Conservative and NZ First policies

July 19th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Some of the Conservative Party’s key policies are so similar to New Zealand First that leader Colin Craig has been accused of plagiarism.

The two parties will outline their vision for New Zealand and their election plans this weekend at their annual meetings in Auckland.

The have begun laying their election platform in a series of billboards and leaflet drops over the past month.

The four key planks of their campaign will be tougher penalties for criminals, a tax-free band below $20,000 of income, making referendums binding and scrapping Maori entitlements.

A few of their priorities so closely resembled New Zealand First’s manifesto that leader Winston Peters said they appeared to be stolen.

It is true that the Conservatives and NZ First have many similar policies – they are both competing for socially conservative and economically conservative voters. That’s not plagiarism, just a reality of where they are on the political spectrum.

Both parties want to end asset sales, stop the sale of farmland to foreigners, scrap the Emissions Trading Scheme and introduce tougher sentences for criminals.

Mr Craig told the Weekend Herald it was inevitable some of their policies would be similar because they were both competing for a similar pool of centrist voters. But he emphasised key points of difference.

Conservative is more radical on Maori issues, saying it will scrap the Maori parliamentary seats, repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation, and wind down the Waitangi Tribunal while not allowing any new claims.

New Zealand First says it is up to Maori to decide whether Maori seats remain.

Which is my policy also. Gulp.

Conservative is also more sceptical about climate change. Mr Craig has not prioritised reducing carbon emissions, while New Zealand First says it is important to switch to cleaner fuel and introduce environmental “bottom lines”

So some differences, but a lot in common. I suspect most voters will decide between them on the basis of what they think of their leaders.

Both parties are hardline on law and order issues. New Zealand First would introduce a 40-year minimum non-parole period for murder, and a “castle doctrine” law which allowed deadly use of firearms by homeowners against burglars.

40 years non parole is too much, even for me.

Tags: ,

72 Responses to “Conservative and NZ First policies”

  1. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Yes DPF, 40 years non-parole would be too expensive. How about the death penalty instead?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. EAD (1,082 comments) says:

    Sounds like good common sense policies to me.

    I may have been asleep when this happened but in what Brave New World did equality before the law and ending race based privilege become “radical”?

    Also, what is wrong with not “prioritising carbon emissions”? Last time I checked, Carbon was a very healthy plant food and our big neighbor this week just axed their hated carbon tax. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/17/Australia-repeals-its-hated-carbon-tax

    Nice move on the tax free band for the first $20,000 earned as well. There is no more regressive tax than the marginal tax paid by those on low incomes particularly if they also receive “working for families”.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    What does Maori deciding if Maori seats remain mean?
    Have turkeys ever voted for Xmas?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    40 years for murder seems about right to me providing Parole and the parole board is wiped for-ever and for all offences.

    It doesn’t matter if their policies are much the same Winston will be subservient to Cunliffe the Socialist coalition and Craig to Key and the National Party

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. altiora (279 comments) says:

    If Colin Craig had any sense, he would have mobilised his supporters, got them to join NZ First en masse and quietly taken it over electorate by electorate. Seems to me that given the voters they’re aiming for, it would have made sense to use an existing party infrastructure than create a new one. There again, I guess the egos of Winston Peters and Colin Craig would be a major hurdle to amalgamation, and I do wonder if NZ First is too secular for many of Craig’s supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tvb (4,421 comments) says:

    Colin Craig should target the NZF vote. Which would split it and give Winston something to ponder.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Massive win win win situation if Craig canabilises Whinestons voters to the point where both parties score sub 5%.
    With 8 % of the electorate wasted Nats only need 42% (plus ACT and UF) to be in.

    That said I see Cons being the resting place for most of Whinestons voters in ’17.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “What does Maori deciding if Maori seats remain mean?”

    @emmess

    It does not matter what it means as it is not NZ First policy and never has been. The following is from the NZF 2014 manifesto.

    “Ensure the future of the Maori seats is a decision for the people to make having examined the significant increase in representation numbers of Maori MPs under MMP.”

    I am not sure where the quote in the Herald came from – Colin or the reporter. Whoever misrepresented NZF position on this policy should apologize for the error.

    I believe National’s current policy is something like the quote in the Herald. Maybe some National member could tell us National’s current policy on the retention on the Maori seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. altiora (279 comments) says:

    @ Emmess: exactly. As much as I find the Maori seats dubious, their abolition isn’t on the top of my list of things that need to be done. I am not sure why National keeps the policy to abolish them when it’s not going to ever implement the policy.

    The Maori seats have been around for over a century without causing any real damage, and I couldn’t bear anymore Maori protests and hikoi that would result from attempting to abolish them.

    The Maori seats are to us what the hereditary peers in the House of Lords were in the UK; except for that some of those peers actually provided some value (eg, the Duke of Norfolk provided representation for Catholics).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    40 years non parole is too much, even for me.

    I think that forty years non-parole is about right for premeditated murder. Seems a fair swap for someone who plans a crime like murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    @altiora

    If Colin had any sense and a little humility he would join with NZF in instead calling Winston a liar and even dumber making snide derogatory remarks about Winston’s age considering the age of many of Winston’s supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. wikiriwhis business (3,998 comments) says:

    “How about the death penalty instead?”

    Multiple eye witness accounts should certainly attract a death penalty where there is no doubt.

    How about public stocks for lesser offenders.

    Public stocks for corparate tax avoiders would be awesum before the lengthy prison sentence these scum deserve.

    No one talks about tough love any more. It used to be a media tool for wayward teens.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    I will post a YouTube video of Bob McCoskrie interview Colin Craig and then one with Winston being interviewed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    In this video of Bob interviewing Winston you have to wait till the end to hear Winston’s view on race based policy and the racist Maori seats in particular.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    “Conservative is more radical on Maori issues, saying it will scrap the Maori parliamentary seats, repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation, and wind down the Waitangi Tribunal while not allowing any new claims.”

    That all sounds good to me. We can all get on with being New Zealanders with advancement based on merit and the content of our character rather than the colour of our skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    DPF: I am not certain, but I think the “40 years non parole for murder” proposal may be for what can be described as Aggravated Murder – i.e where one or more of the factors set out in s.104 of the Sentencing Act are present…lengthy planning or premeditation; the killing was for money; committed in the course of a home invasion; unusually callous or cruel etc. etc.

    We are now considerably behind countries which have systems similar to ours in sentencing for Aggravated Murder…LWOP is available and imposed in the UK and some Australian states…Minimum NPP’s of 30-40 years are not at all uncommon. In the US of course, the punishment for such murders – where it is not death – is usually LWOP

    What is the value of a life in years of punishment? 40 sounds pretty well right to me…about half of a normal life, and – depending on the age of the victim – something near what they have lost when their life was taken from them by the murderer.

    This is also why I simply will not accept that He Who Must Not be Named has “paid his dues”…In the course of normal lifespan it may – just – be possible to atone for taking one life…for taking a second, No chance.

    Wiki: For reasons I have explained here several times before, the death penalty will never be reintroduced in New Zealand…forget about it….it’s simply a far right wet dream…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “He Who Must Not be Named”

    He might just be named legally in the next couple of weeks. I am working on it.

    That would be one way to get a law change.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wf (441 comments) says:

    Thanks to a flyer for the Conservative Party that landed in my letterbox yesterday, I know what the main planks of that party are.

    It’s a fact that what the CP proposes is not going to energise me, so I won’t be joining up, but I’ll remember and in the weeks to come I’ll be listening to what the others have to say and put 2 and 2 together according to the most appealing result. Who knows? they might get my vote.

    Winston Peters? Never!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “and put 2 and 2″

    2 and 2 = 4 four to most sensible people.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Gulag1917 (916 comments) says:

    Statists are generally similar in policies not only NZ First and Conservative but also Labour and National.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I don’t know if Matthew Hooton is a fan of the Conservatives or is being paid to speak at their conference, but he’s said some interesting things.

    Mr Hooton also gave Conservatives advice on what values to emphasize during their campaign, saying they could afford to be extreme and offend 95 per cent of the population because they only needed 5 per cent of the vote.

    That’s a very risky strategy unless you know 5% of people who will vote won’t be offended and won’t vote for another party.

    In fact that strategy is screwy.

    He received the loudest cheer of the night when he told Conservative to emphasize its evangelical Christian side, saying that no other party targeted the religious vote.

    “I’d put God a bit more into focus. I don’t think you should be ashamed of speaking for Christian governance.”

    Interesting, as that’s something Conservatives have seemed to want to pay down rather than talk up.

    Mr Hooton told party members to “go big on smacking”. Mr Craig previously funded a march against anti-smacking legislation and helped organise a referendum on the issue.

    Hard to see much benefit from dredging up an old issue like that. You need to interest 5% of people who:
    – support smacking
    – think it’s important enough to vote for
    – aren’t put off by Craig, Rankin, conservative Christians etc etc

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. NK (1,243 comments) says:

    The Cons have also stolen/plagiarized a lot of Act policy too. They do say imitation is the highest form of flattery.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Two distinct differences between Craig and Peters on The Nation this morning.

    Craig stated that binding referenda was a bottom line policy, no support for that then no confidence and supply agreement.

    Peters wouldn’t commit NZ First to any position on anything. He wants to keep his options/vague until after the election.

    Craig is making it hard for himself by having a bottom line that neither National nor Labour are likely to agree to. He could be effectively ruling himself out of any post election deal, while Peters is holding back to be able to deal then as much as he can.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. wreck1080 (3,912 comments) says:

    So, dpf, you’re happy for murderers like clayton weatherston to be let out (or graham burton).

    I just have to disagree.

    The very worst murderers should be in jail forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. DisgruntledOne (20 comments) says:

    “It is true that the Conservatives and NZ First have many similar policies – they are both competing for socially conservative and economically conservative voters. That’s not plagiarism, just a reality of where they are on the political spectrum.”
    True, it is not plagiarism, because it makes no sense to apply that term to the policy of a political party. But it is exploiting problems inherent in out political system.

    Currently, the number of seats a party has is (roughly or exactly, i’m not sure) proportional to the vote it receives. But its power is not proportional to it’s seats. A party’s negotiating power comes from whether or not it has ability to influence whether another party can form a government. Whether it gets this power from one seat or fifteen is mostly irrelevant. In fact, the larger it is the more punishment it will get from its supporters if it breaks off negotiations, and so the less power it has.

    Of course, that is if your party gets in. The other possibility is that you split the vote between you and the nearly identical party and so your point of view gets an artificially low level of power. Either way, I think it leads to the same conclusion:

    No one should form a new party unless they really think there are no viable options available.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. CharlieBrown (1,011 comments) says:

    “40 years non parole is too much, even for me.” – Yeah – it should start out as a 40 years with allowable drops due to mitigating circumstances. Likewise it should be able to increase due to aggravating circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. altiora (279 comments) says:

    @ Pete George: it’s the binding referenda policy that scares the bejesus out of me out of all their policies. I wonder whether they’ll be such fans when leftist lobby groups finding it a congenial mechanism to achieve more redistributivist policies. Or will CCCP be like the Greens: only in favour of referenda if they support their policies?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. DisgruntledOne (20 comments) says:

    “Multiple eye witness accounts should certainly attract a death penalty where there is no doubt.” – wikiriwhis business
    There is a wealth of research showing that eye witnesses are actually really unreliable. If you’re interested, you might start with this: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
    It really is a fascinating subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    altiora – yes, binding referenda sound good and democratic on the surface, but as the Greens, Labour and Grey Power (NZ First) showed this term they could be used politically to overturn the established parliamentary process. Very risky and impractical. There are far better ways of improving our democracy than binding referenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    PG, I do not give you too many thumbs up. However, you are spot on there.

