Electorate votes

As I said previously, this election will be decided by electorate votes in a few key electorates. Peter Dunne has now announced he will support a National-led government. National needs as many friends as possible, and Labour as few as possible, if we are to have a change of government. So updated electorate recommendations for a change of government are:

To ensure representation from Act, United Future and The Family Party:

  • Epsom
    • Rodney Hide (Act)
  • Ohariu-Belmont
    • Peter Dunne (United Future)
  • Mangere
    • Jerry Filipaina (Family Party)
  • East Coast Bays
    • Paul Adams (Family Party)
  • Manukau East
    • Papali’i Poutoa Papali’i (Family Party)

To ensure NZ First does not get in:

  • Tauranga
    • Simon Bridges (National)
  • Rimutaka
    • This is more debatable. Probably the National candidate, Richard Whiteside, as many Labour voters will probably vote strategically for Ron Mark, giving Whiteside a chance. But it is a Labour seat currently.

The party vote is where you decide which party policies you support. But the electorate vote can be used strategically under MMP, as it makes a big difference to which minor parties are represented in parliament and which are not. Sometimes this may mean voting for someone whose policies you disagree with – I have recommended candidates from four different parties here. But that is the nature of MMP.

This election, strategic electorate voting is absolutely essential if you want to change the government.

PinkGina on helping the poor

PinkGina made this excellent comment over on Kiwiblog, I just had to reproduce it in full here. It is an excellent illustration of helping people to help themselves:

I thought this was a very timely lesson on human nature…

I was talking to a friend of mines little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, “I want to be Prime Minister!” Both of her parents are Labour supporters and were standing there. So then I asked her, “If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give houses to all the homeless people.”

“Wow – what a worthy goal.” I told her, “You don’t have to wait until you’re Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house.”

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her Mum glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

And I said, “Welcome to the National Party.”

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. But ignore the National plug at the end of course, check our our welfare policy instead!

Right to Life survey

The initial results of the Right to Life candidate survey on pro-life issues are available here.

As expected, both the Family Party and Kiwi Party candidate responses are a sea of green and yellow (pro-life positions).

The response from the major parties was very poor, with only 4 from National, 5 from Labour and 3 from Green, so it is hard to know how representative these are. But if we assume they are representative, the other parties in order from pro-life to pro-death(?) are something like:

  • National
  • United Future
  • Act
  • Labour
  • Green

Alan Liefting of the Green party is the only candidate to have a full line of red dots as his answers – I have talked to Alan a bit in the past at university and this doesn’t surprise me at all. We must get rid of the Green party.

It is interesting that National looks better than United Future on a cursory glance, but there are few responses to judge them by. This does confirm why the Family Party will find it much easier to work with National than with Labour.

Hat tip: Right to Life New Zealand

Close election requires strategic voting

This election is going to be scarily close. It will actually be decided by the votes in several key electorates:

  • Epsom (whether Act is in or not, should be guaranteed but nothing is certain in politics)
    • Rodney Hide
  • Mangere and East Coast Bays (whether the Family Party is in or not)
    • Jerry Filipaina and Paul Adams
  • Tauranga and Rimutaka (whether NZ First is in or not)
    • Simon Bridges and Christopher Hipkins Richard Whiteside

Voters wanting a change of government in these five electorates need to vote strategically. Even if you disagree with Act’s policies, but are in Epsom and want a change of government, Rodney Hide needs your vote. Even if you disagree with Family policies, but are in Mangere or ECB, Jerry Filipaina or Paul Adams needs your vote.

To keep NZ First out, as they will support Labour, Simon Bridges (National) needs your vote in Tauranga, and Christopher Hipkins (Labour) needs your vote in Rimutaka (as the other candidate with the best chance of taking it, the electorate is currently held by Labour) Richard Whiteside in Rimutaka. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with National’s or Labour’s polices – their total numbers will be decided by the party vote, even voting in a Labour candidate here will make no difference to Labour’s total numbers. But candidates make a massive difference to the minor parties.

On the other hand, if Labour voters go for Ron Mark in Rimutaka, that reduces Hipkins chances, and maybe it would be better to vote for the National candidate – this is like trying to play chess 8 moves ahead against 40,000 other players… I don’t like recommending voting against Ron Mark, he is a good man, but unfortunately they will only be siding with Labour this time so he is dragged down by the fact he is in NZ First. Very frustrating. If he jumped ship to National or stood as an independent I could recommend him.

