Candidates Updated
I’ve done another update of the 2008 candidates page. Thanks to those in both Labour and National who have sent through additions and corrections. At present it is an image of an excel sheet but I have 95% worked out how to convert it to HTML so have started hyperlinking candidates to their websites. The hyperlinks won’t work while it is just am image, but will eventually so feel free to e-mail me any candidate websites.
The latest addition the list is National’s Auckland Central candidate, Nikki Kaye. Nikki is one of my closest friends and an amazingly hard worker so I’m thrilled for her. She won a very tough selection battle tonight, which went all the way to a final third ballot.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Auckland Central, candidates, Election 2008, National, Nikki Kaye
March 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Yes that is a great effort by Nikki in a very tight race. The only real issue is that she is in Auckland but can’t have it all.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I’m sure she will do better than the other losers who stood there for National!
March 6th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Well done Nikki, this is a great result for National. If I was a Labour supporter I would be seriously worried about National’s new talent. A party that rejuvenates itself before 9 years in government. You will make a great MP for Auckland Central…..
March 6th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Looks like the first nail is being hammered into the coffin of Judith Tizard’s political career…
Fantastic result.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:26 am
What is her ranking on the nat party list ? Which will indicate her standing within the party hierachy.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:34 am
At the risk of sounding factious, can anybody explain to me, what the hell Judith Tizard has ever done to benefit this country?
Obviously being closely connected to the Supreme leader allows such a adaptive and parasitic sub species the luxury of never having to worry about a struggle for survival.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:02 am
d4j – that’s an appalling comment! Judith Tizard’s family have all contributed to New Zealand. Her mother kept a Wellington gin importer, two stevedores, and an owner-operated transport company fully occupied through her tenure as GG. And her father paid [deleted by DPF - 10 demerits]
March 6th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Glad Nikki got the job!
She doesn’t strike me as the pugalistic type, so I’ll be interested to see her throw her first punch.
Her confidence and her style outrate her direct offensive powers, I reckon.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Off topic, I know, but has anyone else noticed this in the Herald this morning?
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/03/flogging-dead-horse.html
Apologies DPF, but with all the bulldust the Standard has “fomented” towards you………
March 6th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Did Nikki Kaye beat an incumbent MP for the right to the National Auckland Central nomination?
Shoot, she must be good!
March 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Great someone smart AND hot to take on Judith – great election to fight too, against one of Labour’s laziest MPs. The truth that Judith has done next to nothing for Auckland, besides not kicked up a fuss about being excluded from all important transport decisions, is worth exposing. She’s never been a Cabinet Minister because nobody trusts her to work hard and keep her mouth shut.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Sushi, she didn’t beat an incumbent (asuming the incumbent your refering to is Pansy Wong) as Wong is the candidate for the new seat of Botany. Could someone give a brief background to this lady, and if she has much popular support in Auckland Central.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:03 am
True Nicholas, I think I meant to say “current”, not incumbent. I am sure that she bet current National MP Jackie Blue to the nomination.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I am glad Jackie Blue did not get the nomination. She’s a fine MP but completely unsuited to this electorate.
Auckland Central needs a young and liberal MP and I hope that Nikki will fill that role admirably.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:28 am
My idea of purgatory would be to offer the Labour candidacy for Tamaki to David Benson-Pope and then sit back and watch as two ex teachers fight it out.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The National Party is going to need to keep a check on some of these candidates. The Public have taken as much as they are going to of the Homosexual agenda, and if National shows any sign of continuing it they will be swept aside as quickly as Labour is about to be.
[DPF: 10 demerits for off topic]
March 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
battler….mate..what are you talking about. What new candidtaes does National need to keep a check on………that’s a bit off the wall.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
With respect, my comment was entirely on topic – that of Candidates for the forth coming election 2008.
We know that the Labour Party stand to loose a substantial number of MP’s in the forth coming general election.
The National Party stands to gain from Labour’s losses.
We know that the reason the Labour Party is going to loose such a substantial number of MP’s is that they have been on a social engineering campaign that does not have the support of the vast majority of New Zealanders.
If the National Party intends to be more than a one term wonder this time around, they will need to keep a check on the Candidates they are fielding and ensure that they don’t end up with a caucus that prove to have a social agenda with any similarity to that of the Labour Party or they will then be swept aside, as Labour is about to be.
Quoting National MP Maurice Williamson – Hansard 6 April 2005:
“so now Labour was bringing in the big guns, in the form of Maryan Street. I have to say that she actually gets the trifecta when it comes to John Tamihere’s score card: she is a woman, she is a lesbian, and she was the Labour Party president. But I tell John Tamihere that Maryan Street also gets a bonus ball. She gets an extra ball because she was the head of the trade union study centre at Auckland University—she gets more than the trifecta. John Tamihere takes David Cunliffe to pieces. He says David Cunliffe screwed up the mods. I do not know who the rockers are. I know some of the Labour members are off their rocker, but I do not know who the rockers are. But John Tamihere said David Cunliffe screwed up the mods through his naked ambition. That is what John Tamihere said about a member of the same caucus as himself. Then he said Dr Cullen can deal with a piece of legislation, as we all know, and he can dupe other members by changing a word. I want the people in this House to start to identify themselves. Are they “dupor” or “dupee”? They should get into lines, one to the left and one to the right—“dupors” to the right, and “dupees” to the left. “Dupees”, in case United Future does not know this, are those who were done over.
When it comes to one of John Tamihere’s key targets, I admit to this House that even I am too timid to use her name. It is that other “H” person in charge on the ninth floor. I find it hard to say this: I will not use her name because she puts shivers up my spine. I will call her “H2”—a very good reference point for the cold and timid souls that John Tamihere was talking about. He said that “H2”—that is all I will call her—is dangerous. She is a very dangerous woman, and I want New Zealanders to know she is running the country.”
March 6th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Here is what National’s 2008 candidate for Coromandel had to say about the Civil Union bill:
“In this case, members of the homosexual and lesbian community want a law for themselves. They want to be able to have a ceremony where they can have a licence and form issued by a civil union celebrant or some such. However, in arguing for the case, someone who happened to be homosexual said to me: “Let’s be honest about it.” Well, if we are going to be honest about it, why are we not calling it the “Homosexual and Lesbian Civil Union Bill”?
However, there is not necessarily a lot of honesty around. This Government does not support a referendum on the matter, because it knows that it would lose it. ”
And here is what National’s 2008 Candidate for Nelson had to say about the Care of Children Bill:
“I am not surprised that Labour members want to shut down this debate, particularly the male members opposite, given the pathetic way in which they have allowed feminists to dominate this important area of law. Let us just remind ourselves what the Labour caucus and the Labour Cabinet wanted to put on the law books of New Zealand: “To avoid doubt… ‘the father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex … partner of the mother of the child …”. What sort of people, what sort of men, are in the Labour caucus and Cabinet that they would approve that sort of nonsense being put on the law books of this land?
The arrogance of the Prime Minister and the Ministers in charge of this bill is such that they believe that this Parliament can overrule nature. They believe they can somehow pretend that a child has a father and a mother where the father is female. That is how bizarre the world view is that Labour members of this Parliament have.
I say to those members opposite, particularly the male members, that no amount of politically correct legislation can overrule the basic rule of nature—that is, that children have a mother and a father. Labour members can pass all the laws they like, but fathers are men in this country.
I am sorry to tell the Labour Minister in the Chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, and the “squawkish” sounding female senior whip that somehow in this bill a father can be a woman, because in clause 167 we see that a woman is to be treated the same as the father of the child. Under this bill a lesbian partner is to be treated as though that person were the father of the child.
I say to the Committee that that is trying to create a sexless society in which there are not fathers and mothers; …
…That member does not want to talk about the law that he approved as a caucus member to be passed in this Parliament. I am not surprised that Dave Hereora does not want to debate it; he just wants to shut the debate down. He is so embarrassed that he is just kowtowing to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who believes that the father of the child can be a woman.
I simply say that those members do not understand that children in this country actually need fathers and mothers, who are equal but different. Why on earth will that member and the Minister not take a call to justify the provisions in this law that say a lesbian is to be treated as the father of the child? That can never be in nature, and it should not be in law.
I challenge Mr Darren Hughes, who has all the time in the world to interject, to take the next call and to tell Parliament why we should pass law that states a woman should be treated the same as the father of the child. That is what is being imposed on the people of New Zealand, but did Labour put that in its manifesto? Did Darren Hughes tell the men in his electorate that he thinks mothers can be fathers—that women can be fathers? [Interruption]
Maybe Lynne Pillay will take a call. I think Lynne Pillay is a lovely lady. She would make a great mother, but she will not be the father of a child in this world or the next.”
March 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Battler – if you try and turn evey thread into a debate about your obsessions with homosexuality, you will not be posting her for long. Set up your own blog where you can then post on homosexuals all day long.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I’m not obsessed with it. The Labour Party is.
They’ve been busy trying to insert their agenda into all manner of legislation. And that’s why they’re about to be thrown out of office.
Many of the National Party’s 2008 Candidates have been busy exposing and “outing” the Labour Party agenda. Given the likely large number of new Caucus members expected to join National in Parliament, the party will need to keep a check that they don’t unwittingly sweep in some “Labour Lite” candidates on the bottom of the list or in some previously unwinnable seat or that will bring their administration to a shorter than expected end as the public have run out of patience with this deviant agenda.
[DPF: So would you have a problem if a new National candidate was lesbian or gay?]
March 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Mate……Nikki is not Labour lite, Nikki will not be at the bottom of National’s list and Nikki will not win Auckland Central by chance. She will win it because she is miles ahead of the soon to be outgoing current MP. I thought that this thread was meant to be about Nikki and how well she has done.
David is right, stay on topic or go find your own blog somewhere………
Great job Nikki, you will be a great MP……
March 6th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
The voters that National needs in order to place itself as the largest party in Parliament are voters who will no longer brook a deviant social agenda. If National wishes to ignore that, they will find themselves spending even longer in opposition than they already have. Whether the minority liberal wing of the National party like it or not, that is the fact of the matter.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I have hunted everywhere but can’ find where to “let you know” the websites of the 2008 election candidates?!!!
[DPF: The Contact DPF page has my contact details. E-mail david@farrar.com]
March 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Battler:
I suggest you learn some manners and speak for yourself. You don’t speak for “the public” and “voters”. Resort to an imaginery support base (a public who agrees with you) is a well-worn debating tactic – and it’s not going to serve you well here.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
The “homosexual agenda” is such a laugh – the public are far more tolerant than the rabid conservative anti-homosexual nonsense expressed here. Who cares if gay people can marry, who cares if gay people can adopt? Why is it anybody else’s business, unless someone has a serious psychological problem that needs treatment. None of the Christian parties in NZ got anywhere opposing it, and even United Future largely left it alone. The mainstream of New Zealand doesn’t care what consenting adults do in their own home, or how same sex couples raise kids. The fact remains is that kids raised by two men or two women are almost certainly better off than those with only one parent – and besides, unless there is abuse or neglect, it shouldn’t be the state’s business.
I assume Nikki is above this sort of rabid collectivism – and imagine how it would go down in Auckland Central, which has elected Judith Tizard, Sandra Lee and Richard Prebble in living memory, all liberal with a big L!
March 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
DPF: If a National candidate is gay (having or showing a merry, lively mood) they will likey do well.
If they are homosexual activists of the “Stonewall” and “Rainbow Labour” variety, with the intention of continuing further the agenda already advanced by the 9th floor and the Homosexual and Lesbian Labour caucus of pushing through Homosexual and Lesbian Marriage, the deviant aspects of the Care of Children Bill (i.e. Homosexual partners being given parental authority over children who are not their own biological children) , The Prostitution Bill, abortion for under 16′s without parental notification, the anti smacking bill etc etc they will likely find public support will shift against them and National will not have the numbers to be the largest party in Parliament and therefore not have first odds of forming a government.
The bulk of middle NZ who Helen Clark has always felt uncomfortable with, are heartily sick of the agenda that has been pushed on them and they are going to use their votes accordingly, whether trendy liberals like it or not. National would do well to take note of public sentiment if they want a good, long time in government with a comfortable majority.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Battler:
You’re coming across as a pompous collectivist twit. Look, I strongly disagree with Labour’s position on any number of issues – but the fact is they were voted into power (with coalition partners) at the last election (ie the majority of votes cast). And that was after their heavy social engineering in the 2002-05 period. Once again, your resort to the imaginery support base rings a bit hollow.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy:
As the sitting National Candidate for Coromdanel pointed out in Parliament, the reason that the Government didn’t run a referendum on Civil Unions is because they knew they would lose it.
As the sitting National Candidate for Nelson pointed out – Labour didn’t include their Care of Children Bill in their manifesto. No prizes for guessing why.
Polling showed around 80% of the public opposed to the anti-smacking bill and indeed there has been a successful petition that easily got the required numbers.
Outside of the trendy DINK “full time stirrer” and “queer Cabinet Ministers” “Proud to be there” sets of Wellington and Auckland, the general public of NZ have had enough of this agenda and this is being reflected in the polls.
libertyscott: The Children being “adopted” by a homosexual partner of their biological parent will probably “care” if homosexuals can adopt and be given parental authority over them. I know plenty of people who have a tough enough time calling their opposite sex step parents “mum” or “dad”!
March 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Battler: oh will they? Were you adopted? How tough is that time calling their opposite sex step parents “mum” or “dad”, or would it not be so tough if other people didn’t give a damn? Are the children being loved, materially provided for, supported otherwise? Do you poke your nose into the thousands of conventional families that neglect their kids who can call them mum or dad, but who are too busy gambling, drinking, partying to care? Why don’t you care about them more?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Peak Oil Conspiricy, let’s see what Labour’s key supply and confidence support party has to say:
“DAIL JONES (NZ First) : That closure motion shows the absolute arrogance of this Labour Party—its total arrogance. Here we are debating a bill that the Labour Party says is extremely important, but after only one Opposition party has spoken, it wants to shut up the debate. I take that as a great compliment to New Zealand First. Obviously the Labour Party does not want New Zealand First to make a contribution in this debate.
Darren Hughes: The two-party club.
DAIL JONES: Yes, it is the old two-party system. Labour and National want a closed shop—although it is more that Labour is wanting the old ways than New Zealand First or the National Party.
This is a very, very complicated part of the bill. I really appreciate the way in which officials explained it to me, because the situations we get ourselves into today are extraordinarily complicated. The part relates to the status of children generally. Part 1, inserted by clause 157, is about parents having equal status, whether or not they are or have been married to each other. Part 2, inserted by clause 167, is about the status of children conceived as a result of artificial human reproduction procedures.
There seem to be so many statuses that one gets confused about the whole thing. I think that the Labour Party is totally confused about the whole thing. It could not understand a simple amendment to clause 37 yesterday, and it clearly cannot understand what it is doing today.
I am indebted to the Auckland District Law Society subcommittee that took the trouble to make a submission on this bill. It made a suggestion as to an amendment to this part, which I am putting to the Committee, because obviously the Labour Party did not wish to have it considered. In paragraph 52 of its submission, the Auckland District Law Society referred to clause 167: “The amendment proposed in this clause to section 14(2) of the Status of Children Act states that a woman, by operation of the Act deemed to be a parent of the child, must be treated as far as practicable in the same manner as a father of a child. The Sub-Committee considers this clause is clumsily worded and could be more appropriately and sensitively phrased.” The subcommittee asked for the words “the father of, or” to be deleted, and that is my amendment.
I believe that as it stands, this bill really continues with that gender-bending, mother being father, lesbian father / homosexual mother approach that the Labour Party originally wanted in this bill, and that the strong Opposition on this side of the Chamber made sure was deleted from the bill. The Labour Party had to be cut down at the knees. That was done by the Opposition in a show of strength that this Labour Party, even with its entire arrogance, had to submit to.
The same thing continues in this clause 167, which effectively states that a mother is the father of a child. That is absolute nonsense, and the Auckland District Law Society says so. It is not just said by Dail Jones from New Zealand First, an old-fashioned conservative who never changes his views and who always supports family, married life, and all those things. It is not said by me alone; it is said by the Auckland District Law Society subcommittee.
There must be quite a few trendy liberals on the Auckland District Law Society subcommittee, if I may say so. I know a few of them, and I mean that in a very good spirit, but it is that subcommittee that says this amendment should be made. The reason is so obvious. It is clumsily worded and could be more appropriately and—I emphasise this word—sensitively phrased. The Law Society wants it to be more sensitively phrased. The current phrasing is insensitive. That is the polite way of saying it is gender-bending, hopeless, Labour Party claptrap that gives way, as usual, to Labour’s “trendy leftie”, politically correct supporters. It is totally insensitive. That is what the Auckland District Law Society says.
