Fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortionist Andy Moore has a blogsite entitled “Christianvote.” He appears to back the Tamaki/Copeland “Family Party” brand. So. what does he think of the other fundamentalist (Kiwi) Party, National and ACT? Ah, well, Andy apparently has some differences with some of them.
What does he see as wrong about the Kiwi Party? Apparently, he doesn’t like it much because it is a backlash movement, formed out of disillusioned ex-UFNZ members who left UFNZ when Peter Dunne dared to exercise his own freedom of conscience over Section 59 Repeal. Copeland also missed the third readings of the Electoral Finance Act and Section 59 Repeal Act. The Kiwi Party also stands accused of opportunism over its use of their pro-belting petition to contact fundamentalist/social conservative voters, and may contravene the Privacy Act. They forgot to apply for broadcasting air time! They’re also “unrealistically” anti-abortion, and Larry Baldock won’t stand a chance of winning Tauranga, as well as their stance against the Family Party over in Mangere and at the Forum on the Family, hosted by anti-left Family First.
Dear, dear. Next, we have the Family Party. It isn’t a Destiny Church sock puppet. Well, no, it’s actually a hybrid Destiny Church and City Impact Church sock puppet. It’s nice and fiscally conservative, and although Moore has no substantiating evidence, he argues that Labour will lose Mangere to a strong Family Party candidate, and seems to have prejudged the unfortunate Taito Philip Field well in advance of his actual court case verdict.
Moore likes ACT, regardless of Rodney’s record on civil unions, prostitution law reform and pro-choice stance on abortion. Apparently, it’s enough that he voted against Section 59 Repeal, and is a fiscal conservative. Yeah mate, but not a social conservative! He doesn’t like the National Party, viewing it as opportunist, and only incidentally supportive of fundamentalist objectives to repeal the Electoral Finance Act and Section 59 Repeal once in office.
He saves his real venom for poor old United Future, however. Why? Well, Dunne initially opposed the Civil Union Act, but now he’s changed his mind. Dunne (gasp) supported Section 59 Repeal!!! He (gasp) supported the Electoral Finance Act (two words- Gordon Copeland?)
So, what should fundamentalists do? They should vote for Jerry Filapaina in Mangere (Family Party), Paul Adams in East Coast Bays (Family Party/ UFNZ reject) and Rodney Hide in Epsom. Game plan is a National/ACT/Family Party government.
Okay…let’s set out to do exactly the opposite…
Not Recommended:
Andy Moore’s blog:
6 responses so far ↓
1 josh // Oct 28, 2008 at 12:07 pm
GLBT voters should support Rodney Hide and ACT to keep the Family Party out, and have a moderating liberal voice in a conservative National Government.
Why? As you said - “Rodney’s record on civil unions, prostitution law reform and pro-choice stance on abortion”
2 Craig Young // Oct 28, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Yes, although don’t forget, Rodney also voted for Gordon Copeland’s same sex marriage ban. Moreover, he backed citizens referenda at the Forum on the Family, although at the same event, he ruled out repealing civil unions.
And in the case of Epsom, he’s a definite improvement on tiresome old Richard Worth, the Nats candidate.
C.
3 Evan // Oct 28, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Surely we object to Rodney Hide on basis that he will prop up a National led govt.
4 Craig Young // Oct 29, 2008 at 9:57 am
It depends on whether one is a centre-left or centre-right social liberal. On the one hand, one might argue that ACT’s current mostly social liberal voting record means it’s on our side in political terms. On the other, some would argue that it might be prudent to engage in strategic voting if one wants to deprive National of an overall majority if there’s a tight electoral race.
C.
5 Stan // Nov 1, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Given that none of the Christian parties are within reach of the 5% threshold, and that both the Family Party and Pacific Party are relying on the Mangere seat to survive (the FP want East Coast Bays, but that’s National territory), I’d say they have little chance of success.
That’s without considering the whole question of whether a potential National-led coalition (with Act &/or United Future) would want the taint of a party closely associated with the Destiny Party – voted the most disliked political party of 2005. (Source: ‘The Baubles of Office’) I know for one that Peter Dunne has desperately tried to avoid any sense of appealing to the Christian vote. This was helped by his assertation at Family First’s ‘Forum on the Family’ that he would not repeal the civil unions bill or the so-called ‘anti-smacking bill’.
Using Family First’s “Value your vote” guide in the opposite manner in which it was intended, Act come off looking quite good (ie: not “family-friendly”).
If the entire LGBT community of NZ invalidated their party votes, the Family Party & the Kiwi Party would still remain MP-less.
6 Evan // Nov 4, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Best bet is to vote Green to try to prop up Labour:
Desired result:
Labour + Green + NZ First > National + ACT + United Future
Labour too muddled this campaign to deserve much more
Leave a Comment