Despite my objection to the bill I have to acknowledge that Sue Bradford has done an outstanding job. She has set an example of how to set an agenda and get support for it. All parties could learn from this, particularly my party - Act.
"Despite resigning from United Future in protest at the bill, Gordon Copeland didn't vote."
So to sum up - he is in Parliament solely because of the party leader he is leaving, his party leader didn't stop him opposing the bill at all, he opposed the bill but didn't actually vote against the bill, his old party will definitely be in Parliament after 2008 (even if only Dunne), his new party will definitely not be, and even if by some miracle they are, both National and Labour support the bill anyway, so the only way to get it repealed would be if the National party leader has a change of heart, a leader who Copeland is now going to try and undermine by campaigning against his amendment and taking National party votes.
Swampy: then he must have filed a correction afterwards - because when the vote was initially counted, it was confirmed that he had not issued any instructions to Tim Barnett for the use of his proxy.
This is very bad news for National, ACT, United Future and NZ First.
Graeme Lee's Christian Democrats (Future NZ) got about 4.7 per cent of all party votes in 1996.
If Future NZ can do it again via its connections with active churchgoing community, then than could spell the end for the fractured Right - Destiny, ACT, NZ First, National, United Future, Future NZ etc. etc.
I always thought Mr Copeland was a good man, and he clearly is.
4.7% was the vote for the Christian Coalition, made up of CDP and CHP. Dare I say it, we are fortunate that CHP was not ever elected to office, although they had Frank Grover in Parliament after he defected from the Alliance, for a short time.
FNZ added more than 6% to Dunne's vote in 2002 as part of his coalition. Lots of people won't vote for Destiny that will vote for FNZ. Act is nearly irrelevant. National has left itself wide open by moving into the centre leaving its conservative flank high and dry .
Now, in spite of all the sneering that has gone on here, we are entitled to seek political representation, and we are doing that. I'm waiting to see who will come across onto the party list and the board from UFNZ. The candidates and board members from before are well known and well liked in the conservative Christian community. I have no doubt that they will get sufficient support in the next 18 months to get things off the ground again.
"it was confirmed that he had not issued any instructions to Tim Barnett for the use of his proxy."
He can't have been paying that close attention, can he? I wonder whether Barnett will seek such express instructions on the budget, or will Copeland's general promise to keep UF's word on confidence and supply be sufficient?
Swampy: FNZ added more than 6% to Dunne's vote in 2002 as part of his coalition.
Hardly. Most of that support came from the Worm, and there were an awful lot of people disappointed to discover that their moderate, sensible, "common sense" party was a vehicle for fundamentalist Christians. Which is why their support collapsed in 2005 - people knew what they were, and didn't want to touch them with a barge pole.
Indeed Christians are entitled to seek political representation (and this time at least they'll be doing it honestly). And I think it is grossly undemocratic that the threshold will likely them from obtaining it.
Graeme: I got the impression proxies are supposed to be specifically authorised, and I doubt Copeland has given a free proxy to be used as the whip sees fit.
You know, I can do apostrophes, but I'd be happy to see them go the way of the circumflex in French.
They don't convey that much useful information. One place they would be useful is with the plural capitalised acronym (PC's not PCs) but that is "incorrect".
It's a pity that the English language was "frozen" during a time of extreme pedantry...
I see things slightly differently than you in the terms of UF's vote collapsing at the last election i/s .
I say this because a catholic girl whom I know had both of her parents vote for UF in the election where the worm did appear to make Dunny a credible politician.
But once UF was in there with their 7 or 8 mp's and their bottem line Dunne made it impossible for them to be a credible christian party.
For although they block voted against prostitution reform and gay partnerships Dunnes support for booze, tobbacco and gambling flew in the face of 'christianity'.
Christians as well as people who were tricked by the worm and Dunnes 'sensible family man' con job deserted the party in droves.
.............. and on the election night when UF bombed we saw a little of Dunnys true character.
Despite my objection to the bill I have to acknowledge that Sue Bradford has done an outstanding job. She has set an example of how to set an agenda and get support for it. All parties could learn from this, particularly my party - Act.
ReplyDelete"Despite resigning from United Future in protest at the bill, Gordon Copeland didn't vote."
ReplyDeleteSo to sum up - he is in Parliament solely because of the party leader he is leaving, his party leader didn't stop him opposing the bill at all, he opposed the bill but didn't actually vote against the bill, his old party will definitely be in Parliament after 2008 (even if only Dunne), his new party will definitely not be, and even if by some miracle they are, both National and Labour support the bill anyway, so the only way to get it repealed would be if the National party leader has a change of heart, a leader who Copeland is now going to try and undermine by campaigning against his amendment and taking National party votes.
