Kiwiblog

The Dom Post editorial:

If Conservative Party leader Colin Craig wants to pursue a career in politics, he needs to harden up. His threat this week to sue a satirical website that ran a spoof story which attributed fictional quotes to him suggests he is not yet ready to cope with the rough and tumble of Parliament’s debating chamber.

Politics is the contest of ideas, and those who practise it have to be prepared for the reality that not only will their policies be challenged and derided by their opponents, from time to time, they will be mocked.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not done in a nasty way, and the purpose is to make a political point rather than an outright personal attack. Satire has been around almost as long as politics itself, and, done well, is an entertaining and humorous medium for social and political commentary.

Absolutely. The satirical piece was extremely mild, and only a moron could have thought the purported quote was genuine.

The last thing we need is MPs and wannabee MPs firing off defamation threats at anyone who takes the mickey out of them.

The Herald has a profile on Ben Uffindell, creator of The Civilian. Thanks to the publicity from Colin Craig, he now plans to turn the site into a business. Excellent.

This is so ridiculous that I thought the letter may itself be a parody, but it appears to be genuine.

The Civilian did a satirical piece on 22 April where they said:

Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson is acknowledging that he looks pretty stupid this morning after a series of floods in the Nelson, Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions appeared to contradict his assertion that nothing bad would come of the passing of gay marriage legislation. …

Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig was among the first to point out the National MP’s mistake.

“Williamson likes to talk about big gay rainbows,” said Craig, “but it would help if he understood what the rainbow actually means. After Noah’s flood, God painted a giant rainbow across the sky, which was a message that he would never again flood the world, unless we made him very angry. And we have.”

Prime Minister John Key has reportedly reprimanded Mr. Williamson for being “a big idiot” and is considering removing some of his ministerial portfolios. Mr. Williamson has said that he would accept that, but was surprised to learn he had portfolios.

The bolded paragraph caused Colin Craig to launch defamation proceedings as he thought people may think he really said the words in the article. No, seriously.

The letter from Colin Craig’s lawyers say:

We are instructed that Colin Craig never made the Statement. It is a fiction created by you to make him look ridiculous and the use of quotation marks is designed to give it the appearance of fact. The Statement cannot be dismissed as satire in the circumstances, particularly when it is published alongside quotes from Maurice Williamson which we understand may largely be accurate.

The Civilian makes everyone look ridiculous. It is a satire site. Only a moron would think Colin Craig really said those words.

The chance of a defamation law suit winning would be as close to zero as you can get. But the problem is defending such a lawsuit could cost you up to $100,000. And Mr Craig is a multi-millionaire. And Ben Uffindell is a just newly graduated student.

Colin Craig also tries to get some money out of Uffindell:

Mr Craig also seeks a contribution of $500 towards his legal costs and reserves all of his rights in respect of this matter.

It is a very sad day for democracy in New Zealand when an extremely wealthy political leader threatens an obviously satirical website for defamation, because they took the piss out of him.

The response from The Civilian is great, and is here.

And Danyl McLauchlan publishes a previously unknown interview with Colin Craig.

I blogged on the 20th of February on Colin Craig’s call for MPs to vote on same sex marriage in accordance with the wishes of their electorate. He was reported as saying:

Mr Craig said that if he was elected, he would vote for gay marriage if his electorate demanded it, in spite of his strong opposition to the law change.

I asked:

Okay so does this mean if Colin Craig was an electorate MP and a poll showed the majority of his electorate support abortion on demand, Colin Craig would vote for the law to be abortion on demand – no matter how strongly he personally feels it is murder?

I’d like to see an answer to that question. Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it?

Colin has kindly responded to the question and sent in a guest post, where he outlines his views on the role of referenda and what should happen if an MP and their electorate do not agree. His response is:

This question, of course, could be proposed for various controversial socially liberal pieces of legislation, and is really a question of “how do I see democracy working, and how does representation happen”. So in a nutshell here is my view:

Government initiated referenda: (including general elections). The people vote and their will is done even if there is a single vote in it.  I believe these should be limited to major issues such as elections, constitutional/ electoral arrangements, and major social changes (such as redefining marriage). However, as this is at the discretion of government, it could be used more extensively if the government saw fit.