I would also like to be able to recommend Larry Baldock in Tauranga, as a Christian candidate who won’t side with Labour, but ultimately keeping NZ First out will achieve more to change the government than getting Baldock in, and if National voters go for Baldock they risk letting Winston Peters take the electorate. If only Baldock was standing in a different electorate I would be able to recommend him too. But the reality is that Simon Bridges needs those votes more.

We must ensure National has as many friends as possible, and Labour has as few as possible, and that will take careful, strategic voting – and in some cases that may mean voting for someone whose policies you disagree with (such as in Rimutaka). That’s MMP for you.

EDIT: You may note some changes with regard to Rimutaka. This is after I received the following email from Richard Whiteside, the National candidate there, who obviously knows far more about the electorate than I:

I read your blog post on Rimutaka and you have got it totally wrong. Due to boundary changes that favour National & Paul Swain standing down who got 3000 more votes than his party vote at the last election. Rimutaka is very winnable for National. I am the only married family man standing. I was born and bred locally and have been campaigning full time since April. I am running a full campaign to win Rimutaka and have had huge support from National. Being a family man I strongly support family values and have openly declared I do not support the smacking law and signed the petition.

Ron Mark got 10.8% of the vote in 2005 in Waimakariri – that is after 3 attempts, he only started campaigning 2 or 3 weeks ago & he lives in the Wairarapa not Rimutaka.

I know from polling I have a very strong chance of winning this as long as Ron Mark does not take National votes away from me.

Freedom – Family vs Green

The left like to think of themselves as “liberal” and in favour of freedom. Well as many on the right would point out, they are generally anything but liberal, being liberal on sexual matters and restrictive on pretty well everything else, that is part and parcel of being socialist.

I thought I’d compare the Green party website and the Family Party website and see how often the word “ban” appears, using a Google search. It’s been done before on the blogs, but I can’t find the original to quote.

The word “ban” appears 1,010 times on the Green Party website today, click here to check for yourself.

It appears 76 times on the Libertarianz site. (here)

It appears a total of THREE times on the Family Party website! (see here)

Furthermore, the three times the word “ban” appears are:

  • “Be open to debate on dropping the ban”
  • remove the ban”
  • “energy and resources to ban gang patches would be better spent on the war against drug dealing.”

In other words, each is talking AGAINST a ban!

Very unscientific of course, but the contrast is still incredible. So who is really promoting freedom, the conservatives or the so-called liberals?

Christian Vote 2008

Andy Moore has put together an excellent website analysing which party is best for Christians to vote for this election. He backs up everything he says with facts. His overall conclusion is:

  • Best choice: The Family Party
  • Close second: Act
  • Not recommended, but better than nothing: National
  • Not worth considering: United Future and Kiwi

Putting Kiwi and UF so low may surprise some readers, but as I said he backs up what he says with facts so I would encourage you to read the entire page.

I would add to his electorate recommendations however so it stated:

  • Mangere – Jerry Filipaina
  • East Coast Bays – Paul Adams
  • Manukau East – Papali’i Poutoa Papali’i
  • Epsom – Rodney Hide

Remember that these electorate votes are vital in MMP, both Family and Act need to take one electorate each to be represented after the election. Andy recommends National in other electorates, but I would disagree as electorate votes make little difference to the outcome for either National or Labour. Vote for whoever would do the best job in your opinion in other electorates. But Mangere, East Coast Bays, Manukau East and Epsom are vital to vote as recommended above to ensure we have a decent government after the election.

Check out his other websites too: Don’t Vote Labour and Don’t Vote Greens.

Key on moral issues

More from the Dominion Post on John Key. I have already covered Key’s view on smacking, ie no change to the existing law.

Gay Marriage

If a bill came before Parliament allowing gay couples to marry and it was a conscience vote would you vote for the bill?

No.

That is good to hear.

Abortion

What are your personal views on abortion law in New Zealand?

I don’t support any changes to the existing law.

That is disappointing, but that doesn’t mean he would object to the current law actually being enforced correctly – ie abortions only being given for genuine medical reasons rather than “mental health” being an excuse for abortion on demand. We therefore can’t trust Key on his own to reduce the number of abortions but I think the Family Party may be able to work with him to restrict abortion. At least he isn’t wanting to make abortion more available.