It is an example, really, of designer children. That is what we are getting in our society today. That is what we are moving more and more towards, and that is what is here already. That is what this type of legislation will and does support.
New Zealand First says that that is absolute nonsense. Let us call a spade a spade, as Dr Hutchison said—I appreciate his comments—a father is a father, and a mother is a mother. A mother cannot be a father, and a father cannot be a mother. That is biologically impossible. Yet this Labour Party is trying to gender bend. It is a bunch of gender benders as far as this legislation is concerned.
Let us call a father a father. I am proud to be a father. I can never be a mother—I am biologically incapable of it. But this bill is saying that mothers can be fathers and fathers can be mothers. That is absolute nonsense. It is insensitive, inappropriate, and wrong. The Auckland District Law Society subcommittee says so in nice wording, and I say so as well. It must be changed, and I will be moving an amendment accordingly.”
March 6th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Battler:
What are the specific terms of supply and confidence agreement between New Zealand First and Labour?
Update: go to http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/NZFirst.pdf and tell me how this supports your argument.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“Battler: oh will they? Were you adopted? How tough is that time calling their opposite sex step parents “mum” or “dad”, or would it not be so tough if other people didn’t give a damn? Are the children being loved, materially provided for, supported otherwise? Do you poke your nose into the thousands of conventional families that neglect their kids who can call them mum or dad, but who are too busy gambling, drinking, partying to care? Why don’t you care about them more?”
I know of many people, some closely related to me who have suffered through divorce/remarriage and who have suffered at the hands of all that you mention – being forced by their father to call his new partner “mum” even though they didn’t like her and believed that only have one “mum” – their biological mother”. I also know of people who have suffered through family members gambling, drinking etc.
It is not fun for those involved and it shouldn’t be treated so flipantly even on a blog.
And I don’t “poke my nose in”, they are people who I already know and have simply witnessed and been told directly by them what has happened.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
DPF:
Actually, you might be able to construct an interesting blog post from that NZ First-Labour Confidence and Supply Agreement – the report card would include several areas of not addressed or not achieved!
March 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Peak Oil:
you seem to be intimating that because Labour have managed to cobble together a minority Government through the abstention of the greens and the support of NZ First et al on supply and confidence that there is public support for their social agenda and you refer to me as a “collectivist twit”.
What I’m pointing out, is that the Labour minorty government doesn’t even have the support of their supply and confidence partners for their social agenda, much less that of the wider public and that the National Party will do well to take note of public sentiment as reflected in polling and petitions.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
So what do you want the state to do battler? Intervene when someone is “forced” to call a man mum? I HAVE been adopted funnily enough, not by a same sex couple, so I DO know what it feels like to have two “mum’s”, I presume unlike yourself. Can’t say I bear the scars, except the sadness of the do gooding busybodies who created a climate of shame for my biological mum to have to hide her teenage pregnancy at the time, and who demanded adoption be a completely closed process and for the state to lie about it. Nevermind, such is life and things have changed now thanks to the likes of people who ARE liberal minded.
Seriously, what do you want the state to do – prohibit the names that kids can call surrogates? Plenty of families have cases of kids not liking step parents, being forced to call step mothers “mum” or step fathers “dad”, and the like. It might not be fun, but it is hardly a job for the state to get involved.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Notice how you ignored the point that in many same sex families the children are as loved and looked after as in others, and there are plenty of dysfunctional conventional and single parent families too… your line is based on bigoted conservative social engineering pure and simple. Why shouldn’t consenting adults go about their affairs in the way they wish, as long as they don’t break any criminal laws?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Battler:
Actually, as I read your comments, you’ve started to shift your position on this thread.
I pulled you up for presuming to represent the opinions of a larger group than yourself. You’ve done this repeatedly and it significantly weakens your argument. That’s my opinion. If you don’t like it, too bad.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
libertyscott- I have been through my own situation which bears some of the traits of your own, though not all and I hope that you’ve found support from people and that you’ve been able to achieve a sense of settlement or reconciliation in your life. It’s certainly not easy and I give you kudos for coming through the other side intact and getting on with life.