Citizens initiated referenda: Such referenda are proposed by the citizens themselves. Our party policy is that where such a referenda achieves two-thirds support from the voting public it should be binding on government.  Existing legislation needs amendment not only to bring in the binding aspect, but also to limit proposals to simple questions in the affirmative. 

Vote in Parliament by List MPs: In my view a list MP should always vote consistent with the Party Policy. If no policy exists (such as on redefining marriage for National MPs) then the best option would be for them to consult with members of the party and thereby accurately represent the membership. As our Party has three clear policies on abortion (“Proper Application of Existing Law”, “Free and Informed Consent”, and “Parental Consent for Minors”) which are all aimed at reducing the number of abortions, no Conservative Party List MP would vote for abortion on demand.

Vote in Parliament by Electorate MPs :

A challenging situation could arise if a Conservative Party candidate is elected as the MP  for an electorate. He is then being sent to parliament to represent an electorate (not a party). I do believe that an MP is required to faithfully represent those who sent him even if he does not agree with them. A simple servant-master situation.

If the electorate required the MP to vote in a way that was against his conscience (and “yes” abortion on demand is against mine), he has in my view the following options:

1. To vote as directed by the electorate (against his own conscience)
2. To abstain on the issue
3. To go back to the electorate and negotiate with them. If there is an impasse then to offer his resignation.
4. To ignore the electorate and vote as he pleases

The first and last options (1 & 4) I believe to be incorrect choices. The first, because it breaches conscience, and the last because it usurps the servant role of the representative (it would be unfaithful to those who sent him). This leaves only 2 & 3 as options in my view. Personally I would elect the third option.

To close then, “no” I would not vote for “abortion on demand” but I would recognise that as an electorate MP this might require my resignation. If so then I would be pleased to stand aside so that a representative who was “more in tune” with the electorate could take my place.

A simple case of the people wishes being done and that my friend is democracy.

It’s a thoughtful nuanced response. I understand the attractiveness of (3) but I wonder about the practicality. How do you determine what is the opinion of the electorate? Is is through random polls like my company does? Is it based on write in responses? What is the response is 51% one way and 49% the other? do you take into account intensity of feeling? And how exactly do you negotiate with an entire electorate?

But it’s good to have had Colin elaborate more fully on his views of how referenda and MPs consciences and electorate wishes should work together. Lots of stuff to consider there.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig is using his personal wealth to make a nationwide drop of leaflets which criticise MPs who do not follow their electorate’s wishes.

His office has published and distributed 200,000 leaflets at a cost of $55,000 – a figure which Mr Craig expects to double as he ramps up his party’s electioneering.

The leaflets have accused MPs of ignoring their electorates in making changes against the wishes of the majority, such as the anti-smacking bill and asset sales.

Mr Craig was especially critical of Prime Minister John Key for backing a bill to legalise same-sex marriage – a move he felt was out of tune with Mr Key’s Helensville electorate.

“This is not an insignificant issue. The majority of people genuinely feel their MP should be guided by their own electorate and not their own opinion.”

I disagree entirely. I quote (again) Edmund Burke:

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs,—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

As much as I would personally benefit from MPs making all their decisions based on opinion polls, I think it is wrong. Public opinion is always something to be considered and of influence. But at the end of the day decisions should be made on the basis of whether you believe an action is good or bad.

Mr Craig said that if he was elected, he would vote for gay marriage if his electorate demanded it, in spite of his strong opposition to the law change.

Really? Honestly?

Okay so does this mean if Colin Craig was an electorate MP and a poll showed the majority of his electorate support abortion on demand, Colin Craig would vote for the law to be abortion on demand – no matter how strongly he personally feels it is murder?

I’d like to see an answer to that question. Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it?

I doubt it.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Moana Mackey asked Mr Craig if he still believed, as he said last August, that homosexuality was “a choice”.

“I do,” he said. “It’s a choice influenced by a number of things including genetics.”

