisted rationale manages to compare the likes of Christine Rankin, Garth McVicar, Colin Craig and Steve Taylor to Annette Sykes, John Minto, Hone Harawira and Laila Harre (and yes, even Kim Dotcom), and conclude that the latter group constitutes a freak show.

      • Tracey 5.3.1

        Dont forget the bioscientist who thinks if we hit our kids more their suicide rates drop.. I think he is three or four on their list.

  4. aerobubble 6

    The Key Tax cut policy, means less services for most people while giving the lion share 40% of the tax cut to the top 10%. Add in deregulation, a NZ recession and a global banking crisis, and lower to middle income earners are hurt.

    Now we have lots of distractions. Colin Conservatives, Whyte, Collins resignation, Dotcom, all hogging the media. Is it any wonder that a bit of cash could easily skew pollsters to provide the PM with consistent 50% popularity and make sure we all know about it (because big money got Slater to do the dirty for Key, set the agenda, the language, the framing, that the pliant media dutifully follows).

    And at the end, Key gets re-elected. Its not democracy, its absurdity. We know there is a productivity crisis in NZ, we know there’s a housing crisis, a huge debt problem, and yet we end up dissing Colin for his funny walk.

    I hope people vote out this hopeless incompetent PM of ours, because I fear people will have to turn off, tune out, just to keep the nonsense media drivel from over powering them.

  5. greywarbler 7

    An image of CCraig on promotional material that has accumulated in the last week shows him with a determined open-eyed stare that might be supposed to give a look of transparency but leaves the feeling of manic wackiness there.

    • I would really appreciate it if people could avoid over-used stereotypes about mental illness when discussing Colin Craig. He isn’t “crazy” or “manic”, he’s an extreme conservative whose policies are regressive.

  6. Sans Cle 8

    I came to this blog fairly recently, as I liked the intelligent discussions that I saw; and I saw a lot of respect that people had for eachother in how they communicated online. Having a rabid go at the Conservatives is just as bad as what Slater does. This is a democracy and we have to accept diversity of opinion – Craig was in the right place at the right time to scoop up National supporters (who were/are sick of their leader and also want change), hence Conservative’s ratings increased.
    I find that whoever is behind this smear on Colin Craig today, two days out from the election is no better than what has been done by Slater to Labour and any other unfortunates, who he (Slater) took a disliking to. We were all disgusted with dirty politics. Does it not matter now that it is directed to the opposition, people we don’t agree with? I find it foul – while I in no way align or agree with Conservative policies – clearly some people do (possibly 5%).
    And once again, the MSM are all over the story, sensationalising it.
    Where are there stories on politics today? Disgusting tabloid pictures and stories on stuff and the herald. It seems the MSM want to pull a blanket over their heads, lest they report the slippery-slide of National. Here the MSM and this post are jumping on CC. I don’t revel in a smear against any party, even though I think CC is a [redacted].

    • Sans, you are welcome to point out anything “rabid” about this post, which doesn’t name-call and backs up every assertion about Colin Craig and his associates with links.

      This isn’t a “smear”. It’s my personal opinion.

      And I have edited your comment to remove pointless abuse which reinforces bigotry against mental illness.

      • weka 8.1.1

        “Having a rabid go at the Conservatives is just as bad as what Slater does.”

        If Stephanie were doing a Slater she would now be looking up your IP address and figuring out where you live. She would also abuse you personally for your comment and probably remove subsequent ones.

        If you think Dirty Politics is about saying negative things about politicians you have almost entirely missed the point.

        Above is a short, to the point post about CP policies. Why do you not think it’s relevant to discuss them?

      • Sans Cle 8.1.2

        Apologies
        I am not a bigot and did not intend to reinforce any stereotypes against mental illness

        • Tracey 8.1.2.1

          I wonder if slater and the dirty tactics is behind the craig smear. As soon as I hear barry soper was involved… If you watch prime news you can be forgiven for wondering if soper is on slaters list of journoswith something to fear. Its likedirty politics never happened for soper so enamoured is he with key

    • AsleepWhileWalking 8.2

      Huh?
      This site is well run, well moderated and as far as I know has never been taken to court for something it published. Nothing wrong with opinions about an extreme fringe party.

    • aerobubble 8.3

      Its a fact of politics that smearing oneself to get brand recognition is essential at the start of any campaign, apart from Key and Peters. Just note how little coverage Greens have gotten compared to Colin or Whyte, even Hone. All three cop it yet and so get the media head lines. So please grow up, this is politics, yes can mean no, right does mean wrong, and nothing is as it seems because politician dont necessarily want to talk to you and are talking over you to their likely voter block.
      So to a retired person Colin could look like a young pugnacious firebrand, but to Green voter to me he scares the begeesious out of me when I heard he put McVicar on the Conservative list.