In terms of the state, where it is pushing too far, as has been pointed out in Parliament by many MP’s, is where the Labour party tried to over rule nature in it’s legislation. Thankfully those clauses were deleted as even their own supply & confidence partner wouldn’t vote for them.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
libertyscott- my line is not based on bigoted conservative social engineering at all. It’s based on experiencing the realities of family dysfunction. Labour’s textbook social agenda doesn’t fit with the realities of life. A welfare cheque can never replace a father. A step-parent never replaces a biological parent. The childless bigots in Labour who base social policy on feminist text books should not be passing laws that affect other people in a negative way yet will never affect themselves, and thankfully the Parliament managed to stop the extreme clauses in the Care of Children Bill from being passed.
Peak Oil – I haven’t shifted my position. I’m not presuming to represent opinions. I’m pointing out that Labour is running a minority government, their supply & confidence support party doesn’t support their social agenda, and polls show the public doesn’t either. It’s up to the National Party what they do, but if they want a long term government with a comfortable majority they will need to heed what the wider public is saying, not just Liberal leaning activists inside the political beltway.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
LibertyScott:
I don’t find much to disagree with – but your view implicitly assumes equal treatment as between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples.
This can’t be taken for granted.
I recall a suggestion during the civil union debate (I’d really have to go digging for the details) that same-sex couples should not be treated as associates for tax purposes. This suggestion arose as IRD wanted to update the definition of “associated person” to include same-sex couples, regardless of their civil union status. An updated definition would be particularly relevant if, for example, one of them was engaged in land development projects. At the time I had a real issue with the suggestion that same-sex couples should have a tax advantage over heterosexual couples. Thankfully the IRD’s view prevailed.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Battler:
Your writing style seems vaguely familiar – you’re not AJ Chesswas by any chance?
March 7th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Peak Oil – I’ve only ever commented on this blog under the alias of ‘battler’ and “AJ Chesswas” is not my name.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Peak Oil: Indeed, fair enough. My preference is that formalising relationships should be contractual and the state shouldn’t enter into it, except when it is to be enforced. Same sex couples should be allowed to marry, for example.
Battler: Yes I wouldn’t disagree on welfare of course, but my big problem is that those who seem to care about keeping families intact also don’t think that consenting adults should arrange their affairs as they see fit, including their children – as long as nobody crosses the threshold of abuse/neglect. I can’t see what the problem with this is. A couple of people close to me have both separately had two biological parents that were just vile, negligent and abusive, either would have been thrilled to have a single loving, gentle, thoughtful, supportive step parent. My concern is about abuse, genuine abuse and neglect – worrying about the sex of those who are step parents BEYOND abuse and neglect IS social engineering – it is not anyone else’s business. I’d fully support denying custody of children to everyone who is ever convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence – permanently. Now how about supporting that? Let’s stop paying people to breed and allowing proven dangerous people to raise children at all.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Battler:
Fair enough – just wondering.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:16 am
libertyscott- re children being loved by same-sex partners of their parents/ step parents etc – It may well be the case that same sex partner’s / step parents love & care for the children even though they aren’t their biological children and in a practical sense some step-parents do a better job of some aspects than the biological parent was doing. However, I know from close personal experiences that from the children’s point of view, they have a desire to be close to their biological parents, and even though they may make a genuine effort to get along with the step parent out of loyalty to their biological parent and even because they genuinely get along with their step parent, they still tend to have a deeper desire to enjoy a close relationship with their real biological parent, and no welfare cheque, no step parent, no foster home can FULLY fill that gap – no matter how genuine the welfare efforts of the government, the sincerity of step parents or the genuine love and care of foster homes.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Yes, you’re largely right – even when it is misguided.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:26 am
libertyscott, re violent parent’s and custody etc, there are already laws around assault, provision of life’s necessities etc that cover those. CYF action, Protection orders etc can cover those matters. Re adults organising their lives, there are simple procedures for divorce, marriage etc.
The issue re social engineering is that there is a minority of particularly militant socialist and homosexual activists who have a long term agenda around completely re-defining marriage, society, institutions, morals etc and they work on an international basis to achieve their aims. The Stonewall Lobby is highly active in this as are various international Socialist/Communist groups etc. Stonewall is linked to NZ through Tim Barnett and Helen Clark is involved in the international socialist scene.
The problem is that these people don’t come out and state their full agenda to the public as they know they would be sacked from office straight away. Rather they try and re-frame the language and re-frame the debate and use a process of gradualism to implement their agenda. They try and frame their agenda as being a crusade for “Equal rights” or “Civil rights” or “Minority rights” when what they are really seeking is to completely re-arrange society to suit their own world view. If you read up on Helen Clark’s personal background you’ll understand why she is the way she is and why she pushes the agenda she pushes.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I’m puzzled at the direction this thread has taken. I have absolutely no idea how the so-called homosexual agenda has anything to do with Nikki Kaye’s selection in Auckland Central.
Battler, the National Party has had a broad church of social conservatives and social liberals since its beginning. It reflects the broad base of views in New Zealand. I’m socially pretty conservative, but have never felt that anybody in the National Party has tried to ram a socially liberal agenda down New Zealanders’ throats. National Party values point mainly to the role of the state in people’s lives: limited government, competitive economy, personal responsibility, individual freedom and choice, and equal citizenship and opportunity. Neither the social liberals, nor the social conservatives, have a problem with those values. The thrust of it is clear: a person’s own morality is their own, and it’s not for the state to determine it.
You might say that the Labour Party is over-run by people who do want to determine individual morality. I’d agree with you. But you cannot say the same about National.
As I understand it, Nikki is a social liberal. From what I’ve heard, she takes a fairly hard line on welfare reform and dependency, and the expanding role of government in the economy and people’s lives generally. You’d hardly call her Labour Lite.
Auckland Central is a socially liberal electorate. It has the largest proportion of young professionals in the country. Almost everybody is employed in the private sector. It’s relatively affluent. These voters don’t want the government patronising them about how they should run their lives. They don’t want the government wasting taxpayers’ money. They know they are better at spending their own money than the Government is. It was a pretty bold move selecting somebody like Nikki, but the party obviously felt she was the best person to take the charge against Judith Tizard this election.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:05 am
IP,
Agree with the majority of your comments re National Party.
Nikki may well do a sterling job for National in Auckland Central and good on her.
My point is a general one, being that National is likely to pick up a large number of new MP’s and they need to watch who surfs into Caucus on National’s once in a 20 year incoming tide.
The Labour Party long ago ceased to represent the wage earning, labouring man trying to support a family, and have been co-opted by the International Socialist elite and Homosexual activists as a vehicle to pursue their agenda, and the crumbs they hand to working New Zealanders and their confidence and supply allies is just protection money to keep them in office long enough to push what they want.
NZ First’s voters don’t support Labour’s social agenda. United Future’s voters don’t support Labour’s social agenda. A large bulk of National’s voters don’t support Labour’s social agenda. And I’d hazard a guess a lot of Maori voters would find Labour’s homosexual agenda a little too queer for their liking as well.
Therefore, if the Nat’s wish to have a good run with a comfortable majority, they need to take into account the views of a public who are growing weary and wary of the elitist social agenda that has been run for the past decade. I think National’s top leadership recognize this. Let’s just hope the list ranking committees and electorate delegates around the country are awake to it as well.
As much as some people might like it to be the case, the Electorate vote of Auckland Central’s hip young DINK professionals will not determine National’s NZ wide party vote.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Battler,
I agree with your concerns about accidental MPs entering Parliament. National doesn’t need another Gilbert Myles, Hamish McIntyre, Cam Campion, or Peter McCardle. If you think about them, though, it wasn’t actually whether they were socially liberal or conservative. It had everything to do with how committed to National Party values they were. They were economic wets who didn’t have the integrity to make the hard choices when the going got tough. They crossed the floor not on social issues, but on issues that go to the core of National’s values.
I disagree that Auckland Central doesn’t count. Auckland Central has a high proportion of young voters. National’s going to pick up its traditional vote irrespective of who the candidate is. In seats with high proportions of non-traditional voters, you need somebody who can break the Labour stronghold and communicate with them about what National stands for. Young women are not going to vote for a party stacked to the hilt with old, grey men.