This is just nonsense. I think it is perfectly valid to not support same sex marriage. But I do not think it is valid to keep insisting that being homosexual is a choice.

My question back to Colin Craig would be when did he decide to be heterosexual. What age was he? Did he weigh up the pros and cons of heterosexuality vs homosexuality? Did he consult friends over his choice?

You can choose whom you have sex with. But you don’t get to choose whom you are sexually attracted to. I wish we could – would make life much easier!

Darien Fenton blogs:

Last night I attended the 101st anniversary of the Republic of China (Taiwan) anniversary, along with other parliamentary colleagues, Rajen Prasad, Hon Peter Dunne and National MP Jami-lee Ross. Peter Goodfellow, National Party President was there, and Paul Hutchinson attended, but had to leave early.

This was one of those occasions when we were there as invited guests to help celebrate the community’s pride in their country’s history and their place in New Zealand. When MPs attend these kind of events, we are welcomed as an important part of the celebration. As guests, our job is to respond appropriately and join in with the spirit of the occasion.

Speakers from all sides of the political spectrum spoke respectfully. There were no party politics, just an acknowledgement of the friendship and links between our countries, the contribution of the Taiwanese community in New Zealand and the celebration of their 101st special birthday.

But one person got it wrong. Colin Craig, Conservative Leader was also an invited guest.

He chose to use his speech to try to draw links between the Conservative party’s “family values” and Taiwan. For example,  (he said)  Taiwan has lower divorce rates than New Zealand.  And then he launched into a political speech about the marriage equality bill.

Maybe he thought he was onto a vote winner. But he caused embarrassment to his hosts and other guests.

And he showed appalling judgement.

I heard about this from almost every MP that was there – from three different parties. They all said Craig showed awful judgement in thinking a national day celebration is a forum for partisan speeches.

Some people think I am against a conservative type party in Parliament. I am not. I recognise there is a segment of the population that are socially conservative and economically wet, and they should be represented in Parliament.

My objection isn’t to there being a Conservative Party (or a NZ First Party). It is to their respective leaders. I actually wish Colin Craig would stop doing so many pratfalls. But if keeps saying idiotic things like being gay is a choice, and embarrassing himself at functions, then he’s going to have a tough time of it.

Colin Craig has proclaimed:

Colin Craig, Leader of the Conservative Party has responded to yesterday’s vote by the Australian Parliament that overwhelmingly quashed their gay marriage bill.

Mr Craig says “Once again Australia has made the smart decision by refusing to make unnecessary and detrimental changes to the definition of marriage. This is another example of Aussies showing us how to do it, and will further support the trend of New Zealanders leaving for Australia.”

He actually put this in a press release? Wow, does he need a better press secretary.

Lyndon Hood tweeted:

People leaving NZ because they can’t stand the idea of homosexuals marrying each other. Colin Craig says a risk; I say a bonus.

I’m with Lyndon on that one. Personally I doubt a single person will swap countries because of how Australia and NZ voted on same sex marriage. Anyway, Australia will I am sure vote the same way within a decade.

The Labor MPs who voted against include Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. The vote was 42 in favour and 98 against. 38 Labor MPs voted for it, and 33 voted against or did not vote.

The HoS reports:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig thinks John Key is “too gay” for his Helensville seat and has said so in 20,000 letters to residents.

Pamphlets arrived in locals’ mailboxes this week, urging them not to back Labour MP Louisa Wall’s same-sex marriage bill. They were accompanied by a signed letter from Craig. It gave prominence to a comment from a disgruntled local: “Colin, you should stand here because John Key is too gay for Helensville.”

What sort of political moron would actually use a quote like that in a pamphlet they authorise?

“There are people out there who simply don’t like to see their Prime Minister doing things like dancing on stage with transvestites, as he has done in the past,” he said.

The crime is the dancing, not the company he dances with

I note that in Helensville John Key got 26,011 votes and the 2nd placed candidate got 4,945. The Conservative candidate got 945.

Aaargh – I wanted to leave this topic alone until next week, but Colin Craig opens his mouth again. He has responded to an article by Josh Drummond in the Waikato Times:

So to help Mr Dummond out and set the record straight here are some facts.

First Fact: I do hold the view, based on research, that adopting a gay lifestyle is a choice.

Is adopting a gay lifestyle like adopting a pet? Or is it more like adopting a favourite sports team?

And can someone tell me Craig that him holding a view is not a fact!

I have absolutely no problem with people who do not agree with same sex marriage. I disagree with them, but respect the fact they place greater emphasis on tradition than others do.

But what I do not respect is someone who says such ignorant stupid and false stuff, such as people choose to be gay.  It reflects a detachment from reality, and is like arguing that the earth is flat.

I have said that to believe that all gays were born that way is narrowminded and ignores the facts and research.

This is a fallacious argument, and a red herring. It is not a binary choice between “born that way” and “choice”. I have constantly said that most gay people have no choice about whom they are attracted to, and fall in love with. Research shows it appears to be a combination of genetics and environmental factors at a very very early age.

One factor is how many older brothers you have. It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male.

Let’s finish with a quote from Cynthia Nixon (Sex in the City). ‘‘I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ’I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice’’. 

Yes, for bisexual people, it is a choice as to whether or not they partner up with men or women. But there is a difference between being gay and bisexual.

As I said earlier, one can have a legitimate view against same sex marriage on the grounds of tradition etc etc. I disagree with that view, but understand it.

But arguing being gay is a lifestyle choice is ignorant bigotry, and I detest it. I can understand people having that view 30 years ago – but not today. It is simply degrading to gays and lesbians who have never ever had the slightest degree of choice about their sexual orientation, to have Colin Craig insist it it.

Argue against same sex marriage on the basis of marriage is a religious ceremony, or marriage should remain in its traditional form – fine. I’ll argue back, but as they say still respect you in the morning. But if you argue against same sex marriage on the basis that all gays and lesbians can merely “choose” to stop being gay or lesbian – then you are deluded.

Following on the cats that look like David Cunliffe page, we now have the weasels that look like Colin Craig page.

I especially like the Colin wonders where to put his paws page.

3 News reports:

 Mr Craig told 3 News that people choose to be gay rather than being born that way, many as a result of being abused as children.

What an astonishing statement. I’m not sure what is more ignorant or offensive. The belief that people choose to be gay. When did Mr Craig choose to be heterosexual I wonder?

But even worse, his assertion that people choose to be gay because they were abused as a child. This is the sort of nut job statements I might expect in West Virginia, not New Zealand.

He says he has seen the impact same-sex parents have on their children but when asked if he knew any same-sex couples with children, he was cagey in his response.

“I actually do know of a couple, I don’t know them well. I wouldn’t say they were friends of mine.”

I’m sure he wouldn’t. Oh yuck, we can’t make friends with those gay people who were abused as children. They might infect us.

Another one his arguments - according to research he couldn’t remember – is that gay men have a lower life-expectancy than non-gay men.

“Does that matter? I think it does if you think of the kids they raise,” he says.

Good God. I didn’t think he could get worse. Using Colin Craig logic, then no Maori parents should be allowed to have children, as Maori life expectancy is lower than non-Maori.

As for the research Craig cites unnamed, it is probably the research by Paul Cameron that was so deeply flawed he got ejected from three professional bodies over it. An analysis is here, but the short version is he formed his conclusions based on obituary notices in gay newspapers, which is so far from a scientific sample as to not be funny.

He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.

“Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.

“Sure. Sure I could,” he responded.

“You could choose to be gay?,” he was asked again.

“Yea, if I wanted to,’ he replied.

This fits with my theories about repression!

Let me say I could never ever be gay. Quite simply there is not one fibre of my body that wants to be intimate with men. I can’t change that – I am hopelessly addicted to falling for women. Likewise though, many (not all) gay men and women just do not find the opposite sex in any way attractive. It is not a choice. That is just the way they are.

Colin Craig may be mixing up sex with desire. He may be saying that he could have sex with a man. But sexual orientation is about attraction.

Mr Craig wants a referendum held on the issue so all of New Zealand can decide if homosexual couples can marry.

With Craig arguing on one side, I think a referendum would result in a huge vote in favour of same sex marriage.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig loaned $1.9 million to his party for its election expenses, but this month wrote off $1.6 million of that loan as a donation.

A $1.6 million donation was disclosed to the Electoral Commission on May 18 under the law requiring donations of more than $30,000 to be declared within 20 working days.

The party’s election return was also filed with the Electoral Commission on May 18 – about two months late – and it listed no donations over the disclosure threshold of $15,000 and only $11,791.50 in smaller sums.

There are numerous issues here, which may have some legal consequences. For a start one could dispute whether the loan was even a loan, when there was obviously no capacity to repay. So the first issue is was it a genuine loan, or should it always have been treated and disclosed as a donation.

The second issue is the interest on the loan. Let’s start with what the Electoral Act says on interest free loans. S207 defines a party donation as including:

where credit is provided to a party on terms and conditions substantially more favourable than the commercial terms and conditions prevailing at the time for the same or similar credit, the value to the party of those more favourable terms and conditions

So how big is the value of a $1.9m interest free loan?

Mr Craig said his company, Centurion Management, had paid the bills for the Conservatives’ campaign totalling $1.55 million during 2011, and subsequently billed the party for the amount.

We’ll come back to the legality of having a company pay bill on behalf of a political party.

The auditor’s report with the donation return said it was possible that Mr Craig’s $1.6 million should be listed in the donation return for election year – rather than now – if it was deemed to be a donation on the date the bills were originally paid by way of a loan, rather than the date the debt was forgiven.

And if it was a donation at the time the bills were paid, it was not disclosed when it was meant to.

Mr Craig said the party had treated the bill payments by Centurion on its behalf as credit on favourable grounds and declared interest on that at a rate of 12 per cent, which totalled a $10,590.50 donation in its return.

This is where the numbers do not add up. An annual interest rate of 12% is equal to a daily rate of 0.033%. Which means from the day the $1.6m bills were paid, daily interest of $526 is accrued.

Now if over $15,000 of interest was accrued before 31 December 2011, then a donation should have been disclosed in their donation return. This means that if the bills were paid before 3 December 2011, then the Conservatives have failed to disclose the donation in their annual return. The Electoral Commission needs to determine when bills were actually paid, to determine this.

However the larger problem may be the requirement to immediately disclose any donation over $30,000. Once that $1.6m had been paid for more than 57 days, then it needed to be disclosed. Now the overall donation was disclosed on 17 May 2012. S210C(6) states:

A return must be filed under subsection (1) or (2) within 10 working days of the donation being received by the party secretary.

This means that if the value of the foregone interest exceeded $30,000 by 03 May 2012, then it should have been disclosed before 17 May 2012. Now when is the latest the expenses should have been paid. S206E states:

A claim that is sent to the party secretary in accordance with subsection (1) must be paid within 40 working days after the day on which the declaration required by section 193(5) is made.

The declaration referred to is the declaration of election results. This was on 17 December 2012. So the bills must be paid within 40 working days. But a working day excludes any days between 25 December and 15 January. So 40 working days after 17 December is the 5th of March. This is the last possible day the advertising bills were paid. Personally I would be surprised if they were not paid in December, as people get grumpy if not paid.

The interest that would accrue between the 5th of March and the 3rd of May is $31,000 approx. So even under the most favourable legal timings I would say they also breached the continuous disclosure rule.

But on top of this we have the murky fact that the bills were paid by Centurion Management. One can either treat Centurion as an agent of the party, or as an outside entity. If it was an outside entity, then Centurion should have billed the Conservatives by the 5th of February and been paid by the 5th of March. It appears they were not paid until the mid May, when Craig repaid them. So that arrangement is also legally suspect.

If they were acting as an agent of the Conservatives (like an ad agency would), well was this documented. Of importance is that Centurion is not the private company of Colin Craig. He owns 55% and his wife 40%, but 5% is owned by a Stephen and Sarah Plummer.  Mr Plummer is a director. Did the Board formally approve the use of Centurion to act on behalf of the Conservatives and pay all their bills for them?

So I’d say there are a huge number of issues for the Electoral Commission to gets its head around. At a minimum they need details of when actual bills were paid, and then calculate foregone interest from those dates.

It is worth noting that Craig was open about the fact he was bankrolling the campaign for the party he leads. However that doesn’t mean one can ignore the rules. What Colin Craig should have done is set up a bank account for the Conservatives from the moment it was registered, donated the money to them upfront, and then have the party pays bill directly and disclose his donation within 10 working days. The way he has gone about it, has not been clean. Private companies should not be paying bills on behalf a registered political parties, and the loan should have been treated as a donation from the start as there was never any possibility of significant repayment.

It will be interesting to see what the Electoral Commission determines.

The Herald reported last week:

NZ First leader Winston Peters said the fact Mr Key was open to a potential coalition with someone who had such a belief only showed how desperate National was.

This was a reference to Colin Craig’s comments on how promiscuous young NZ women are.

However listen to this recording sent to me by Matthew Flannagan of (then) NZ First MP Pita Paraone at a Family First forum in 2007. He refers to the Durex survey (it was released just before the forum) and that it showed how promiscuous young New Zealanders are.

So for Winston to be huffing and puffing about National being desperate if they associate with someone like Colin Craig – well he should look closer to home.

Incidentally Colin Craig presented his views much better on Q+A this morning. Well worth a watch.

NZ First Promiscuity Pita Paraone (1)

Radio NZ reports:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for what he says are the most promiscuous young women in the world to get free contraceptives.

I’m not sure if that statistic is correct, but if so can I just say how happy I am to be a Kiwi

“Why should, say, a 70-year-old who’s had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around.

Well as far as I know women don’t get paid to have sex, well unless they are a professional. Most women have sex because they enjoy it.

They only get “paid” if they get pregnant and have a baby. Contraception means that generally will not happen, so I would have thought Colin would be all in favour.

“We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”

This is like saying we are the country with the best oysters in the world, and something must be done

I do like how Colin rails against “promiscuous young women” and says nothing about men. It does take two to tango. I really thought we were past the age of casting them as the evil Eve type seductress.

An interesting discussion on The Nation with Colin Craig of the CCCP. Some extracts:

Duncan        Well is does, it means 5% probably, but economically you don’t line up with those on the right do you, because you don’t believe in those taxcuts that John Key did.  You don’t believe in asset sales.

Colin            Be a matter of timing only…

Duncan        We’ll get to that, but you don’t believe in the foreign investment around Crafer Farms, do you?

Colin            No I don’t, I think the Crafer Farms is a bad deal for New Zealand.

I see little to distinguish the CCCP economic policy from NZ First. I guess one difference is the leadership – Colin Craig better a slightly more palatable option than Winston.

Duncan        What would be a deal breaker around policy for a Conservative Party, what is so important to you?

Colin            I think issues for us very much fiscal and budget issues.  We can’t support continued increase in government expending.  Now National made a clear promise they would cut the spending, but did not.  Now for us we’ve got to bring the budget back under control.

Duncan        So you’re saying they’re not doing enough?

Colin            No, they’re not.  I don’t think they’ve made the brave or the hard decisions they should have made.

Duncan        Well you’ve had two zero budgets, with the second one of course coming up in two weeks’ time.  What would you have done differently.  Are you saying you would have gone much further than that.  Conservative Party in a future government would be pushing for much tougher cuts?

Colin            Yeah, in our current situation absolutely.

Duncan        What would you get rid of?

Colin            I would look at any spending that’s not delivering results and say well no results no money.

Duncan        But can you give me examples of what you would get rid of?

Colin            One example would be say the Family Court where we spend heading towards 200 million.  Now the model that’s used overseas that works very well is not one where we arm you know disputing partners with lawyers and put them in a court.  It’s a mediation model, it has a much higher success rate, and it costs less money to run.  So that’s just one example where we’d say gotta be far more innovative around our spending.

