Kiwi Party’s wish list

The Kiwi Party is holding its inaugural conference today and it has announced its first five priorities.

They are repealing the anti-smacking law; appointing a Royal Commission on child abuse;  introduce binding referenda on controversial issues; increase the drinking age, clamp down on those who supply alcohol to under-age drinkers and establish faith based detox and rehabilitation centres; increase the minimum wage to $15; and invest in marriage preparation and relationship enrichment courses (which by my count is six priorities).

There are no surprises there. The big surprise would be if the party actually got in to parliament and history shows how difficult that would be.  Party leader Gordon Copeland is only in parliament because Future New Zealand, the manifestation of the Christian party he was in at the time, was subsumed by the United Party.

The best result for a Christian party was the Christian Colaition’s 4.3% of the party vote in 1994. In 1999 Chirstian Heritage got 2.4% and Future New Zealand got 1.1%.

Three years later Christian Heritage got 1.4% and United Future NZ got 6.7% – but that was because the television worm liked its leader Peter Dunne and National was decimated.

At the last election United was down to 3% and Destiny got .6%.

MMP does enable wee parties to get in to parliament but no new party has got in without an electorate seat and I can’t see the Kiwi Party having a broad enough appeal to change that.

7 Responses to Kiwi Party’s wish list

  1. Tanya says:

    Good on them for trying though, sounds like common sense policies, something we need in spades.


  2. Inventory2 says:

    HP – I welcome the participation of Christians in politics, but my conscience won’t allow me to support a Christian party. I would far rather see the likes of Winnie Laban, Chester Borrows, Chris Auchinvole et al gain influence within the established parties. Sadly, the chances of a wholly Christian party ever getting into Paliament are slim, especially after the fall from grace of Graham Capill. Accordingly the votes for that are wasted, and when redistributed, could actually help to get a party with an overt anti-Christian, anti-family agenda into power.


  3. Mr Dennis says:

    “Sadly, the chances of a wholly Christian party ever getting into Parliament are slim”
    “my conscience won’t allow me to support a Christian party”

    Aren’t those two statements, when taken together, self-fulfilling? If you think it would be a good idea for a Christian party to get in, why not vote for one? Sure there are Christians in both National and Labour, but they can have limited influence as they have to toe the party line. And we have two strong liberal parties (Greens and Act) in parliament. So policies will always be dragged towards the liberal end of the spectrum unless we can have a Christian party on the other end of the see-saw balancing things out.


  4. Mr Dennis says:

    With regards to the Kiwi party, their chances of getting in are slim-to-none. They are basically the renamed Christian Democrats / Future NZ, and historically have polled (as Homepaddock shows) less than half as well as Christian Heritage did.

    This is because they are not actually a Christian party. They claim to represent Christian morals, but don’t actually have Christianity in their constitution. So there is no guarantee they will stick to the positions they may take now after the election (just like every other party…).

    On the other hand, The Family Party is a true Christian party. Christianity is in their constitution, just like with Christian Heritage (so we would be expected to take the votes Christian Heritage used to have). We have representatives from many different churches (Catholic and Protestant) and former members of Christian Heritage, United Future and Destiny. Family arose from an attempt to form a united Christian party, but Baldock and Copeland chose to leave and go their own way instead, forming Kiwi. The Family Party also has a strong campaign to take the Mangere electorate seat, and have already doorknocked every house in the electorate three times this year, which would remove the 5% threshold. They are currently polling far higher than Kiwi, in fact equal to United Future, and have not even begun to campaign nationwide yet (notwithstanding that all three parties are polling so low at this stage that the error is enormous).

    Like Homepaddock, I cannot see Kiwi getting enough support to get in. But every vote they get is one vote less that could have gone to Family, which does have a chance of getting in, or at least more chance than Kiwi. The division in the Christian vote that has existed ever since the Christian Democrats were formed in 1995 (bar the Christian Coalition in 1996) is a terrible thing that greatly reduces our ability to make a difference in politics. We need to get behind one party. And as far as I can see the one with the best chance of doing some good is Family.


  5. Tanya says:

    I tend to agree with you, Mr Dennis. It would be a much bigger voice with both parties’ combined, power in numbers, etc. It is so sad to see NZ going down the destructive, violent, crime riddled path of the last few years, really tragic. I want to vote for a Christian party, and if Labour squeeze back in, then I want to leave the country. I have had enough.


  6. Tanya says:

    By the way, the Larry Baldock is the party leader of the Kiwi party, not Gordon Copeland. He is still independant, I believe?


  7. Mr Dennis says:

    They are both in the party, Mr Baldock is the leader. I have no idea if they have any other candidates at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: