"Kiwi Party" is this upstart political party worth my vote?

[Bren]

I am looking into who to vote for in the 2008 elections and am very disgruntled with Labour (who isn't?).

National under John Keys started off okay, but it seems they are painted with the same brush as Labour now.

NZ First...NO WAY will they get my vote. Winston Peters is in my opinion a con man.

Green Party? As long as Sue Bradford is in that party I will not vote for them as SB seems intent in tearing the moral fabric of our country through her anti smacking legislation..

Maori Party...good on em but I aint Maori.

United Future? looking a bit tired now...they have been on the block for a few years now and as far as I see have not made any major headway.

Act. I like Rodney Hide, he seems quite a character, but I am afraid politics is not all about personality (or is it?)

Progressive. Jim Anderton was maybe okay 10 years ago, but he in my opinion has stagnated.

That leaves only one more, and the more I look at it the more I like it.
The Kiwi Party is advocating policies that address one of the main issues of life in NZ, and that is one of Family. one of their first priorities would be to get rid of Sue Bradfords terrible law that makes common mums and dads criminals. Anti Smacking Law would be gone!!Good Riddance.
Their Constitution looks more like something that would have been about in the 50s when family did indeed come first.
Their Vision statement backs this up.

• 4.0 VISION STATEMENT
• 4.1 The Party's vision for New Zealand is for a strong and responsible nation, seeking peace, stability, justice, economic prosperity, safety and social harmony and in which, consistent with both the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 2004 Doha Declaration of the Family adopted by the United Nations:
• 4.1.1 Every person is recognised as having an inalienable equality of dignity and worth.
• 4.1.2 Every person is given the opportunity for individual learning, development and achievement.
• 4.1.3 The family/whänau, undergirded by the community, is recognised as the fundamental social unit of society in which individuals are cared for and encouraged. It is primarily in the family where our values are formed.
• 4.1.4 The role and importance of marriage as the foundation of strong and healthy families is recognised and supported by Government.
• 4.1.5 Communities endeavor to work for the common good in an environment of trust and social harmony, and care compassionately for the weak, the poor and those at risk.
• 4.1.6 The Government's role is to serve its citizens through principled leadership.

I think this year I will vote for them....and heck, with Simon Barnett on their board of manegement ya cant go wrong.

All statements by me in this posts purely represent my opinion, and nothing more.

[Gubb]

traditionally held Judeo-Christian values.

That puts me out.

Way out.

[jrandom]

ALCP - Tick the Leaf!

[Bren]

That puts me out.

Way out.

from what I see their party is based on those values, but it does not mean they are going to be a radical christian party, more so a party that adheres to the old values that mainstream NZers still (i believe) value.

[MisterD]

From what I can see, the Kiwi party is trying to create a middle of the road party by averaging out the most woo-woo policies from left and right...

[riffer]

Great.

All this country needs is another centrist party with hidden agendas.

[rainman]

...As long as Sue Bradford is in that party I will not vote for them as SB seems intent in tearing the moral fabric of our country through her anti smacking legislation..

So, let me get this right: the very sanctity of our country's moral fabric is dependent on us being able to legally beat our kids?

The Kiwi Party does seem to be the right place for you to put your vote.

[Steam]

ALCP - Tick the Leaf!

I was a founding member of ALCP back in... I dunno, 1997 I think. One of the first 500.

[Bren]

So, let me get this right: the very sanctity of our country's moral fabric is dependent on us being able to legally beat our kids?

The Kiwi Party does seem to be the right place for you to put your vote.

beating kids...no! That implies bashing to a bloody pulp. But giving a kid a smack around the arse I find is okay...worked on me as a kid!

[Bren]

I was a founding member of ALCP back in... I dunno, 1997 I think. One of the first 500.

Why oh why am I not surprised

[Pedrostt500]

I see one major floor with all the Political Parties, they have Politicians, I think we could find some small remote Island some where, say Auckland Island, drop them all off there, then NZ would become a much better place to live.

[rainman]

beating kids...no! That implies bashing to a bloody pulp. But giving a kid a smack around the arse I find is okay...worked on me as a kid!

So, let's look at, y'know, the actual law:

New section 59 substituted

* Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

“59 Parental control
“(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
“(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
“(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
“(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
“(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

“(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

“(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

Which bits of that are you actually unhappy about, then? Which bits stop you from being a good parent and threaten our country's moral fabric? Or are you perhaps just buying into the anti-Green, anti-Sue Bradford bullshit rather than taking the trouble to understand the real issue?

[Ixion]

So, let's look at, y'know, the actual law:


Which bits of that are you actually unhappy about, then? ..

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

perhaps? That is the part that most people find objectionable.

[Bren]

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, and i aint a lawyer or anything like that...just a down to earth kiwi bloke working in a blue collar job ...but i know that this crap thats known as the anti smacking law is doing more harm than good. Good parents are refraining from disciplining kids through smacking because of it...and before ya tell me that discipline is more than smacking I will say that I agree. I will also state that there are some kids out there that respond best by a good solid boot up the arse. How do I know this? Because many years ago I was one of those kids. Did it harm me? Hell no! (apart from a sore arse for a day or so)...
While we are on the subject I feel that the abolishment of the strap and the cane at school was a bad move too...(i got my fair share of those too, and I came out okay)....but thats just my opinion...

Give me back the good old days where kids could get a boot from their dad, or their teacher...or even from the copper down the road!!!

Give me back the good old days where kids knew their place and (shock, horror) respected their parents and elders...

Give me back the good old days where common sense prevailed over stupid PC Bullshit!!!!

[jrandom]

I was a founding member of ALCP back in... I dunno, 1997 I think. One of the first 500.

Good man.

I have every intention of standing for the party as an electoral candidate at the next election after this coming one.

Preferably in Helensville against John Key.