Here though they have some appeal. Winston demands extra spending/bribes regardless of the fiscal situation. Craig wants to cut spending. Not sure I agree on the Family Court (and the cost is $137m, not $200m) but all for a party supporting cutting wasteful spending.

Duncan        Colin Craig do you think that you could be a long term partner for a National Party?

Colin            Oh I think we could be obviously.  We’re a small party, we’re only six months in, so we’re very young, but we’re growing, we’re still growing.

Duncan        But you’d put aside some of your disagreements around those central economic…?

Colin            Inevitably in politics you can’t get everything you want.  That’s just how politics is.

This is a significant change from the election. Maybe Colin Craig is listening to some good advice now. He went into the campaign declaring he could support National or Labour, so why would centre-right voters vote for him? He also declared certain policies non negotiable, which is unwise at 2%.

I would prefer a classical liberal partner for National. But I’d take a Conservative Party partner over having no partner at all – so long as their policies are not worse than the alternative of a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government.

Colin Craig’s Conservative Party has been claiming they will win Rodney, on the basis of this poll report, which is on their website. The key extract is:

47.2% of those who had decided who they were likely to vote for as an electorate candidate would vote for Craig.

This would position Craig in first place in the electorate, ahead of ‘The National Party Candidate/Mark Mitchell/Lockwood Smith (36.3%).

The polling was done by Research First. Whale recently revealed their director is a candidate for the Conservative Party. I commented at the time:

This does not mean that the poll results are or are not valid. As I said, validity is based on knowing the question asked and the methodology. You can poll for an organisation you are involved with. For example, Curia does an annual poll for the Republican Movement on whether people want NZ to become a republic when the Queen dies. Now I am on the Council of the Movement, but this doesn’t influence the results. The key thing is I have publicly disclosed my involvement.

Now in response to a request from Whale, Research First have released details of the questions they asked. It is good they have done so, because as I said the exact questions asked are often vital to interpreting a poll’s results. Their response says:

 Relevant questions included the following, in order of being asked:

1 For your party vote, have you decided who you will be voting for in the election?

2 Which party do you currently intend to vote for?

3 Have you heard of the Conservative Party?

4 Have you heard of Colin Craig?

Participants were read a brief preamble to provide context: ‘Colin Craig is the leader of the Conservative Party of New Zealand. In the Auckland mayoral election, Colin came third with over 40,000 votes’. Then asked…

5 If Colin were to stand in as a candidate in your electorate, what would be the likelihood that you would vote for Colin to be your member of parliament (on a scale of 1 = definitely; 2 = likely; 3 = neutral; 4 = unlikely and 5 = very unlikely)?

Those who identified they were neutral or unlikely to vote for Craig were asked:

6 Who do you intend to vote for?

Okay, let’s take this step by step. The first two questions are pretty standard. Then there are two specific question asking awareness of the Conservative Party and Colin Craig. Then a statement was read out which puts Craig in a positive light (mentioning his votes in the Auckland Mayoral election), and then they ask people how likely it is they will vote for Craig, and only if they say they are neutral or unlikely to they even ask you who else you will vote for.

The results are no surprise, once you realise this is the questions that were asked, and in what order. You have a number of factors here influencing the responses, namely:

• The mention of the Conservative Party and Colin Craig first
• The description of Colin Craig provided to respondents
• The question only asked about voting for Colin Craig, with no mention of anyone else
• Only if you say you are neutral or unlikely to vote Craig, do you even get asked whom else you might vote for
• The other candidates are unprompted, so you are comparing unprompted results vs a prompted result.

I am surprised that Research First did not insist on these questions being included in their report, as in my opinion they are quite vital to it. I also think it is unwise to compare answers to a prompted question to answers to an unprompted question.

If I was wanting to poll that seat, and get a result which was fairly trying to ascertain support, the questions I would use are either:

Which candidate, or party’s candidate are you likely to vote for with your electorate vote?

or

The candidates for Rodney are Colin Craig, Conservative; Beth Houlbrooke, ACT; tracey Martin, New Zealand First; Mark Mitchell, National; Terea Moore, Green and Christine Rose, Labour. Which candidate are you likely to vote for with your electorate vote?