This is actually a major problem for the Labour Party at the moment. Labour’s Cabinet is on average more than ten years older than National’s shadow cabinet. Labour hasn’t renewed. It’s old and tired. Young voters and women, who have voted for Labour because Labour did have more young people and women representing them, are looking at that sad old bunch and feeling they’re not represented anymore. National has to capitalise on it, and reach out and bring them into the fold.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:46 am
IP,
I agree that National needs candidates who can break Labour’s stranglehold and the likes of Nikki may just be the ticket to do that with some Auckland Central voters.
However, the game for National on election night is to have the most party votes, therefore the most seats, and therefore first odds on to form a Government.
The Party votes necessary to achieve this are going to have to come from the support base of NZ First, United Future, ACT, Destiny, Christian Heritage etc who see that their votes were wasted last time because Labour nudged ahead of National with party votes therefore getting the first look in to form a Government, and took the country down a path that they didn’t want it to go down and this only happened because Labour skilfully manipulated MMP – using NZ First & UF to get its budgets through and the Greens to get it’s Social agenda through.
Also, the demographics are tipping towards an ageing population not a youthful population – all those subsidized birth control pills, condoms, abortions, sex change operations and home loans for queer friends clubbing together mean we have a greying population not a youthful one.
If the Nats try and take an alternative route and move leftward to take votes of Labour, leaving economic conservatives to vote ACT and social conservatives to vote NZ First and UF, they will still find themselves needing the support of NZ First &/or UF and therefore subject to the brakes being put on the elitist social agenda.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Battler,
That’s a shoddy analysis, with all due respect. National already has cannibalised the party votes of NZ First, United Future, Act, Destiny, and Christian Heritage. Those parties are approaching ZERO party votes. There is nothing that National can gain from pandering to them.
It’s not actually relevant where the demographics are heading. It’s where they are now. National has locked in its traditional voting base. It now needs to attract the votes of non-traditional National voters. The fact is National has done poorly in the past to attract the votes of women, and younger people generally. Auckland Central is heavily populated with young professionals.
If you put your bigotry aside for a moment, Battler, you’d appreciate that a 60-year old conservative preacher would not have maximised either the party vote, or won the seat for National this year. You actually need somebody who can relate to the voters you want to convince to bring them on board.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Battler interestingly I am not sure if you have read the latest biography on Sir Keith H. NZs longest serving PM. He is described in many places in the book as an economic conservative but socially liberal whereas those with far right or far left views have not been as successful. This is where IMHO the majority of kiwis sit.
You can already see that National has to date made 10 new selections across the country of highly talented group of people across a spectrum of views that all meet the National vision and values to complement the existing caucus. Check out http://www.national.org.nz and see the drop down selection box on the candidates so far.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Horis, your facts are wrong. Kiwi Holyoake was New Zealand’s third longest serving PM. Dick Seddon was the longest serving, and Bill Massey the second.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
IP,
Here are Labour’s election & current poll results:
1999 38.74
2002 41.00
2005 41.00
current polling 36.5%
They are only down 2.24 from the result that they used to secure the Treasury benches in 1999. This is even with the National Party trying 4 different leaders since 1999.
Under MMP, the parties with the balance of power go to the party with the largest vote first to try and form a government.
In 2002 the combined vote of NZF, UF & CH in 2002 was 18.42 % These are the people who hold the balance of power. They are the people who determine whether or not National will have the highest vote on election night.
You state that National can not “gain” anything by “pandering” to them. This is exactly the attitude that caused the National Party’s vote to go from 30.5% in 1999 to 21% in 2002 – leaving Labour as still the biggest party in the house, and National on the opposition benches where they’ve been for another 6 years.
National’s “Traditonal” voter base that can be relied upon is clearly only around the 21% mark as the 2002 election showed us. There is another block of voters, nearly the same size again, who clearly WILL shift their vote to another conservative party if National can’t or won’t deliver the goods. National would do well to note that, if they wish to become the largest party in the house, and remain in that position for more than one term.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
By the way, National had a youngish female leader at the helm when it lost the Treasury benches in 1999, and it had Dr Don – I’m a bald haired banker in a grey suit – kiwifruit is my hobby – lapsed Presbyterian & my friends are in the Exclusive Brethren – I don’t want anyone talking about their left testicle – Brash who rebuilt the Party vote to the highest level in years in 2005
(PS: I don’t have anything against Shipley – I think she did a great job in her time in National, but just making the observation)
March 16th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I wonder if Battler has ever met a real Homosexual in his life?