  7. minarch 9

    Colin scares me a bit to be honest

    & I dont scare easily

    1 word describes him accurately IMO

    slenderman………

  8. Rather than addressing this message to National voters, (there are enough RWNJs out there to get Colin and his band of Neanderthals elected) it needs to be addressed to youth who will be the main victims of the return to feudalism.
    Vote left to stay in the 21st century, no going back the 18th century!

  9. Nic the NZer 11

    Bill English has form in this area. I realized NZ politics is not so different from US politics when I heard the story of a US senator complaining that his constituents were too drug addled to pass an employer drugs test, and then remembered that our deputy prime minister has said the same thing (about Dipton) just a few days before about his electorate (to Fed Farmers).

    Will the PM distance himself from his finance minister?

  10. The Real Matthew 12

    Stephanie I think your post is a little misleading.

    If the Conservatives were to make 5% they wouldn’t necessarily be required to get a National co-alition over the line. It could well be a National/NZ First or a National/NZ First/UF/Maori arrangement.

    I’ll also add that I haven’t seen one poll that has the Conservative Party polling at or over the 5% threshold and it is mischievous to select the poll they have done the best in and base your assumptions on one poll.

    • aerobubble 12.1

      So Peters gets a veto on Colin’s agenda?

      Do think its funny now Slater has been ousted that Key has to his own throwing.

      Henchmen.

      Key must miss the quick txt to Slater.

      sorry, Key’s office quick txts to Slater. my bad.

    • weka 12.2

      “If the Conservatives were to make 5% they wouldn’t necessarily be required to get a National co-alition over the line. It could well be a National/NZ First or a National/NZ First/UF/Maori arrangement.”

      +1

    • Polls notoriously underestimate smaller parties, and the Conservatives have been steadily increasing with each one. It’s not my fault if John Key has decided that the Conservativs pose a threat and is reacting accordingly, and frankly, I’m not going to apologise for pointing out that we are facing the possibility of the Conservatives playing a key role in the next government if National have to deal with them.

      The only thing “mischievous” I’m doing is using a silly photo of Colin Craig which he himself let out into the public arena.

  11. Nick K 13

    At 6% they also get Steve “friend of Kelvyn Alp” Taylor.: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0708/S00028.htm

    Google Kelvyn Alp if you haven’t heard of him. And then check out his mate at # 10 on this list: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/direct-democracy-party/news/article.cfm?o_id=600537&objectid=10342415

  12. hoom 14

    Saw a fascinating thing this morning.
    At cnr of Parnell Rd, Ayr St & Domain Drv both Act (replete with wooden block guy) & Conservative people standing on the corners waving placards.

    Aside from causing public nuisance by being in the way of us pedestrians trying to cross the road I was curious about what was going on there.

    On the face of it, appeared to be cooperative.
    But presumably must actually have been Cons being spoilers because every vote for Rankin is a split & essentially a vote against the Act deal.

    I made sure they knew I was voting Goldsmith lol.

    Also, recieved Conservative pamphlet in the mail yesterday: smiling CC in the middle really disturbed me in a weird way.

    My brain went ‘agh zombie wants to eat me’ drop that thing & run away.

    But I just kept on being drawn back to those intense eyes like a possum on the road -> again ‘agh zombie wants to eat me’ drop it & run away, over & over.

  13. PlanetEarth 15

    OK

    If Key gets to form the government, then you get Craig IF National doesn’t get to govern alone, or govern with ACT/UF and/or Maori/Winston First.

    If Cunliffe gets to form the government then you get Norman/Turei/Peters in government FOR SURE, plus Harawira/Harre/Sykes (Minto?) required for Confidence & Supply (for some quid pro quo).

    You may have a good argument for changing the government, but this isn’t it

    • Obviously there are several possible ways National could form a government, depending on the final votes. But if the Conservatives get over 5% I think it’s impossible National will be able to rule alone (I think that’s impossible anyway.)

      • weka 15.1.1

        Is that because you think the CP votes will have come at the expense of National?

          • lurgee 15.1.1.1.1

            A pedant notes: National have never been able to govern alone in the MMP era. They have never won a majority of the votes or of seats.

            In fact since the war, they have only ever secured a majority of votes on two occasions – 1949 and 1951, when the Red Menace propaganda was swirling around New Zealand. FPTP has given the majorities of seats on several other occasions, however.

            • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.1.1.1

              And 1951 was the last time under FPP that we actually had a government that also had the majority of the popular vote.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.2

      The fact that the current government is a criminal, bought government isn’t foremost in your “mind”, “PlanetEarth”?

      The hubris of purporting to speak for Earth aside, can you honestly say that if Kim Dotcom were a candidate (which he isn’t), he’d make a worse Minister of Justice than Judith Ratfucker Collins?

      No, you can’t. He’d make a better leader of the National Party than John Key even – Dotcom may be exuberant and yet, he isn’t a calculating fraud like Key.

    • Draco T Bastard 15.3

      You didn’t make any arguments, you just made an assertion. A horribly uninformed one at that.

      And here’s the thing. The only argument that matters is that National, Act, UF, CCCP and mP are all corrupt. Get them in government and they will continue dismantling our democracy and fucking over our economy to enrich the already rich.

  14. NZJester 16

    With a headline like (Colin Craig’s press secretary quits, reportedly calls him a ‘manipulative man’) on the NZ Herald webpage, will his chances now be a little bit more uphill?
    Looks like the public image he is trying to spin does not match his real behind doors nature.
    Is it surprising that a right wing leader like Colin Craig would be manipulative, not really as that seams to be in their nature. His manipulation of the dark-side is just not as strong as the Sith Lord Key.
    I wonder if a few voters might leave him now for Winston?
    Winston will be the real one to watch in this election as there is no guarantee he will not agree to a deal to prop up the National government for another term.
    We can only hope the left has the numbers without Winston to put this country back on a trail of growth, rather than 3 more years of National running this country further in to debt!

  15. Treetop 17

    A vote for Graig is a vote against Dunne and Whyte (backlash by voters). Dunne and Whyte are gone, if Graig does not reach 5% the only coalition partner could be the Maori Party, max 2 seats.

    If Peters wants to clean up the rot in NZ, he will do this quicker by going with the Greens and Labour.

  16. Janice 18

    CC was on with Katherine Ryan the other day and among all the RW things that he wants do he mentioned that the upcoming Alternative Medicines Bill was unnecessary and they wouldn’t support it. Isn’t he in some way associated with Douglas Pharmaceuticals?

  17. b waghorn 19

    I think part of the conservative s rise can be laid at dot Coms feet. Were else can people go who don’t want key have had enough of Winston and are wary labour having to use IM . Surely they could of got the Snowdon facts out without the dot com side show.

  18. Black Lemming 20

    CONSERVATIVES IN EPSOM

    Imagine Labour /Green voters voting strategically for National/Goldsmith in Epsom to shut act out ,

    Coupled with (as Hoom cleverly suggests )Rankin spliting and lowering the act vote in the same electorate . That’s smooth baby …..

    I don’t think Rankin will pull much electorate vote , but every one she gets will be coming off the act total ….and every National/Labour /Green electorate vote helps push Goldsmith up …..you just never know ,it might just work !

    Keys must be very confident from his internal polling , that act will win Epsom .

    Personally I would have pulled Goldsmith a week before the election for “Family reasons ” ,to cover out and block any potential for a strategic left counter vote . Keys may still live to regret not pulling Goldsmith .Its going to be quite a ride .

    Epsom – The movie ; could be a Hollywood blockbuster .Features large earrings ,yellow jackets and really bad dancing . As they say in Cuba , when the bus is 4 hours late ” don’t worry bro , its all part of the charm “.

  19. How Terrible... 21

    Tax Free first $20K

    That would be the most significant for the most vulnerable and left behind, as it will be for a majority of their income bracket ahead of any other demographic – Elementary Math.

    Binding Citizen Referendums.

    Again, empowering the common citizenship against political Bull@#$#%.

    Small govt. when govt. has become entirely politics and lunatic synchophants peddling any ole bunch of un-accountable contradictory crap day in/day out under the guise of some mythical left/right paradigm swindle is of course a very scary prospect for you lot….it would mean time to look for a new way to become relevant in trying to have more authority over your natural governing betters – the vast majority of the population 🙂

    By the way, i respect your rights to be what you are, but in a systemic sense it is against the good graces of nature for that to entail any jurisdiction over other approaches to life; and in fact more successful primitive societies in the past who couldn’t survive for long at all with such removal from common community standards use to have such elements uncermoniously put-down when it threatened the well-being of the group.

    An example of that would be all the kind of reject characteristics that the Green Party think they represent to the excesses of modern life and hold up on an altar, when in the vast majority of cases these would have in fact probably had them ‘culled’ as a threat to their successful long standing society traditions. To me that line of etiquette is not appropriate for these times, but it was nevertheless what the reality quite demonstrably was in the past to such sectors before they grew and retarded the collective Group at large.

    • Small govt.

      Modern capitalism needs big government. They are two sides of the same coin. Are you suggesting we abandon modernity?

    • Nic the NZer 21.2

      I am having a bit of trouble making sense of a couple of paragraphs there but I think you have identified an important issue.

      Just for the record is Colin Craig for or against ‘Culling’?

    • greywarbler 21.3

      Tax free first $20K
      I am very much against tax free status. The poor and low income, whichever description used, should be able to stand tall and say we pay taxes to the many denigrating them from the wealthy echelons. Of course with GST everyone is paying 15% on significant numbers of transactions. There is psychological power in paying tax, apart from the contribution to the state and its services provided.

      Despite the ubiquitous GST the wealthy are still drawn to such groups as ‘The Taxpayers Union’ as if they are some special minority. When actually significant wealthy are more likely to be non-taxpayers because of smart avoidance if not evasion.

      5% bottom tax would be reasonable and ensure that everyone feels they are contributing and are not just a burden carried by everyone else. Which otherwise would be a constant theme. Everyone contributing according to their means is a democratic society at work. Paying no tax would be portrayed as extending charity to the part of society which would be classified as losers and dropouts by the smug and comfortable. The state then takes on the role of the aristocratic estate owner looking after its tenants with a noblesse oblige approach.

      I would like to see 5% tax on interest also, up to the first say $100 interest received. I am sick of getting taxed a few cents on my tiny interest receipts which hardly covers official CPI inflation, and then I am taxed 17 or 19% tax on that. The state is actually reducing my savings. No wonder that people don’t keep much in cash reserves. Is there a tax wonk out there who can understand the disincentive of this?

      • Colonial Viper 21.3.1

        I am very much against tax free status. The poor and low income, whichever description used, should be able to stand tall and say we pay taxes to the many denigrating them from the wealthy echelons.

        I think they’d just prefer the extra $20 per week, to be honest.

        • greywarbler 21.3.1.1

          @ colonial viper
          To be honest no doubt. But there is their position in the hierarchy of the systemto be considered. It shouldn’t be set forever in people’s minds as receiving handouts. Give them the status of low income taxpayers, part of the community fabric not beseechers of charity.

  20. I don’t know which of their ridiculous policies to mock first. Is it the child beating, the introduction of chain gangs, binding referendums, or their attempt to start a race war in NZ.

    • Nic the NZer 22.1

      I support binding referendums, I don’t think they will work out quite the way Colin wants however. I don’t think that most citizens support regressive conservative policies. Once this is in place then the referendum questions will have to be a bit more meaningful than the nonsense non-binding referendum questions we are currently fed as well.

      • Tom Jackson 22.1.1

        A main point of representative democracy is to avoid people going off half cocked when it comes to the fad of the moment.

        • Nic the NZer 22.1.1.1

          I don’t share your distrust of the electorate.

          • Tom Jackson 22.1.1.1.1

            It’s not distrust. The rest of us simply don’t have time to learn all we would need to learn to make an informed decision on the number of referendums there would be if they were made compulsory. Then you have the problem that any reasonably complicated issue is going to produce cyclical majorities.

  21. Papa Tuanuku 23

    Two cases of Conservatives number 3 crime fighter Garrett standing up for the rights of white male perps:

    Garth McVicar – racist

    Garrett and McVicar partners in crime

  22. Brent 24

    Christine Rankins foray into Auckland local government was to get herself elected to the final Auckland Regional Council .It was a standing joke among Staff and Councillors that while she was running high priced “leadership courses ” at the council table hers was usually an empty seat . This because with five minutes before the statutory attendance time was up the bangles would jangle the earings picked the hair tossed – and on the dot of minimum time she was off with the meeting fee.

    She was the worst performing Councilor on that ARC and one of the worst ever elected to it . Not only did she completely rort the meeting fee system – wait for it – she hardly uttered a syllable the entire three years she was there .

    She’s dumb – but boy is she brassy

  23. Hanswurst 25

    Key says that if the voters want steak, they should buy steak, but voters at this point should know at this point that if they don’t want BSE, the only sure way of avoiding it is to stay away from the steak altogether. A refreshing strawberry-mint cocktail must be looking awfully attractive right now.

  24. tricle up 26

    With people on the dole it is what it is… accept reality.get real there will never be enough jobs ..

  25. RedBaronCV 27

    Are we sure Colin is right wing? Are his party initials CCCP the same as the party initials of the former communist party of Russia?

  26. Crunchtime 28

    “New Zealand Party” part 4.

    A tradition started by Bob Jones…

  27. Rodel 29

    I believe Colin Craig is the child of a union between Bill English and Don Brash.Seriously!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    1 week ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    2 weeks ago