One might also have a follow up lean question for those undecided. I very strongly suspect that the results to the questions above would be vastly different to the results of the poll commissioned by the Conservative Party.

There is never any 100% correct version of a question, and rarely 100% incorrect version. In terms of ascertaining potential support for Colin Craig, those questions may be legitimate if commissioned for internal use only. But what I think was wrong was to have them publicly reported as Craig being “in first place”. The questions should have been reported.

The lesson for media here, is to always ask for the questions. Those media who reported the poll, should be wary of doing so in future without checking.

Steve Hopkins at Stuff reports:

The leader of the Conservative Party, Colin Craig, has confirmed he will stand as the Rodney electorate candidate.

The announcement today ends speculation he would stand against John Banks in Auckland’s Epsom.

Craig says he was attracted to the challenge of taking on Banks, his former mayoral campaign rival, but he’s ”followed his heart by standing for the people” of Rodney.

”I’ve lived in Rodney and my business involvement here has spanned more than 20 years. Many of my family live here and I’m passionate about getting things moving for everyone in the region,” he says.

Craig’s father Ross Craig was a Rodney district councillor until the Auckland super city council was formed last year.

This is a much more sensible decision, than standing in Epsom would have been. Standing in Epsom would only have benefited Labour.

Craig appears to be seeking the same sort of voters as NZ First – socially conservative, and economically centrist. If NZ First does not make it back in, then in 2014 Craig has the possibility of picking up many of his voters. In 2011, it will be harder.

The Conservative Party claims polling in the area shows Craig is ahead of his nearest rival.

Meanwhile, further polling by the party claims to show Banks is struggling to win over Epsom voters.

Of those who had decided who they were likely to vote for as an electoral candidate in Epsom, 35.3 per cent say they would vote for the National candidate, 31.4 per cent would tick Banks, and 27.4 per cent say they would give their vote Craig if he was on the ballot paper.

So the Conservative Party claims it is ahead in Rodney? I’d love to see the name of the polling company they use for these polls, and what he exact questions were.

UPDATE: Act on Campus point out Craig was polling against the retiring MP, not the actual National candidate. He must literally have money to waste.

Personally I’m even more doubtful of a poll that says Craig would beat Lockwood if he was standing again.

Colin Craig has announced the formation of a new party, the Conservative Party. Craig is a conservative, so the party is well named.

There is room in the political spectrum for a conservative party. The closest we have at the moment is New Zealand First, but of course Winston makes that party unable to be trusted. I have said in the past that if Winston was not the leader, there would be a place for NZ First.

Looking at their implicit policies, through their conservative test, the Conservative Party looks to have similar policies to NZ First – morally conservative, and economically wet.

There is an opportunity for Craig to fashion a true conservative party, which gains representation in Parliament. But there is also the possibility that it may just be a vehicle for his personal ambitions, as the parties of Peters and Anderton were. Will the Conservative Party be democratic? Will party members be able to elect a board, and select candidates? Or will Craig make all major decisions as he is the funder?

From what I can see, I don’t think I will agree with most of their policies. But there may be a segment of New Zealanders who will. It will be interesting to see how they do.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland property manager who is spending $450,000 to promote a march against the smacking law says he hopes it will be the biggest protest march in New Zealand history.

Colin Craig, 41, and his wife Helen own companies which manage high-rise apartment buildings including Nautilus at Orewa and the Sentinel at Takapuna.

He says he has never belonged to or donated money to a political party, and had never given money to the Family First lobby group until Prime Minister John Key refused to change the smacking law when 87.4 per cent of voters said in a referendum that smacking should not be a criminal offence.

But yesterday he teamed up with Family First leaders Bob McCoskrie and Bev Adair to announce plans for a “march for democracy” in Queen St at 1.30pm on Saturday, November 21.

Mr Craig will be the major funder with a budget “in the hundreds of thousands – I hope not more than $450,000″.

Good on him for spending his own money on a cause he believes in. If Labour were still in Govt, no doubt there would be calls for some sort of law to stop Mr Craig from being able to spend his own money in this way.