Welcome to Can't-Cope-Land.
If I was a christian I would say "God bless our children".
ReplyDeleteThank you for your posts on this issue - you have been an island of sanity in an ocean of rabid wing-nuttery.
Actually, he did vote.
ReplyDeleteFinal tally 113-8.
Swampy: then he must have filed a correction afterwards - because when the vote was initially counted, it was confirmed that he had not issued any instructions to Tim Barnett for the use of his proxy.
ReplyDeleteCopeland was too busy talking to the media to vote. When reminded about the bill he replied 'Oh Shucks!'
ReplyDeleteNice way to kick start his new party.
This is very bad news for National, ACT, United Future and NZ First.
ReplyDeleteGraeme Lee's Christian Democrats (Future NZ) got about 4.7 per cent of all party votes in 1996.
If Future NZ can do it again via its connections with active churchgoing community, then than could spell the end for the fractured Right - Destiny, ACT, NZ First, National, United Future, Future NZ etc. etc.
I always thought Mr Copeland was a good man, and he clearly is.
4.7% was the vote for the Christian Coalition, made up of CDP and CHP. Dare I say it, we are fortunate that CHP was not ever elected to office, although they had Frank Grover in Parliament after he defected from the Alliance, for a short time.
ReplyDeleteFNZ added more than 6% to Dunne's vote in 2002 as part of his coalition. Lots of people won't vote for Destiny that will vote for FNZ. Act is nearly irrelevant. National has left itself wide open by moving into the centre leaving its conservative flank high and dry .
Now, in spite of all the sneering that has gone on here, we are entitled to seek political representation, and we are doing that. I'm waiting to see who will come across onto the party list and the board from UFNZ. The candidates and board members from before are well known and well liked in the conservative Christian community. I have no doubt that they will get sufficient support in the next 18 months to get things off the ground again.
"it was confirmed that he had not issued any instructions to Tim Barnett for the use of his proxy."
ReplyDeleteHe can't have been paying that close attention, can he? I wonder whether Barnett will seek such express instructions on the budget, or will Copeland's general promise to keep UF's word on confidence and supply be sufficient?
Swampy: FNZ added more than 6% to Dunne's vote in 2002 as part of his coalition.
ReplyDeleteHardly. Most of that support came from the Worm, and there were an awful lot of people disappointed to discover that their moderate, sensible, "common sense" party was a vehicle for fundamentalist Christians. Which is why their support collapsed in 2005 - people knew what they were, and didn't want to touch them with a barge pole.
Indeed Christians are entitled to seek political representation (and this time at least they'll be doing it honestly). And I think it is grossly undemocratic that the threshold will likely them from obtaining it.
Graeme: I got the impression proxies are supposed to be specifically authorised, and I doubt Copeland has given a free proxy to be used as the whip sees fit.
There, stick that in your pipe and smoke it child-beaters...
ReplyDeleteGood to see Bradford use the phrase "...their god-given right to grow up secure in the love of their family..."
ReplyDeleteBad to see NZPA constant abuse of the apostrophe continues: "metamorphosis of the bill from a pigs ear into not quite a silk purse"
You know, I can do apostrophes, but I'd be happy to see them go the way of the circumflex in French.
ReplyDeleteThey don't convey that much useful information. One place they would be useful is with the plural capitalised acronym (PC's not PCs) but that is "incorrect".
It's a pity that the English language was "frozen" during a time of extreme pedantry...
Oh and Pablo:
ReplyDeleteBoth your sentences are incorrect - they have no verb. They should start with "It is good..".
Rich - "see" is a verb.
ReplyDeleteIndeed it is, but in the infinitive form. I reckon you need the "it is" to make the sentence grammatical.
ReplyDeleteOf course Pablo's text is in a perfectly good style - but I thought that one bit of pedantry deserved another.
Once one starts engaging in linguistic pedantry it becomes very hard to write anything, so I'll stop.
I see things slightly differently than you in the terms of UF's vote collapsing at the last election i/s .
ReplyDeleteI say this because a catholic girl whom I know had both of her parents vote for UF in the election where the worm did appear to make Dunny a credible politician.
But once UF was in there with their 7 or 8 mp's and their bottem line Dunne made it impossible for them to be a credible christian party.
For although they block voted against prostitution reform and gay partnerships Dunnes support for booze, tobbacco and gambling flew in the face of 'christianity'.
Christians as well as people who were tricked by the worm and Dunnes 'sensible family man' con job deserted the party in droves.
.............. and on the election night when UF bombed we saw a little of Dunnys true character.