    I have tried to explain this to Colin and a few of his supporters but Colin thinks he knows everything.

    Whatever anyone thinks of John Key he is no fool and those who think he is are bloody idiots.

    National could agree to some sort of binding referenda policy if they had to but certainly not one anything like Colin Craig’s one.

    We have to live in the world we have. NZ has signed up to UN policies some of which few on this blog like.

    Take capitol punishment for example. That would quite likely pass a 67% majority. Can Colin not bloody well see a problem both within NZ and with the UN trying to implement capitol punishment again.

    For Colin to state a bottom line on anything let alone his referenda policy shows he has zero negotiation skills. I suggested to Colin a number of times to read “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher and William Ury an excellent book on negotiation. I can tell Colin now negotiating Russian style with bottom lines and ultimatums does not work well in New Zealand.

    Is National going to help him when there is a good chance he could bring the government down if he could not get his own way and National would be blamed for helping him get in.

    I think Colin has blown his chances. If National stands down McCully there is probably as much chance of Winston or even Labour getting in. Winston’s talk of standing in ECB will make Key think very carefully of standing McCully down.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. altiora (279 comments) says:

    I suspect the binding referenda policy is based on CCCP’s delusional belief that it represents the “moral majority” who are deprived of representation. As I have mentioned elsewhere, this is seems to be the right wing equivalent of the left wing “missing million” meme (those million being left voters, of course).

    As referring to your previous post Pete George: it will be interesting to see whether CCCP promote their policies, or whether they will fall back on the empty angry rhetoric of lost past battles (ie, anti-smacking and gay marriage). The latter approach would be tempting as it is enough to get a certain small number of voters to the ballot box, but it limits CCCP’s appeal enormously as most New Zealanders subscribe to “let by-gones be by-gones” philosophy. The former approach is what is required but there is no guarantee that any voters will be listening.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    “Very risky and impractical. There are far better ways of improving our democracy than binding referenda.”

    Rubbish.

    Switzerland has binding referenda, and they are one of the most stable govts. anywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. altiora (279 comments) says:

    @ Don the Kiwi: and Switzerland and New Zealand can be compared? Does Switzerland subscribe to statist leftism like New Zealand? Does Switzerland have significant numbers of uneducated people who think they can vote themselves access to other peoples’ money? What is the constitutional framework in Switzerland for referenda?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Switzerland is not New Zealand, they have a very different history of democracy, and a very different democratic structure based on Cantons (regions).

    For example we were the first to introduce women’s vote in 1893, Switzerland were the last Western democracy to do so in 1971, and the last Canton in Switzerland to give women the vote were forced to in 1991.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wiseowl (893 comments) says:

    Getting rid of the racist seats should be a priority in the interests of this countries future.
    To suggest that their may be protests and that is a reason not to ,abolish them is giving in to blackmail.Times have changed and Maori are represented, probably over represented, under MMP and through the pathetic pandering to them through party lists.

    Gee Chuck ,I would certainly like to see a leader of this country stand up and say NO to the UN instead of signing up meekly to all its PC policies. It’s time the outfit was done away with as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    Germaine Greer, KB’s resident feminist, forgot to mention the “culture of cheese” in Switzerland, compared to NZ’s “culture of rape”.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. cha (4,014 comments) says:

    Oh to be Swiss.
    /

    - Dog owners are required to become qualified in a two-part course before legally owning their pets
    – Professional fishermen must attend classes in compassion
    – Aquariums cannot be transparent on all sides and natural light cycles of day and night must be maintained.

