Promoting social and fiscal conservatism and freedom of speech for all New Zealanders
Opposing progressive liberalism, political correctness, and left-wing social engineering
Promoting social and fiscal conservatism and freedom of speech for all New Zealanders
Opposing progressive liberalism, political correctness, and left-wing social engineering
It is quite clear that conservatism in many western democracies is in crisis; it is up against the ropes, and it has nothing to do with the conservative message; social and fiscal conservatism is by far the best message out there, so what’s the problem?
Without question the conservative message resonates with the ‘more intelligent adults’ in western democracies, but the problem is this: these adults are becoming scarcer by the day as they are being replaced by the ‘hippie adults’ that haven’t grown or matured since hippie era of the 60’s and 70’s. And therein lies the problem; it is these people who are now the dominant force within the political arena; what were once considered ‘cosmic kooks’ are now steering the ship and turning cosmic thoughts into reality; what were once considered irrational thoughts and behaviours are now rational thoughts and behaviours. Personal responsibility, the once cornerstone of democracy and civilisation has now been replaced by personal irresponsibility and a free-for-all lifestyle. Without any equivocation, more intelligent adults know this is destructive and will lead to the collapse of civilisation; however, in the short term the people steering this ship are indeed very hard to combat. It is very hard to sell responsibility to today’s children when all they want is irresponsibility; nonetheless, we have a duty to do so as there is no other way.
We have seen the collapse of the Republican Party through pseudo conservatives such as Karl Rove et al. pushing for moderate candidates like Romney and failing, which raises the question just how conservative is Marco Rubio—also backed by Rove? We are witnessing the implosion of the Conservative Party in the UK under the leadership of David Cameron, and we’re about to witness the same with the National Party under John Key—all because these people, and the henchmen around them, don’t know what conservatism is as they are liberal through and through.
This brings me to the point of this post; just how conservative is conservative Colin Craig? We have seen the rise of the UKIP party out of the failed Conservative Party in the UK, and we are presently seeing the rise of the Conservative Party out of a failing National Party in New Zealand. However, there is no point replacing John Key, with Colin Craig without vetting him as well. For the sake of New Zealand’s survival we simply cannot afford to let another career politician slip through the cracks; we cannot afford to vote for someone only to see him turn his back on his constituents—more on this below.
First however, have a read of what Melanie Phillips said in respect to the Conservative Party’s implosion in the UK and then read something similar; what Redbaiter said about the National Party in New Zealand:
How Tory left-collaborators undermine marriage, conservatism and Britain
The Tories are in ferment. Plots against David Cameron appear to be seeding like dandelion spores. Rebellion looms in the division lobbies.
The list of Mr Cameron's apparent crimes lengthens by the day.
The threatened triple-dip depression. Gay marriage. Labour's lead in the opinion polls. And the fact that the Prime Minister looks like a loser.
To which one might marvel at just what a shower these Tories are. For they have behaved mutinously towards every one of their leaders since they toppled Mrs Thatcher in 1990.
The reason for this never-ending uproar surely lies deeper, however, than indiscipline among power-crazed MPs or the deficiencies of individual leaders.
Indeed, it explains why the Tories just can't seem to produce a leader they do support.
It is that conservatism itself is in crisis.
With some honourable exceptions, today's Tories don't appear to know what conservatism is for and what it is against.
In the last century, they all knew they had to defend Britain against socialism. But when the Berlin Wall fell and Labour started speaking the language of market economics, the Tories seemed to conclude that their fox had been shot.
They could not have been more wrong. The attempt by the Left to undermine and topple Western society had merely shifted from political revolution to social and cultural issues.
And at the very centre of that systematic onslaught lay the intention to destroy the unique importance of the married family and replace it by a lifestyle free-for-all. Read more
The Collaborators
Recently a notable “center right” blog produced a list predicting the Cabinet Ministers that would be appointed if the left bloc (Greens/Labour) managed to win the next NZ election, an event that sadly looks more probable every day.
Some said the publication of this list would serve to scare NZers into voting for the National Party. I don’t know about that, but if so, it’s an idea that would have met the approval of the faceless left wing “media advisors” who surround John Key, and who being barren of political principle, would always prefer easy scaremongering over outspoken and confrontational debate.
When I say left wing I say that because there is not really any ‘right wing” faction within National. Political tussles occur within the party of course, but just like each 3 year election, it’s basically just a difference of opinion between leftists who merely argue over how to do socialism better than the further left faction called Labour. Read more
Back to Colin Craig—to answer the question ‘just how conservative is conservative Colin Craig?’ I have compiled a few videos for which I will comment under each. The first is of his ‘march for democracy’
Comment: I actually participated in the march in which I personally thought was a bit disorganised—there were polar opposites in the march; there were even some far-left radicals in it. Having said that, what Colin Craig said in the video was right on message and he came across as very natural and sincere indeed.
However, the next video of Craig being interviewed on Q+A by Paul Holmes in relation to the forming of the Conservative Party is a tad disconcerting—sorry you have to click the link, but it is worth the time spent:
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/conservative-party-leader-colin-craig-7-05-video-4341432
Comment: The march for democracy saw Craig gain attention as a possible conservative leader; however, when he joined the mayoral race, I began to smell another career politician—I couldn’t connect the dots between marching for democracy and being the mayor of Auckland. Then came the interview with Paul Holmes where Craig was good in the first half but really floundered on homosexuality in the second; he could not conclusively say homosexual relationships are not as good as heterosexual relationships—a true conservative would say they are not as good without any hesitation what so ever.
In the interview, he put a lot of emphasis on binding referenda which has its merits. For example, a binding referendum on gay marriage at 51% of the vote would see gay marriage defeated. However, a referendum on say 40% salary increases at 51% of the vote would probably also pass with flying colours, and that would not be good for the country. The problem with referendums is they swing both ways. I have even heard Craig say that the threshold doesn’t have to be set at 51%, it could be set at 60~70%. If the latter were the case then we would lose in a referendum on gay marriage if one were held today. There are obviously some problematic issues relating to this policy even though it is essentially democratic.
In the next video on ‘The Beat Goes On’ Craig was much better:
Comment: I thought Craig was much more composed and relaxed in this interview; his conservative stance on fiscal issues was right on the money; he contrasted Key’s banking background with his own business background, and clearly he understands what it takes to run a business as a profit-making entity as opposed to Key’s investment-banking background, which is based on profit making via speculation—they are totally different fields in which Craig’s background is much more relevant to New Zealand’s needs. He covered other relevant points such as personal responsibility and getting back to basics very well in the video as well.
Then there was this interview on Q+A with Paul Holmes regarding Craig’s comments about promiscuous women in New Zealand—sorry you have to click the link again:
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/colin-craig-promiscuous-women-in-nz-video-4884859
Comment: I thought he did very well in this interview; he clearly stood strong and was convincing in his belief that New Zealanders have got to be personally responsible when it comes to sex.
Then there was this radio interview with Susan Wood in relation to Craig saying “It is just not intelligent to pretend that homosexual relationships are normal:”
Comment: Again he came across strong and on point especially when pratty Susan Wood was playing the ‘gotcha’ game. However, he did agree with Susan Wood, in respect to gay marriage, that two same-sex parents are better than one—which is clearly wrong. The notion that gay parents are better than solo parents is absolute nonsense and Craig should know this, and I think he does know this but didn’t convey it very well in the interview.
So just how conservative is conservative Colin Craig?
Well, in the first interview with Paul Holmes on homosexual relationships Craig clearly floundered but he has improved over time on the issue apart from the stumble he made with Susan Wood. I think he is genuinely opposed to gay marriage and adoption, but he seriously needs to come across stronger on the issue. I have noticed that when he stops being political and stops being concerned about votes, he does much better; he comes across as much more conservative when he speaks from the heart. In respect to fiscal conservatism, I would suggest he has got it nailed.
Overall, I would sum up by saying Craig is a good, trustworthy conservative—far better than anyone in the National Party; however, I would like to see less of the political tiptoeing and more aggression—more speaking from the heart where he naturally comes across stronger.
Comments
I agree wholeheartedly. The
I agree wholeheartedly. The National Party is a disgrace to it's long suffering base voters. National & Labour are desperate to shoehorn this marriage "equality" abomination through parliament ASAP because both National's conservative base don't want it, and Labour's Pacific Islander base don't want it - it's the effete liberals in both parties who are the ones that want it and they hope that voters will have forgotten about it by the time the next election rolls around.
National are essentially a motley collection of know-nothing social liberals (who have a fairly superficial difference of opinion with the self-declared Left on issues of taxation, employment laws etc) and fat-cats who are only there to enrich themselves and their friends.
"National & Labour are
"National & Labour are desperate to shoehorn this marriage "equality" abomination through parliament ASAP because both National's conservative base don't want it, and Labour's Pacific Islander base don't want it"
That is exactly what Cameron has done; I am so tired of democracy being stripped away from us; I just hope Craig, if he gets elected in, can bring back some semblance of rationality to parliament.
But what I don't understand is this: is National even going to gain anything from this? I saw Key and Shearer on the news the other night at the gay big day out--both screaming out for the far-left vote.
As it stands, gay marriage has all but passed, so I hope if Craig gets in that a binding referendum on gay-marriage would be part of any deal he makes with either party.
Very nice post Terry - good
Very nice post Terry - good objective analysis.
I dont know, never met or never talked to Colin so have no right to speak on his behalf but I get the impression he is a lot like me (except his income would have a few extra zeros on it) and a lot like many other middle class people/families in New Zealand, in that if really pushed would most likely say doesn't want to get into politics but can clearly see we "Conservatives" are losing. So can no longer sit back and let others fight the fight that needs to be fought. We ALL need to step up and fight for this country that we so much love and believe in. He is not a career politician but just a kiwi bloke that wants a new direction for his and other families. He will make mistakes like we all do when first starting something new but in the long run get stronger and stronger.
Look out liberals change is coming!
Change, I have met Craig and
Change, I have met Craig and he is genuinely a nice guy. I think his wealth has come through hard work and as he says 'personal responsibility.'
He has stumbled here and there especially when being guarded (thinking politically) so I rather hope he drops that, takes the risk, and speaks more from the heart. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain because I don't think his belief system is any different from most people in New Zealand.
He is starting to show signs of this more these days which is a good thing.
Great post, Terry, and it
Great post, Terry, and it definitely poses the correct question. For far too long now, the Nats have gotten by, by being just a little bit less Socialist than the other team. The exception being the period when Dr Brash was leader (although on everything other than the economy, he is batshit RonPaul crazy). The Nats definitely need a party of conscience to put them onto the straight and narrow, and I think the Conservatives will fit that bill. Having said that, I think NZ is too far gone now, and can't be saved at the ballot box. The only hope is for the socialists, welfare leeches and apartheid-peddling grievance mongers to be violently and bloodily excised like the cancer they are. Our only hope as a nation is to see them swinging from lamp posts.
That said...
That interview on The Beat Goes On was excellent (largely because it was an interview, unlike the Paul Holmes attack, and thanks for reminding people just what a statist, slavering POS Holmes was). The only concern I have is his populist position on "asset sales"*. Where did that series (The Beat Goes On) play anyway? Was it a Sky TV thing?
*Just because they make money doesn't mean they should be government-owned. In fact, having the government meddle in the electricity market (in particular) means higher electricity prices for all consumers. Which is simply a stealth tax. Government out of the way opens up genuine competition and an opportunity for Kiwis to get cheaper power. If government is involved in the electricity market, it should nationalise the generation side and leave the retailing to market operators.
"The Nats definitely need a
"The Nats definitely need a party of conscience to put them onto the straight and narrow, and I think the Conservatives will fit that bill. Having said that, I think NZ is too far gone now, and can't be saved at the ballot box."
Gantt, I would sadly have to agree with that--NZ has gone too far now and can't be saved at the ballot box. We had the chance to go back to 'first past the post' but didn't take it. I am in two minds over this, but if we look back there appears to be a correlation between our democratic decline and MMP--could you have ever imagined the Nats in bed with Maori radicals before MMP?
As for the 'Beat Goes On' I don't know much about it--I got the video off youtube. But here is a link to the show:
http://www.thebeatgoeson.co.nz/wawcs013906/The-TV-Show.html
Terry, I don't blame MMP at
Terry, I don't blame MMP at all. I blame the National Party. The problem isn't having too many parties or too many views in Parliament. The problem is National climbing into bed with this pack of racist grievance-mongers and bending over to give them everything they want. And of course, the Manchurian Attorney General actively working on behalf of apartheid-peddlers.
There are two fundamental problems: (1) National has gone back on its policy platform of dispensing with the Maori seats. If they did that, the apartheid party (and John Hatfield's Mania) would disappear overnight, and (2) the failure of the Universal Franchise. There are far too many leeches whose only contributions to society are to breed the next generation of leeches and to vote themselves an ever-growing share of the taxpayer treasury.
Thanks for the link to the TV show. I'll check it out.
"The problem is National
"The problem is National climbing into bed with this pack of racist grievance-mongers and bending over to give them everything they want."
Yes, the problem lies with National at the end of the day. I actually voted for MMP, but have my reservations about it--I remember back when we had first past the post and we had problems there as well.
National could have chosen to go with NZ First--a more natural fit--the last time round but chose to go with the Maori Party. If it comes down to the wire again Key will have to go with NZ First because Maori will go with Labour. Having said that, I think National will get hammered next time because Key has deserted his base, so Labour, the Greens and Maori will get in easily.
"I think National will get
"I think National will get hammered next time because Key has deserted his base, so Labour, the Greens and Maori will get in easily."
I think so too. If we are going to be subjected to a never ending procession of destructive social engineering agendas, the Greens & Labour might as well be the elected fools responsible for it. Key has been a disgrace. In fact I don't think I'll even bother ticking the box for my Nat electorate MP (Bennett) next time. If the Conservatives run a candidate in my electorate again I'll give them the nod instead - as well as my party vote, like I did in '12.
"If the Conservatives run a
"If the Conservatives run a candidate in my electorate again I'll give them the nod instead - as well as my party vote, like I did in '12."
Urban, as will I. There is nothing to lose anymore. I keep on emailing my futile emails trying to get them to change their minds on gay marriage, but I doubt they will listen. (Urban, I have deleted this part of my comment--too much information for the internet environment--I sometimes forget where I am).
There's nothing conservative
There's nothing conservative about Colin Craig. He has a stated policy of wanting to ban foreigners from investing in New Zealand. That's ridiculous, autarkic nonsense. He is philosophically confused, and until he supports free trade and free enterprise, people on the Right should have nothing to do with him.
You're right, Blair. He's not
You're right, Blair. He's not the perfect Conservative. He's wrong on foreign investment, and he's wrong on privatisation. It's Muldoon-style National populist claptrap, spoken to a nation of dead-heads who wouldn't understand market economics if it was explained using single-syllable words written in chalk on a blackboard. (Although of course I wouldn't be allowing the Chinese government to invest here either, because before the market can be free, the players in it must also be free.)
Sadly, Ronald Reagan is dead, Margaret Thatcher is unable to stand and neither were/are Kiwis. Roger Douglas is past it, and Ruth RIchardson is (according to a large portion of the New Zealand voting public) the devil. We are a nation which has had a century-long love affair with leftism. It is, quite literally, the Cuba of the South Pacific.
SO what's the answer? As far as I see it, there are 2. First, tilt at the windmill. Give your vote(s) to the Conservative Party in the hope they can become a presence in the Parliament and act as some kind of brake on National's far-left agenda. Or ...
Vote Green, hasten the (inevitable) collapse. Stock up on ammunition, tinned food and bottled water. And when the collapse comes (approximately 4 months after Red Russell takes up the post of Minister of Finance), cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!
I'm becoming increasingly enamoured of option B. New Zealand is now too far gone, and cannot be saved at the ballot box. There are simply too many leeches. So let it burn. Decorate as many lamp posts as possible with the Clarks and the Cullens and the Keys and (especially) the Finlaysons. And from the rubble, perhaps a society will arise which values individual liberty and personal responsibility?
"He's wrong on foreign
"He's wrong on foreign investment, and he's wrong on privatisation."
Gantt, I tend to agree with you on this one. Mind you Craig has got it right about not selling farm land to the Chinese--that would be suicide. We can sell it to Americans as Americans operate independently from government and they base their investments on profit--if they don't make a profit they sell it back. The Chinese simply don't operate the same way--we sell it to them, we'll never get it back again. They are not interested in New Zealand; they are only interested in securing resourses.
Even though I would prefer the SOEs to be sold off, I have grave concerns about how and where the money would be spent--it wouldn't go to pay down debt; it would be squandered. Can you imagine Key with money to spend? I saw him on the news one day when he was over on Chatham Is. and he was talking about using some of the asset sales' money on infrastructure over there; he was spending money before he even got it. Can you imagine him with the Maori Party and money? Our assets would be squandered in a few years.
Key talks about reinvesting the money on things we need like creating government controlled research and development centres. So essentially selling off one government asset to create another. And as you say, government is incapable of doing anything--the private sector is better equipped to run things.
I would be more in favour of asset sales if it were for the sole purpose of debt reduction.
"as Americans operate
"as Americans operate independently from government and they base their investments on profit"
That's the distinction that the "liberal Right" simply can not bring themselves to understand. There is a difference between ordinary venture capitalists and those "business enterprises" which are just shopfronts for the Chicom government.
My concerns over the asset sales are in a similar vain to yours, Terry. The money raised will effectively be squandered on social welfare within months, and the companies will end up being run by an unholy alliance of the Government and crony-capitalist fat-cats who'll continue to keep screwing the average citizen over. How about transferring control of them to the super fund? Take the ownership of SOEs out of direct political interference, and place them in the actual interests of New Zealanders’ future.
"How about transferring
"How about transferring control of them to the super fund? Take the ownership of SOEs out of direct political interference, and place them in the actual interests of New Zealanders’ future."
Hmmm, without thinking too much about the implications of that, it sounds like an interesting idea--the SOEs are in fact ours. It is ironic, they are actually trying to sell assets to us that already belong to us? One of the things Craig says is this: 'why sell assests that are making a profit?' If they are returning a higher profit than the interest on our debt, it makes economic sense to keep them. The duds are a different story.
Another option could be to sell off half to the private sector (for debt reducation) and give 51% shares to NZrs specifically for the super fund. Mind you, I am certainly no economist.
Key is worse than Labour and
Key is worse than Labour and the Greens, because he fronts a supposedly right wing party.
He has sold his base voters out and he cares not one jot.
I am looking forward to seeing the back of him, and I truly believe he is there simply because he likes the
attention, the kudos and the excitement. How dare lowly politicians bring such social chaos.
They are all lame in fact, except for Colin Craig and Winston.
Courager--right on the button
Courager--right on the button.
I can see similarities between the Conservatives and NZ First on many issues.
Yes, me too.
Yes, me too.
I am embarrassed that I ever voted for Key. I won't be making that mistake again.
Anyway, why do those in the Beltway think it's their right to meddle with what is none of their business?!!
Democracy in this country is not really what it once was.
Like your blog, by the way.
"I am embarrassed that I ever
"I am embarrassed that I ever voted for Key. I won't be making that mistake again."
Courager, I think you are not alone there.
And thanks for the feedback about my blog--cheers
Add new comment