The Christian Vote
Destiny NZ is claiming they may make Parliament as they are outpolling Progressive in the polls. Well yes St Jim does only have 0.1% support but he holds and electorate seat. Destiny also claims they were the highest polling party not to make Parliament.
This is true in that they were in 9th place with 0.62%. But that is a long way from 5%.
Now what were all the Christian based party votes last election:
United Future 2.67%
Destiny 0.62%
Christian Heritage 0.12%
NZ Family Rights 0.05%
That is a total of 3.46%. And I doubt all the United Future vote as a Christian vote. So the chance of either Destiny or Future NZ making it next time is basically nil.
DPF
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
It’s a rort that Destiny NZ can earn enough votes for a seat, yet still be denied representation.
I certainly didn’t vote for them, but Richard Lewis deserves (and earnt) a seat.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
But of course, that was a deliberate choice in the construction of MMP – you had to have broad based enough appeal to get either 5% of the vote across all electorates, or strong enough local support in a single electorate to hold that seat.
The intent was to avoid a fragmentation of parliament into small parties that it would be impossible to form a stable coalition from (ref: Italy). In fact, exactly to stop what would have been happening if Destiny NZ had received that one seat.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 am
Perhaps he was referring to polling in South Auckland. With Tiler’s able assistance in ‘getting out the vote’ they might between them get five percent of the party vote AND a seat. Would’nt that just wipe the smirks off a few complacent faces?
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Yeah but it’s not as if we can have a single CHristian party
we need to have a whitey one
and a Maori one
and a polynesian one…
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Destiny is a rort
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 am
A lot of Christians vote United Future , many are turning away from UF, the party is bleeding support and board members have left. I suspect the Christian vote will be more likely to split between Destiny and Copelands party than UF at the next election.
Who can name other MPs that have split from their parties, formed a new party, contested an election and not got back in Parliament?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 am
Interesting point you make Mr. Farrar in denying that National or Labour are Christian based parties.
Perhaps you were trying to identify parties underpinned by religious zealotry.
Oh, hang on, that would mean Labour and their socialist religion. Damn, I’m confused..!!
According to the left, Destiny is bad becasue they are Christians, yet the Labour government owes its time in government to the support of NZ’s liberal churches. According to the left, Destiny is bad because its a mix of religion and politics. Yet socialists preaching Marxist doctrine are OK. How on earth does this focus on religion all work?? Damned if I know.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:04 am
Good post David. I don’t think United Future was totally a Christian vote either. It was more a home for people who favoured a sensible, moderately conservative approach to politics, as opposed to the socially radical Labour.
It remains to be seen whether National will pick up some of those votes. Certainly John Key appeals more to moderate opinion than did Don Brash. He has a warmer personal style and doesn’t appear to be captured by the “free market at all costs” approach of some on the right. It may be that Christians and conservatives flock to National.
I don’t imagine Destiny is a winner in terms of broad appeal across the electorate.
Also I suspect United Future has now lost the moderate, conservative and also Christian voters. Having kept Labour in power while they pursue a hard left radical social agenda was bad enough. At least they didn’t vote for Labour’s radical policies, albeit while keeping them in power through confidence and supply. However Peter Dunne voting for the anti-smacking Bill was the last straw in many people’s minds. How a Liberal Catholic could vote for a Bill that was neither Liberal, nor Catholic is still beyond me. And undoubtably he has alienated many Christians.