    -Traditional euthanization methods will no longer be tolerated.

    – Special chemicals will be issued for putting goldfish to death (no more execution by flushing)
    – Social animals must cohabit or at least have contact with their own kind
    – Horses, goats and sheep can only be tethered for a certain length of time
    – Pigs, cows and other hoofed mammals cannot be kept in spaces with hard floors

    http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/04/28/swiss-government-enacts-strict/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Wiseowl, I agree with you regarding a leader of this country standing up and saying NO to the UN instead of signing up meekly to all its PC policies. However, it is a different matter reneging on an agreement once it is sign with the UN or any country, group of countries or any entity.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. altiora (279 comments) says:

    @ cha: truly proof that Switzerland is a bastion of real democracy! Can you imagine what it would be like if Switzerland had New Zealand’s vocal taxpayer-sucking health lobby groups driving referenda campaigns for their latest object of hate? Butter in plain packaging with pictures of clogged up arteries. The mind boggles.

    And don’t get me started on what sorts of referenda will result if the Greens ship in Lucy Lawless or the vacuous Keisha Castle Hughes to feature in referenda campaigns.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. deadrightkev (468 comments) says:

    Good old Winston trying to ignite the media. No one owns a policy. Winston is welcome to his Super Gold Card. What a winner.

    If Peters had performed with any of his issues since he entered parliament it wouldn’t have required Colin Craig to take them on. Is there a bigger charlatan in NZ political history? I doubt it.

    DPF: Maori will never let go of the Maori seats without a referendum. Once you let separatism loose and one side gets an advantage as Maori have they will never let it go.

    We wuz robbed has been claimed so often most believe it to be true. Maori were given right royal treatment from go to whoa and still they cry for more.

    Based on many polls on Maori issues around 80% of NZ believe there should be one law for all and Maori should stand equal alongside non Maori.

    On the basis of Maori privilege National have abused the taxpayer for long enough. Its time we all pulled our weight and the outrageous claims were ended.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    I’m yet to see a headline about how Internet Mana have basically stolen the Green’s policies but that’s because it’s cool to hate Colin Craig and not yet cool to hate Kim Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Unity (583 comments) says:

    Absolutely right, Deadrightkev!!

    As for Matthew Hooton, it sounds as though his advice to the Conservatives is devious and designed to have them fail. I would be very suspicious at what he told them and certainly wouldn’t be guided by him if they want any seats.

    Maybe the Conservative’s policies sound as though they were NZ First’s but Winston did nothing with them when he had the chance so now it is the Conservative’s turn and NZ First voters should turn to the Conservatives to see if they can get them to do their best with getting them into policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. NK (1,243 comments) says:

    I see Winston is saying he might stand in East Coast Bays. I’d love to see Andrew Williams stand there against Colin Craig. Williams lives there, and was the former mayor. He appears to have sorted himself out and might do very well there against Craig. I don’t like Winston’s chances in that seat – he’s got no affiliation with the area at all, but Williams certainly has.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Craig has confirmed the Conservative Party’s bottom line.

    If National wants Conservative Party support it will have to make referendums binding, says the party’s leader Colin Craig.

    He’s used his keynote speech at the party’s annual conference this weekend to highlight the party’s policy as a “bottom line” for any coalition negotiations.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10287375/Craig-Make-referendums-binding

    That’s an invitation to National to say “stuff off”.

    Or maybe it’s Craig effectively conceding that with no experience the Conservatives would be best to concentrate on establishing themselves in Parliament on the cross benches through the first term and negotiate bill by bill when it suited them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Mr Craig is a fool.

    His ‘non negotiable’ policy to introduce binding referenda is flawed in every way & even if implemented would work against the conservative ideals he holds in such store.

    1) Government by referenda will be populist. It will reduce the role of political parties to that of rubber stamping law they cannot be held accountable for.

    2) Writing the terms of a referendum would take the wisdom of Solomon, a quality not frequently found in ginger groups pushing a barrow.

    3) Mr Craig is surely not so blind as not to see that there are policies absolutely abhorrent to the Godbotherering classes that would easily attract a simple majority if put to the public. Legalisation of marijuana & euthanasia would be shoo ins.

    Re No.3 I wonder if there’s some under the counter proposal to restrict voting to only people of a certain “quality”. It doesn’t seem possible that those who know so much better than us how we should live our lives would surrender control to the unwashed.

    Perhaps one of Colin’s groupies could lay off the red ticks for long enough to explain how it will all work.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Craig is talking bull:

    Talking referendums, Craig said more people voted against the smacking law than ever voted for John Key to be Prime Minister.

    “Over 87 per cent is not a suggestion Mr Key, it’s as clear as it gets.”

    The referendum wasn’t a vote against the so-called smacking law. That’s howe many people may have seen it but others didn’t.

    I could have justified voting either way on the referendum, depending on how I wanted to interpret it.

    And it’s quite different voting in a simple yes/no referendum that everyone knows is toothless compared to voting in a General Election with a dozen or so parties to choose between.

    If the referendum had had multiple options the highest vote would almost certainly have been reduced.

    An election winning 47% is a lot more successful than 87% on something that would make little difference to anything.

    Craig has a lot to learn about practical and effective democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Deja vu.

    Speaking to media this afternoon, Craig questioned whether Peters would follow through.

    “I think he did some similar sort of signalling last election, I think it’s a game actually.

    “I don’t think he would, and I’m not at all worried if he does.”

    Asked where Peters would place in a race in the electorate, Craig was confident.

    “Behind me, no question about that. Our polling is Murray McCully’s got 30-odd per cent already, I’ve got 15 per cent and nearly 40 per cent undecided.

    Craig quoted some very questionable poll results last campaign that were way off the mark. This sounds very dubious, I wouldn’t trust any poll results from the Conservatives without seeing the proof.

    Last night Christine Rankin claimed Conservative internal polling showed them at 3.8% – but most public polling for them is currently under 2%. Last week’s polls were 1.3% (Fairfax/IPSOS) and 1.0 (Roy Morgan).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ShawnLH (5,025 comments) says:

    “tougher penalties for criminals, a tax-free band below $20,000 of income, making referendums binding and scrapping Maori entitlements.”

    I support the first three, but not the last, so 3 out of 4 ain’t bad. My only reservation is that the criteria for binding referendums would have to be high, to prevent it becoming a circus. That’s doable.

    “Both parties want to end asset sales, stop the sale of farmland to foreigners, scrap the Emissions Trading Scheme and introduce tougher sentences for criminals.”

    The first two are dumb, the second two are good.

    A mixed bag. Would like to have seen a commitment to throwing out the marriage equality bill in favor of a return to a distinction between marriage and civil unions, and a stronger stand on abortion.

    Smaller parties often rise in the polls come the election itself, so they need to work hard to get to 3% or 4% to make a difference.

    So does ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    ….” My only reservation is that the criteria for binding referendums would have to be high, to prevent it becoming a circus.”…..

    Define “criteria”…..a percentage of the vote? importance of the issue (to whom)? whether it was favoured by Family First & the Moral Majority?

    So much is fairy floss in the sky…..we’re not getting much detail.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    The Conservatives will poll better than Act this election. That’s all that matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Griff (7,694 comments) says:

    Colon Crag has the support of the terminally confused Nasska
    all good
    Can not wait for him to get a seat it will lead to weeks of laughter at the sour gripes of the godnuts and loony far right authoritarians
    There will be some very disappointed conservonutters.
    Especially when we put pot and killing grandad to referendum and win legalization for both.
    Maybe even a total ban on christbothering in public would be a winner in a referendum.
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ShawnLH (5,025 comments) says:

    “Define “criteria”…..a percentage of the vote?”