National’s proposed amendments to the ETS

John Key has announced what he is intending to do about the ridiculous emissions trading scheme. Just as I suspected, he is just fiddling round the edges. He would making a dumb expensive scheme that does nothing for the environment into a dumb nearly-as-expensive scheme that does even less.

In the first 9 months we will amend the emissions trading scheme. The second thing is that we want to put balance into the scheme so balancing our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities. Thirdly we need to ensure that the scheme is fiscally neutral so that it’s not a big moneymaking device for the government and thirdly that it’s got some either regard or respect for schemes that are similar around the world, where we could be at a competitive disadvantage, particularly Australia.

So all the changes that we are looking at a forestry offset scheme to allow forestry to be a bigger part of the solution. Some specific changes like ensuring that there is 90% grandfathering provision for fishing which at the moment is currently zero would change to 50%. There are other aspects that we are looking at. For instance the current scheme has a linear phase out of the credits from about 2018 depending when they come in the scheme. We think it should be more flexibility when it is phased out. Fourthly it is about getting I think getting the right incentives in that scheme so for instance take farming. In Australia agriculture comes in 2015. In New Zealand it comes in 2013 at 90% their historical allocation and then by 2018 it’s reduced. In Australia they are saying let’s be flexible about that and I am just saying I think we have got to make sure we have a scheme that reflects the need to be more flexible.

Once again, showing why we need the Family Party and Act to knock some sense into the new government.

Key will ignore smacking referendum

After all that effort having a petition, so we will have a referendum on the smacking law next year, John Key has now come out and said he won’t even listen to it. We all knew Helen Clark wouldn’t, but I was hoping for better from Key.

“We’ll have respect for what the referendum says, but it wouldn’t make us change our mind because there is no point in changing the law if it is working as intended…”

If he does see that the law isn’t working as intended (by which I assume he means the police are charging people with smacking rather than using their discretion as per National’s amendment), then he may consider changing the law. So that tempers it a little. But he is still announcing that the referendum won’t influence him to change the law whatever the result, which is pretty arrogant (and stupid politics just before the election).

I want a change of government for sure, he should still be better than Clark. But this shows once again that we need the Family Party in that government if we want it to listen to the will of the people.

Hat Tip: Family First

Care workers told to help clients masturbate

Ok, now this is just disgusting if the allegations are true. Basically care workers allege that they were instructed to help mentally disabled clients masturbate if that was what they wanted, which they rightly refused to do, and they claim this is asking them to be prostitutes. I fully agree. But we can expect further cases like this in a country where prostitution is legal.

In addition to the entire case being ridiculous and disgusting:

None of the six women had masturbated any clients, including the one remaining employee, who is Maori and said she had been told she was exempt on cultural grounds.

So it is ok to expect white women to act as prostitutes, but not brown women?

The woman who allegedly told the workers they were to assist their clients to masturbate is Claire Ryan, whom I assume is the “Relationships and Sexuality Advisor” by the same name at IHC. If you are interested in the sort of stuff that IHC teaches about sexuality, download their September 05 Networker newsletter. This newsletter discusses disabled children growing up and becoming sexual. Not once does it mention whether it is appropriate for teenagers to become sexually active – it just assumes that they will and parents just have to let them do it.

Very worrying stuff, but not surprising at all – this is the exact same rubbish that Family Planning spouts to teenagers at school. In the few encounters I have had with Family Planning, I have found:

  • A school educator boasting to a 6th-form class about how she had managed to convince 12-year-old boys that if they didn’t masturbate their balls would explode, and thinking this was hillarious.
  • The same woman maintaining in front of the class that you could not catch HPV (virus that causes genital warts and cervical cancer) while using a condom, even when challenged, but then admitting privately after the class that she knew full well this was incorrect.
  • A Family Planning nurse claiming that the morning after pill worked by stopping sperm working and preventing conception, not by allowing conception but preventing implantation (the truth, which I regard as an early abortion).
  • A GP who recommends all his patients to ignore everything Family Planning says because he is sick of fixing up all the messes their terrible advice has made for so many of his patients.

This is the state of sex education in NZ. You can walk into Family Planning and get a case of 144 taxpayer-funded condoms for a $3 prescription fee, while Pharmac struggles to fund medication that could potentially save lives. And no-one will even ask you whether you really think you should be having sex at 13 even though it is illegal.

This is why we need the Family Party to push abstinence first as the best option.