In terms of the Christian vote for the future — it may be that Christians need to be salt and light in the major parties, rather than pursuing a party of their own — which can turn into a kind of Christian ghetto.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
I agree with Scott. Christians are far better off to vote National to help ensure that NZ is governed from the right side of the ledger. Why any Christian would vote for Dunne is beyond me. Young Christians rising through the ranks of National over time will be a far more effective way to influence the direction of this country.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
“Christian” parties claiming the moral highground is like entering the special olymics, even if you win youre still retarded.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
Mr Moore, you would know all about retards eh !!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
We Christians dont claim the moral High ground we just claim morals. I havent seen any morals whatsoever from the Labour government in the last 9 years but I have seen plenty of thieving, lying and corruption not to mention billions of dollars of our wealth peed against the wall.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
It depends really – Christians are niether right or left and are still completely moral creatures. I’m more left than right, but that doesn’t mean that I am “anti-christ” or christianity. Christian politics isn’t new right, as much as green politics is extreme left. It depends on alot of things really, church background, personal experience, gender etc.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
“Why any Christian would vote for Dunne is beyond me”
Change the word “Christian” to “one” & that sentence still applies!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Christians have far more in common with Socialists due to the shared ideal of altruism that underpins the morality of both.This idea that man is a means to the ends of others whilst having no right to exist for his own selfish sake explains the authoritarianism that emerges in both and the inevertible use of force to gain compliance.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I would not go writing off the Christian vote, in 1996 the Christian Coalition polled 4.4% and in 2002 United Future over 6%.
No one is making misleading comments that the Green party puts socialist environmentalists into a “ghetto,” on the contrary they are in a place of influence. Stange that if Christians actually have any influence in National that the entire caucas voted for the anti smacking bill.
Last election most Christians actually voted National (much of United’s vote was actually the Outdoor Recreation party’s supporters). This will not happen again because the National party voted for the anti-smacking bill. The National party are far more interested in pandering to “urban liberals” (“Blue Libs) and Greening the National Party (“Blue-Greens”). With David Farrar’s distain for Christian politicians in general it is not surprising that the Christian community have lost confidence in the National Party. National will not have the same large amount of help from the Maxim Institute (“NZ Votes”)next election because laws limiting third party expenditure are about to be passed.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Last year’s census demonstrated that more than half the population are Christians.
More people attend church on Sundays than play sport on Saturdays.
It is extremely myopic to either trivialise the importance of Christianity in New Zealand today or to attempt to shove the majority of the population into neat little boxes.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
DPF, you say that the chance of Future NZ making it next time is basically nil.
Does that mean in your opinion the chance of Future NZ making it into Parliament next time would be less than say 1 in a 100?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“Christians have far more in common with Socialists due to the shared ideal of altruism that underpins the morality of both.This idea that man is a means to the ends of others whilst having no right to exist for his own selfish sake explains the authoritarianism that emerges in both and the inevertible use of force to gain compliance.”
And yet they overwhelmingly vote conservative according to other posters. So um… sorry, sounds like so much tosh. Theory vs Practise. In purple.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“It is extremely myopic to either trivialise the importance of Christianity in New Zealand today ”
Maybe, but I bet only a fraction of those professed christians actually vote for a Christian political party. Most will surely vote for whatever party they believe most represents their values.
Whichever that is likely to be (I’d also guess that isn’t as predicatable as some on this thread would suggest.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Heh. predictable.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Christians? They don’t look, sound or act very Christian.
Where is the Atheist Party when you need one? It would stand for reason, science, logic, equity, democracy, meritocracy and goodwill to all men (and women). All the things Christianity clearly doesn’t.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Dunne is not a liberal Catholic. He’s not even a Catholic but thats another story. By definition, there is no such thing as a liberal Catholic. Not in terms of morality.
A liberal Catholic is an oxymoron. Or is it?
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Hoolian, Thankyou for making that point. Its like Chris Finyalson going on about how he is a Catholic and yet disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church with regards to Homosexuality.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Christians do not have anything in common with Socialism.
Socialism involves using the full force of the law to force people to adhere to what the Government sets as their “Social Vision”.
Jesus taught the apostles that when they went into a town if their message wasn’t accepted they were to shake the dust from their feet and move on, not hang around trying to force people to accept the gospel.
Socialists use force, and their ultimate objective is to have people putting their faith in the “redemptive power of the state”, and look to the state as the giver of their rights.