    3 things could be done. Raise the number of signatures needed. Minimum 50% turnout of registered voters. Raise the bar at which a binding referendum can become law, say two thirds or three quarters majority required in a parliamentary vote.

    Or some other similar mix. I’m not opposed to the idea, just to making it too easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ShawnLH (5,025 comments) says:

    “Especially when we put pot and killing grandad to referendum and win legalization for both.”

    Well said. I love it when Liberals are honest about their values. It helps to make all new conservatives. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “Maybe even a total ban on christbothering in public would be a winner in a referendum.”

    Gripp -I have no doubts it would be a winner in this secular cess pit.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Make it too hard Shawn & you’d defeat the purpose of referenda. Only in your dreams would you get 75% of voters to repeal gay marriage or 25% to prevent much needed euthanasia reform.

    You & Baity are conservatives & a dying breed. I’d love to see the CCCP lead policy in action…..the screams from the Godaddled as all their carefully laid plans to socially engineer us crashed & burnt would make it worthwhile. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    ….”Maybe even a total ban on christbothering in public would be a winner in a referendum.”….

    Leave them the comfort of their delusions Griff. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ nasska (10,556 comments) says:
    July 19th, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    There has to be the discretion to ignore referendums that are not worded clearly or that do not follow a prescribed process.
    Otherwise any clown could get one through.

    I could start a referendum that stated “we the undersigned want income tax to be optional”. I’m damn sure I’d reach the quota very quickly, and according to the conservatives, it would have to be accepted and acted on.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Griff (7,694 comments) says:

    Meh
    Whats up spawn
    Cat eat you sense of humor?
    Remember Griff is a full time care giver for someones grandad.
    haven’t overdosed him on morth yet.
    Even when he shits all over the toilet and I have to clean it up. Or when he turns of the freezer and melts an entire frozen beefy beast.
    I would have killed my own mum if that was an option when she was near gone. Seeing that much pointless suffering is shit for the sufferer and those forced to watch powerlessly. I have COMPASSION I would do it for any animal in terminal pain.
    Unlike those who get some sort of weird god whack off of pain needlessly suffered.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    In order for National to move right into Labour’s heartland with their D9 bulldozer (Mr J Key), National have had to go ‘left’. I think this was all part of the plan from the get go. John Key wisely realized where the most people were, in the centre there, and went for it; hence a good 48 – 52% of the vote – even now, going into their third term. Unbelievable.

    Unlike our good friend Redbaiter, I’m not so sure National have forgotten their roots they’ve simply gone with the times. They are where the most people are, but they must know the people are f***ing stupid and so they know they must take them with them gently back to the right and this will take years and some convincing.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn in years to come that all sorts of conversations and deals were / are being done as we speak. National needs a bad cop for their good cop, for National to work long long term. John Key is a trader, he thinks very long term; you have to, to be successful and he was very successful. So, who’s the bad cop?

    Winston’s unreasonable & toxic; ACT just don’t have the numbers, they’ve lost their way, too many leaders and Whyte, much as I like him just doesn’t seem capable of blasting out there like Craig seems to be right now. My money is still on National governing alone but I think we may see Craig in parliament on 21 Sept. Going to be fascinating.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Griff

    To be fair to Shawn he has had a rethink of the euthanasia issue: Recently he stated:

    ….”July 5th, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Yes David, I do agree with you, basically. I would support a law change, if it was done right, by which I mean that there were adequate protections for those unable to speak for themselves and the elderly.

    As a Christian I do not subscribe to the whole “it’s God’s will” notion. I think that’s bad theology. Jesus never hesitated to relieve people’s suffering.

    When quality of life is zero, and the suffering, pain or otherwise, is so extreme, then it’s just cruel to force people to live longer than they want to.

