Saturday, November 23, 2013

Lucia Dunne sounds more than a little desperate over his warnings over the Conservatives

I could not believe what I read in the paper today. Looks like Peter Dunne is feeling very threatened by Colin Craig and his Conservative Party:

United Future leader Peter Dunne is warning John Key he will have a tiger by the tail if he throws his weight behind the Conservatives.

Dunne is famous for his dramatic rise in popularity in the 2002 election thanks to his popularity with TV's "worm", which turned his party from a one-man band to an eight-strong caucus.

But he has claimed that some of the Christian MPs who rode his coat-tails into Parliament that year believed it was God, not him, who turned the worm.

"The explanation I got was I was God's vessel. It was nothing to do with me. I didn't move the worm . . . that was all God's great plan and he used me and the worm debate to achieve the outcome."

Many of the MPs whom Dunne took with him into Parliament that year were promoted by Christian backers, and he has since severed contact with them.

One of them, Larry Baldock, struck out to form his own party before signing up with Colin Craig and standing at No 3 on the Conservative Party list last election.

Oh my goodness, they're Christian and they believe Christian things. Quick, bring out the garlic! Oh no, wait, that's for vampires ...

Craig says his party is socially conservative, but he rejects the Christian-party label and says he has not been to church for years, despite being a devout Christian.

Speaking as a Catholic, I find that position of Craig stressing that he hasn't been to church for years just more than a little strange. But, apparently Protestants can do that as they can just start their own church and there's no Sunday obligation or idea of mortal sin if church is missed. Anyway ...

Dunne said National should be wary of throwing the Conservatives a lifeline seat to ensure they got into Parliament.

Craig and his party were an unknown quantity and Key could have cause to regret it.

Many of those attracted to the Conservatives were those who had previously latched on to UnitedFuture. "If you strike too close a relationship with them in advance . . . when you don't entirely know what it is you're buying, you become hostage to the crazy mad statements."

Yep, totally stark raving bonkers ... because they are Christian. Dunne's just sounding more that a little desperate here.

Related link: Beware Craig's crazies, warns Dunne ~ Stuff

6 comment(s):

ZenTiger said...

He's just joining the media in another long, pathetic name-calling stunts designed to stir up the common folk and warn them away from those scary Christians.

Careful, they might do unto others as they would have others do unto them.

Obviously, the typical Christian fearer must be really scared of that idea, perhaps they get stuck imagining how they themselves would do unto others...and don't like the concept of reciprocity. They really need to take a good look at themselves.

Muerk said...

I'm amazed how in half a century being labelled a Christian in New Zealand has gone from just assumed because pretty much everyone was, to being some pejorative term. I'm not a fan of Colin Craig because I'm pretty left wing when it comes to economic policy, but to dismiss people out of hand because they are Christian is very disturbing to me. I would remind Peter Dunne that Parliament open every session with this prayer,

"Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

Of course I expect that this prayer will be stopped within the next decade.

Lucia Maria said...


I agree, the prayer is just lip service now. Any day now ...

I wouldn't have picked you as left wing, but then we haven't really commented much on economic policy in recent times on the blog. Will have to correct that!

Muerk said...

Yup, I'm one of the odd ones who is fiscally left wing AND a social conservative. I believe in a strong welfare system, assistance with housing, publicly funded education and health care and subsidised quality housing for the vulnerable. I think it's a justice issue that we care for the poor. We have a wealthy enough country that everyone should have a warm house, a full belly, health care, and education. I'd like to see full employment and wages where people can have a quality of life.

On the other hand I'm socially conservative, I loathe abortion, I think strong life-long marriages set up kids to succeed, I think faith is a vital dimension to community. I think kids need a parent at home (and I don't care if it's a mum or a dad, but often it's mums who want to be at home). And I strongly advocate welfare for single parents so that women have a viable option other than abortion.

I can't vote National et. al. because I think their policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer. And I can't vote Labour et. al. because of their social policies that support behaviour I find immoral.

Basically I want a political party that supports the vulnerable to live a life with dignity, makes sure people have well paid work, and that respects human life from conception to natural death.

I grew up with a single mother on the DPB and I know how hard it is to live on a benefit. In the 80's it was hard, but now it's gruelling and an insult to people's dignity.

We ask people to live on a pittance - the single parents benefit of around $300 a week is ridiculous. How do people house, feed, clothe, and care for their family on that? You just can't I assure you. And our minimum wage isn't much better, $450 a week after tax.

So yes, when Colin Craig (a millionaire) puts forward the Conservative Party's welfare policy of "needs not wants" it's like a red rag to a bull because I know he's not advocating welfare that _actually_ covers what people need for a life of basic dignity.

Matthew said...

Hi Muerk, thanks for your contribution, which I find really interesting. Like you, I think getting rich with minimal effort is wrong, especially if you keep that wealth for yourself.

This is why I can't stand Act and parts of National because there is an attitude of heartlessness to the poor.

Likewise, I can't stand Labour because I see their policies, at least some of them, of entrenching poverty so that people continue to rely on somebody else (i.e. the state) to live. This is undignifying for the person and allows Labour to treat people for your own selfish and/or controlling desires.

A classic example of this is the housing affordability problem in Auckland (and elsewhere). Labour's solution is to support land restriction which artificially inflates the cost of building a house which in turn keeps poor people (who they are meant to represent!!!) out of home ownership. I find this policy repugnant.

National, if they really supported poor people would break open our ridiculous land restriction policies so that home owenership is possible for poor people. But they wont because they want rich people to keep their wealth, even if they sat on their backsides and did nothing for it (cue Jesus' parable on the talents). The situation is so bad now that even middle class people (i.e. by income) cannot afford a home on one income or even two incomes in Auckland.

On education, you might be interested to read a book by John Taylor Gatto, an award winning New York State school teacher. We now homeschool our son and the benefit to individually taylored education and commitment to your own children will always surpass that which teachers can give. Our daughter's current teacher said he believed that homeschooling will give her a better education than school will. The cost is around $1000/child per year. Compare that to the cost to educate in our education system and it is both less beneficial and more costly to the children. We also know a solo mum who homeschools.

Again, the cost of housing has driven away the homeschooling option from parents (as well as the materialistic society we live in).

bamac said...

When it comes to voting next year I will be voting for the lesser of the evils ... if one votes for Labour then one vote for the the Greens as well ....someone told me that by not voting then it would benefit the opposition not too sure how though that that works out

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.