Socialism is based on “Coveting”. That’s where the wealth re-distribution comes from.
One of the ten commandments was “Do not Covet”.
Another Christian teaching is that “Godliness with contentment is great gain”.
Socialists are never content. They engender support for their cause by stirring up the masses to believe that they are hard done by, discriminated against, and that they need the state to step in and deliver them and provide their “rights” to this or that – whether it be the “right” to live in a multi million dollar state house funded by the taxpayer, or the “right” to a taxpayer funded abortion.
Paul, one of the first Christian apostles, worked with his hands as a tent-maker wherever he travelled so as not to be a burden on those he was visiting.
The Socialists want their political parties to be state funded, their election campaigns to be state funded, and to increase what they take from the workers to fund their electoral bribes.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Chuck – yes less than 1 in 100. They have no electorate seat, no well known leader, competition from United Future and Destiny etc.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Christians are never content. They engender support for their cause by stirring up the masses to believe that they are hard done by, discriminated against, and that they need the state to step in and deliver them and provide their “rights” to this or that – whether it be the “right” to not be offended, or the “right” to force some classes of women to carry pregnancies to term, with no regard given for the womans wishes or health.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Not quite, Pascal. Don’t confuse empire building televengelists with what Jesus actually taught.
Jesus taught his followes to count it all honour to be persecuted. He himself gave his life as a ransom for many and while being crucified he interceded on behalf of his executioners, praying “father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. The apostles suffered severe floggings, imprisonments, stonings and beheadings on account of their faith.
Even today, 200,000 Christians per year around the globe are killed on account of their faith in hostile nations.
Contrast that with the Socialists who use legislation backed by a police force and the threat of imprisonment to force everyone to follow their agenda.
In regard to the abortions and the like- again Jesus taught “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Contrast that with the Socialists who use the taxation legislation backed with the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance, to force all taxpayers to subsidise 16,000 plus abortions per year.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 pm
All the evidence is in – christianity is bad for you. Why we don’t outlaw it, round up its dangerous hardliners and stamp it out is beyond me. It would solve a heap of problems, and everyone could sleep in on Sunday.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
toms,
The founder of Christianity, Christ himself was in fact rounded up and crucified in an attempt to stamp it out. The only trouble for those who thought this would work was that he conquered the grave.
Millions of Christians through the centuries have been rounded up and flogged, stonned, imprisoned, tortured and executed for their faith.
The good news is that Christianity actually flourishes in times of persecution.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
oh and by the way, you can sleep in on Sunday – Jesus taught that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
So sleep in to your heart’s content and enjoy your day of rest – that’s what it was made for!
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Battler,
I suggest you read “the sermon on the mount”
it may help your angst
Cheers
Bobby the Atheist
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
thank you for your kind suggestion Bobby.
However, I don’t suffer any angst.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Battler,
don’t mention it
oh and I’m glad about the angst
Cheers BTA
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Gee, I wonder if Don Brash said in 2005 “We only got 20% last time so we won’t have any chance of winning the election”.
Maybe you should tell John Key he is on a losing streak because National lost in 2005.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Well the odds of Destiny getting there are virtually nil because Brian Tamaki turns off most Christians because of his televangelist kleptomaniacal style.
A lot of otherwise Christian voters voted National in 2005 to get Labour out – National courted that vote. If National supported same sex marriage, and was generally socially liberal, I don’t doubt that eventually there would be an explicitly Christian political party with a broad base that could approach 5%. 1996’s Christian Coalition came close and probably failed partly because of the wasted vote perception – if that barrier is past, a Christian party could be elected.
Thank god it is highly unlikely.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Chuck – yes less than 1 in 100. They have no electorate seat, no well known leader, competition from United Future and Destiny etc.
DPF, you make some very good points. No doubt the odds are against Copeland’s new party making it into Parliament. However, I think there are other factors. Would you be prepared to offer me 100 to 1 odds on say $100 bet? That is my $100 against your $10,000.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Christians have far more in common with Socialists due to the shared ideal of altruism that underpins the morality of both.This idea that man is a means to the ends of others whilst having no right to exist for his own selfish sake explains the authoritarianism that emerges in both and the inevertible use of force to gain compliance.
Quite incorrect. Most Christians I know are centre-right politically, because they know that socialism is anti-Christian, anti-freedom. Socialism removes the free choice that we have to practice our faith, and replaces it with Marxist ideology.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Dunne is not a liberal Catholic. He’s not even a Catholic but thats another story. By definition, there is no such thing as a liberal Catholic. Not in terms of morality.
A liberal Catholic is an oxymoron. Or is it?
A Catholic can be a liberal just as anyone from any other church can be.
Catholicism is almost unique in designating their members as lifelong, thus people who do not attend a church and have not for many years can still be identified as Catholic and will still be able to go to a Catholic church and receive the rites at any time they choose.
The biggest problem that the Catholic Church has is widespread disregard of the official teachings by individual members who pick and choose what applies to them, yet as long as you still follow the right rituals you are still a member and that is how some Catholics are identified as liberal, even when the official line from their church has remained mostly the same for centuries.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Battler
“Contrast that with the Socialists who use legislation backed by a police force and the threat of imprisonment to force everyone to follow their agenda.”
It’s called representative democracy actually, and all the parties involved do it equally, even the christian ones. That was my point, which you seem to have missed. Are you genuinely saying that you object to “socialists” having won an election, carrying out a legislative programme? Or are you saying that you think you should be somehow exempt from laws legally passed by socialists?
Or are you saying that all the non-socialist parties don’t have any reason to want to win an election. They have no plans to do anything at all if they become government?
Because if they do, in fact, have a reason to want to be the government beyond the fact that they think it would look nice on their CV, then they will… “use legislation backed by a police force and the threat of imprisonment to force everyone to follow their agenda.”
Do you not think Christian politicians will do this?
May 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Socialism amounts to totalitarianism. Socialists seek world slavery for the peasants, just as happened in China and Russia under communist governments.
That is what Helen Clark’s government is moving us towards, but due to their deceitfulness they will never admit as such.
The National Party used to stand in opposition to this worldview, and I expect that some Christian MPs such as Copeland think that way as well.
I support any party which moves us in the opposite direction from socialism in getting the nanny State out of our lives. It may take them a long time to do this.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Chuck – yes less than 1 in 100. They have no electorate seat, no well known leader, competition from United Future and Destiny etc.
It’s going to become very clear, certainly by election time, how little United have achieved. Labour has robbed them blind, in the sense of having stolen most of their policy triumphs.
For example Dunne got his tax cut but then Cullen turns around and slaps compulsory Kiwisaver contributions onto employers so wiping out any net benefit from the tax cut.
I believe that many Christians abandoned the party as they reasoned, correctly in my view, that even if Dunne has only got a C&S agreement, it has enabled Labour to use the resources of government to organise the various measures that have been so antithetic to Christians, even if United opposed most of them.
Around this neck of the woods many hoped that United would have negotiated with National after the 2005 election, but Dunne had already stated beforehand he would start with the party that got the most votes, so it was a foregone conclusion.
As far as Destiny goes, they are in the rather unique position of having managed to alienate almost every other church in the Christian community due to their grandiose pronouncements and airs. I would expect their support to decline since there are alternatives.
What David has failed to note is that National has moved very definitely towards the centre, leaving a group of voters out on the right. Once upon a time, Act would have picked these people up, but they are a rudderless ship these days.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Patrick, are saying that you think Gordon Copeland’s new party may fill a gap for conservative voters considering Dunne’s stance on Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
iamgj cbzvnri bmycirw leozqkchj ioubanft gxtsdnq mzwryn
June 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
iamgj cbzvnri bmycirw leozqkchj ioubanft gxtsdnq mzwryn