    But, this must be done carefully and slowly, and with as much public support as possible.
    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 “……

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Griff (7,694 comments) says:

    :lol:
    Lee001 going to fade out for a while sooner or later and then reappear as a new an improved mk001spawnlee with an actually out of the closet full on hard core liberal streak.
    Maybe even start smoking jah like a good rasta mon.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Once he’s got the Godcrap out of his system I’d be happy to share a vapouriser with him Griff. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (7,694 comments) says:

    Don’t think we will ever succeed in taking the god out of him nasska hes got way to much invested in it .
    More chance he will read Psalms 104:14 and Genesis 1:29 – and have an epiphany

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Unity (583 comments) says:

    This is interesting –

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/12847/one-law-rule-us/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Just one word on binding referenda: California.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Unity (258 comments) says:
    July 19th, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    I didn’t find it interesting. Its garbage. Its the same sort of stuff they promote with marriage – two people becoming one – all races/people becoming the same under one law – we are not the same, we’ve all traveled a different heritage path, and lived different lives, which in part contributes to who and what we are.

    Good governance knows the difference between equity and equality, and accepts difference and works towards encouraging all in society to reach their full potential, by accepting that some will need more assistance to do that, than others.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Unity (583 comments) says:

    What on earth are you talking about, Judith? You aren’t making one ounce of sense. I don’t see any relationship between what you said and equality under the law – treating us all the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. deadrightkev (468 comments) says:

    I am not clear on referenda as a cure all myself to be fair but one thing I am clear on is that the NZ voter has voted intelligently on every referenda issue so far and been ignored. That is not a democracy.

    The two party dictatorship MMP charade has to go.

    The trendy argument seems to be New Zealanders MAY vote the wrong way on an issue because they are numpties? They have voted intelligently on issues so far (except for MMP and we can blame Bolger for that among other things) and been ignored so I don’t get that logic.

    With referenda there will be promoters pushing for and against a referenda issue so it is up to them to educate and win the debate at the ballot box. NZ is not going to hold a referendum abolishing social welfare or anything anti Maori. Dumping the Waitangi Tribunal or Maori seats as an example is not anti Maori, it is democratic because Maori are entrenched everywhere as it is so there is no longer a need to fuel separatism.

    I am astonished at the way Craig gets pilloried for honesty and just wanting to introduce some basic standards. It reflects how distorted the thinking of many has become when I read the comments from Pete George.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. G152 (341 comments) says:

    Putting ‘Judith’ and ‘sense’ in the same post ?
    That’s some leap of language

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    With any luck they’ll finish each other off. The centre-left and centre-right will be rid of Winston First and his illusions of divine right, opportunism and his gaggle of caucus sycophants (the only one I have any time for is Barbara Stewart) and the centre-right will be rid of the dangerous liability of Colin Craig, with his implied threat of causing social liberal desertion of National over his presence in any coalition and possible attacks on human rights and civil liberties. And good riddance to both of them! I’m not one of those leftists who is willing to kowtow to Winston- he’s an impediment to progress and social liberalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. deadrightkev (468 comments) says:

    The dangerous liability of Colin Craig aye? The first sign of honesty, sincerity and moral courage from someone putting his nuts on the line and the progressives quake in their boots. Its foreign territory I know but I am willing to give him a shot to see how he goes. Ditto for Jamie Whyte as well. I think they will be quite a handful for Mr Key.

    Politics might be about deceit, spin and hand-outs to you on the left but there are a shitload of us still living in hope for a straight talking, principled, honest and courageous leader with standards. Its been sometime since we saw one of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Griff (7,694 comments) says:

    Progressives quake in their boots.
    :lol:
    With laughter
    Colon Crag is not a Conservative.
    He is a very confused populist with shade’s of both right wing nut and lefty moonbat doing a tick of his bucket list.
    .
    Keep The support for CCCP coming the result for electing this guy will be to Keep KBs liberals laughing for years to come.
    Old peters has just about drunken himself into irrelevance we need a new head clown and official Parliamentary jester to keep us entertained.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote