The Worm Has Turned – Peter Dunne Sides With Nats
Its official a vote for United Failure is a vote for National. National has one view on Child Tax, lets get more draconian.All dads are deadbeats in the eyes of Judge Judy (Judith Collins) and we should be punished and United Failure will support this.
So guys if you want to be stopped at the border by Tax Officials and pay a truckload more Child Tax and have less time with your kids vote for National and their lackey United Failure.
You have a choice on election night and as it stands National and United Failure are a very dangerous option that will get votes from gullible men who need to look beyond pious platitudes and remember what has, or more importantly, has not been delivered.
To be frank if you support them you deserve what you get. Time for change guys vote-wise in 2008 and remember don’t flush your vote down the Dunney
Regards
Scrap
I say vote Republican and lets make men’s voices finally be heard! Tell every politician you come into contact why!
Comment by Gerry — Wed 29th October 2008 @ 12:25 am
Yesterday morning on the breakfast show,Paul Henry and viewers were describing Peter Dunne as the image of Dracula.So Paul had a black cloak put on him and blood dribbling out of his mouth.
Strange how he’s not well liked…LOL
Comment by Rosie — Wed 29th October 2008 @ 10:10 am
A vote for United Future is now the only choice for fathers.
Peter Dunne is a dead cert, and Judy Turner, the only current MP doing anything for fathers, is number 2 on the list.
A vote for anyone else could prevent her re-election.
Vote for United Future instance of wasting your vote on any party that does not stand a chance.
Comment by Common sense — Wed 29th October 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Common Sense, Turner is offering a double edged sward and Dunne will say anything to keep his position in parliament. You speak of wasted votes, take a good look at fine print in their policies and the time line therein.
Don’t throw your vote down the Dunney! Vote wise, Vote Republican. We WILL make a difference! It’s up to you, get us a seat and we’ll get you a fair deal! We will abolish the CSA AND the FAMILY COURT! WE WILL BE HEARD AND WE WILL STAND FOR EQUITY UNDER LAW. United Failure has not addressed those issues to my satisfaction or anybody else’s for that matter. We will set up a ministry of MEN’S AFFAIRS (who else is doing that?). We stand for GENDER EQUALITY (who else is doing that?). We are the only party with a focus on men’s rights and gender equality! Bills are being pushed through left and right with no referendum, New Zealanders are not getting their say! That is NOT right!
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 29th October 2008 @ 2:39 pm
A vote for Dunne’s Party is a vote to increase persecution of men and fathers. What Turner claims she wants to do is completely inconsistent with what her party has been doing, and will count for nothing after the election. Hollow promises. Why would anyone imagine that Turner will keep pushing these policies, or that Dunne would allow her to? Their political masters will call the tune, and we know that National still denigrates fathers by talk only of deadbeat dads and the need to extract every pound of flesh from them, when mothers are more likely to default on child support than are fathers.
Dunne’s decision to go with National will be based on the cabinet ministerial post they offered him. There was little need for him at this stage to rule out one party or another, but he has been enticed to do so by promises of greater prestige, power and money for Peter Dunne. However, even that unnecessary stand will count for little if after the election Labour can pull together a government; Dunne will turn as readily as his worm if the price is right.
Votes for the Dunne party will be wasted as far as men and fathers go. This is because Turner’s claimed policy will vanish and any support she has gained on the strength of her claimed father-friendly policies will be portrayed as simply showing support for Dunne and his mainly family-unfriendly actions during his last terms. (For example, introducing a bill permitting NZ-based internet gambling – obviously an appalling development for our families and children, and another allowing the state to treat fathers as lesser beings than all other citizens at our borders.) Most people won’t associate his party with male-friendliness at all.
However, every vote for the Republic of NZ Party will clearly be a vote for real change towards gender equality. Each vote will send a strong message to the nation that a growing number of people demand true equality, demand the actual best interests of children rather than feminist ideology, and require consideration of men’s needs on a par with those of any other group in our society.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 29th October 2008 @ 5:36 pm
YEAH RIGHT.
What has Judy Turner Delivered? What has Peter Dunne Delivered? More misery for men sums it up.
Comonsensne is defined as sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
To suggest that its commonsense to vote for the Dunne Party shows just how out of touch with reality commsense (now refered to as #4 as analysis of the posters claim to pocess common sense does not stack up.)is.
To argue that a vote for the Republicans is a wasted vote shows how trapped (like Dunne) in a first past the post power and control model # and the lake of vision #4 has. #4’s comment is Tui ad nothing more or less.
Vote wise and make political representation for seperated parents a reality. MMP provides this oppurtunity.The seed has been planted in the Republican Party and over time from this will grow a great Kauri. (Look up the history of the greens to see how this happened and resulted in a number of seats in Parliament for them.)
Or you can vote dumb and flush your vote down the dunney.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 29th October 2008 @ 8:47 pm
Scrap and Hans have summed it up nicely. My passion for this subject, my beliefs and what we all stand for can sometimes get the better of my posts which can seem a little brash. I see the suffering out there, our suffering, being appeased by pre-election empty promises and election hype which makes me shudder knowing that voting for them will just further the feminist regime.
The answer is easy. Replace the CSA with a case by case solution. This will dissolve the Family court in the blink of an eye resulting in a fair outcome for the man, woman and child/ren. This is, of course, when mediation cannot solve the original problem the family is suffering. Equal parenting will be default when this occurs with the exception of few cases rather than the other way around. Once this strategy begins more families will remain together more strongly and it will phase down the DPB.
Dunne will go where the money is, we have established that. He scoots around the issues with a flick of his serpentine tongue while rubbing his hands together. Turner and her false empathy has given us nothing we can trust. The twin tormentors.
A fair proportion of the minority votes will allow the Republic Party of New Zealand to at least form a coalition with the Nats if we can’t take the majority. Then at least we can say goodbye to Helen and her funny girls. Only then will we start to see real change.
Comment by Tigerseye — Wed 29th October 2008 @ 10:04 pm
I don’t think case-by-case child support will be efficient and it will not necessarily be any better for fathers or children. A formula is more predictable for all parties. However, the rules need to change greatly, as follows:
The maximum should be no more than what average children actually and directly cost to run, probably between $50 and $100 per week. This would not include the custodial parent’s rent and similar expenses that the liable parent also has to meet if he is to accommodate his children during contact visits. This maximum should never be able to be exceeded through any administrative review or Court action. The maximum to be reduced systematically for low income liable parents, but this reduction need not begin until quite a low threshold has been reached, e.g. $300 per week after tax.
Every day the liable parent has with the children should reduce his liability by a standard percentage. This need not be linear (for example, the first day per week of contact visits may only result in a small decrease in liability, while additional days might bring bigger reductions). For equal shared care, no child support to be payable, this being the most common situation if we have a presumption of equal shared care.
Liable parents to be able to apply to pay their contributions by making direct provisions for the children, those contributions being specifically described and approved by the Child Support Agency. For example, if the liable parent would prefer to take the children out to buy them school uniforms, other necessary clothing, wholesome food, doctor’s visits etc, then this should be possible with appropriate receipts in lieu of child support.
The same formula to be applied when reimbursing the government for DPB payments.
All of these changes would promote contact and the quality of the relationship between the children and the liable parent, who is only liable because he is not caring for the children so much of the time. The changes would also result in many more liable parents contributing a lot more financially and otherwise to the children than is currently the case, out of the love and bonding that is promoted between them and because that parent will enjoy better emotional health and life success under a regime that seems fair and manageable.
Comment by blamemenforall — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 1:13 am
All these shitty laws are just about money NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT JUSTICE. Governments introduced the no fault divorce, gave women social security and as a result, millions of single mother families were created, mainly working class ones . It started in the 70s. The government realised that the social security payments were spiralling and they introduced all these “Child Support” laws to save themselves money by FORCING dads to pay using jail when necessary.
Meanwhile mass divorce had spread to the middle classes. To make it easy for women and to get even more money, they had the bright idea of “Domestic Violence” industry, which makes divorce easier for the women and gives even more money to legal workers, womens’ groups and their entourage. It has been done before in the slave era, depriving dads of their kids, and making them pay. Such a system needs heavy handed policing, as Dads have known from their experiences, the state is capable of using force to collect money that it (thinks) is owed to it.
Governments know that if they stop Dads leaving the country, there will be a massive increase in violence, and the prisons (already containing more prisoners than ever before) will be even fuller, and will cost them even more.
CS payments are set to the max. possible, dads cannot raise another family on their incomes after CS in NZ.
But the problem for governments is that Dads have been voting with their feet and leaving the country/state, they only collect about half the CS payments. This has had a devastating affect on the family and kids who have no dads DIRECTLY due these laws, but the government is only concerned with the money.
Great suggestions above, and there should be a system of observation of the “access” to Dads’ kids. Nothing is ever done to stop spiteful women stopping kids from seeing their dads.
Comment by Perseus — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 6:03 am
“All these shitty laws are just about money NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT JUSTICE.”
Never expect Justice froma Court. It is about Law, Laws and interpretation of Laws. Don’t expect Law to be natural Law eitherr it’s interpretation of what is written by mere mortals like Them and occasionally like you and I.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 8:14 am
Interesting approach.
United gets lambasted for ‘propping up an anti-family, feminazi Labour governemnt”.
Then when they decide they can get more concession and influence from National, are lambasted for going with the “anti-male National party”.
Who would you guys suggest United goes with to influence government?
Judy Turner is the only MP that has stood up for men’s and father rights – the ONLY one. Peter Dunne will get back in regardless so you are not voting for him either way – your votes will decide whether Judy Turner gets back in or not. That is what is at stake – the ONE voice for men in parliament.
If you choose to vote for a party that has no show at all in having a voice in parliament, and Judy Turner is not re-elected (United only needs 1.2% to get her back) and there is ZERO voice for men in parliament – then do not complain afterwards.
I saw that United put out a release listing some of the social issues it wanted from National – it included Shared parenting and DNA paternity testing. These are both Judy’s members Bills.
United will have a far bigger influence even with these two policies than any party not represented in parliament.
Do you want a voice or not? Get pragmatic if you want any results at all.
It’s Judy Turner or nothing i’m afraid.
Comment by doug — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 11:31 am
Doug,
United gets lambasted for Peter Dunne being child tax Tsar and making the situation worse while Judy Turner promotes pious platitudes and delivers nothing.
For the past few elections a minor party has claimed to have a woman who champions the cause of dads – each time men have voted for them and things get worse not better. This approach does not work and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out that.
Instead of repeating the same mistake this election thinking men have established the Republicans so that we have our own political representation that effects change. Yes this will take time, but is the only way of achieving the required change.
If you choose to vote dumb and flush your vote down the Dunney that’s your choice. Others are saying lets vote wise and support the small seed from which the mighty Kauri will grow.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Doug: UF has had many years to do something for fathers and has done nothing. In what way has Judy Turner “stood up for men’s and father’s rights” as you claim Doug? Show me some examples. Things have only become worse for fathers and for families with them in government, and not just through omission but through the deliberate actions of UF by way of bills Dunne has introduced. Now Turner promises policies that sound male friendly but actually are quite hollow and would make little difference even in the unlikely event they ever come to fruition. If she gets back in, why do you imagine Dunne would allow her to keep pushing policies that are in the opposite direction from those he has pursued throughout his tenure? Men are desperate and are now easily manipulated with an iou. Surely, before you throw your vote at a sales pitch, you need at least to evaluate the track record of the company and/or await some real evidence that the company does what it promises. The fact that the sales pitch is for an unattractive deal also needs to be considered.
Remember, every vote for a party that unequivocally stands for gender equality, fairness for men and fathers, encouragement for maintaning intact family units, major overhaul of family law, the DPB and child support is a powerful voice that will be influential on all other parties. A vote for Dunne’s lot will be a voice in support of a party that for many years now has only put the boot into men and families. A vote for Dunne’s dancers will be lost to our cause as they waltz with the most generous suitor and forget about hollow promises.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Remember also that Turner was their spokesperson on women’s affairs in the last government. As far as I know, they have never had a spokesperson on men’s affairs. That shows how seriously they consider men’s and fathers’ issues.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 2:39 pm
To Republican candidates and your supporters.
It is obvious you are saturating the pro-mens and pro-family web sites. Your message is a little too shrill and repetitive, and at times intimidating. It is lowering the quality and usefulness of the debate on these web sites.
The people coming to these web sites want their family problems fixed, they don’t want to be bombed by one set of views. By attacking the political parties that can give them what they need you are turning off voters and condemning the Republican party to oblivion.
May I suggest you have got your political angle wrong. The Greens, especially in their early years, made good headway by congratulating other parties who adopted their ideas, and by working with them. Their message was “vote for us, and we will get more parties on board with our ideas”.
I hope this helps.
Bruce Tichbon
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Peter Dunne and Judith Collins would be a deadly combination and together would seal the end for fathers.
Vote wisely.
Judy Turner may have her heart in the right direction but Peter Dunne will always pull the strings.
Comment by Rosie — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Bruce,
What has United Failure delivered? Hans has provided a reasonable list of what they have delivered and the outcomes have done nothing to legislatively improve the status quo.
An honest analysis of Judy Turners proposals e.g. Gate keeping by FC Judges for assuring paternity or the Claytons shared parenting proposal (the shared parenting you have when you don’t really have shared parenting see Hans previous post) will not produce equality under law. If you wish to settle for crumbs that’s your choice, a choice Republicans hold to be vital to a modern democracy and will fight to defend.
As you support Dunne, you also support by his admission a National government. For any Fathers Rights activist to suggest supporting National is just plain dumb. The reality is a vote for United Failure is a vote for National and Judith Collins et al. For the past 6 years National has portrayed all dads who are separated as Deadbeat – its well documented on this site and scoop.
Your view of the evolution of the Greens is fundamentally flawed.They grew form values in the 1970’s and rode into parliament with the alliance. Taking 24 years to achieve representation and have since then implemented a raft of measures as part of a Lational led MMP government. From a small seed they grew their Kauri!
As the Green vote increased Lational and Nabour have co-opted green polices to attempt to politically reduce greens support and bring the green vote to them.
You are right, people want their Family Law problems fixed and the Republicans are the only Party that will do so. Fixing the problem requires legislation that enshrines equal parental rights and responsibilities in law and the only party advocating this is the Republicans.
As to oblivion the Party destined for that within 2 elections is United Failure, prostituting to National will speed this up.
Sorry Bruce, a vote for National (AKA United Failure) is just a plain dumb vote. Previous performance is a good indicator of future performance. Political Prostitution for the baubles of Office has long been Peter Dunne’s mode of operation. He hasn’t changed, wake up!
Thanks to the efforts of men and women of vision I have a choice to cast a vote to make a difference for my kid’s future. A vote for a party that will make a real difference for Family Law Reform. A vision that is built on equality under law .l will vote wise and vote Republican and grow the Mighty Kauri. I certainly won’t vote dumb and give my vote to national (AKA united future.) and will continue to challenge anyone who suggests I do so and promotes the ridiculous argument that doing this will advance the rights of Fathers.
Regards
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 30th October 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Scrap, you would be the best person I could think of in politics. I saw the women I have to chose between and they are idiots compared to you.
Comment by julie — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 12:37 am
Hans your posts are normally it bit more credible than this. Check the UF website – they have no women’s affairs policy, so at least give credit where it is due. Instead they have a gender affairs policy that begins:
-Rename and refocus the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to the Ministry of Gender Affairs because the specific needs of both genders co-exist and can only be addressed by recognising the effects that any policy has on both men and women.
So they would scrap womens affairs and have a gender affairs Minister, with a Ministry that has a work program looking at both mens issues on one side, and womens issues on the other, plus addressing the fact that what affect one also affects the others.
Fair enough:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0705/S00584.htm
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/praising_judy_turner_twice_in_a_week.html
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,874,unitedfuture_pushing_to_reform_family_law_.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,244,fathers_undervalued_under_labour_turner.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,1053,monkeys_have_more_rights_than_fathers.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,217,judy_turner_scorns_hospital_child_abuse_questions_.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,1045,boys_education_the_elephant_in_the_classroom_uf.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,849,one_in_five_fathers_wrongly_identified_by_mothers.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,834,school_leaving_figures_a_national_shame.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,637,ideology_putting_children_at_risk_turner.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,594,boys_education_failure_continues_to_be_ignored_.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,448,turner_optimistic_of_paternity_bills_passage.sm
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,431,barker_head_in_the_sand_on_dna_paternity_testing_.sm
just to name a few releases. these are important as they get in the newspapers and challenge the thinking of every day people – the ones that you need to win over to make father-friendly changes in parliament and society in general. the biggest problem with family violence and blaiming men for all is that most people genuinely believe men do 95% of violence as that is what they ahve been fed for decades. So having an MP coming out repeatedly rubbishing this is very valuable – she is the only one in Parliament doing this. If she goes, there will be NOBODY saying this.
Her DNA testing paternity bill is on the order paper – meaning if she gets in again, it will be voted upon in the new year.
Judy has been the only MP challenging Labour on boys education. They have finally acknowledged it is a problem after constant pressure from Judy and United. They just released this: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/boys%e2%80%99+educational+success+focus+new+website
It isn’t enough – but it is recognition of the problem and a firs step to address it – it opens the way for more. That is the work of Judy Turner making a difference.
Also, Judy lobbied Ruth Dyson and changed CYF so that now there is an independent complaints authority and process, for parents to complain when they believe CYF have acted wrongly:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new+complaints+process+launch+july
this was only because of Judy’s pressure. Before this, you had to complain straight to the case worker that took your kids away from you!
She is even amking head-way on the super PC Ruth Dyson:
She released this release last year http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/multi-party+group+works+family+violence+prevention – but Judy refused to sign it unless they put in the paragraph:
“We also acknowledge the need to recognise New Zealand research that highlights the fact that family violence involves both male and female perpetrators and victims and that more needs to be done to reduce all forms of partner violence, as well as violence towards children,” said Ruth Dyson.
The group stresses that violent behaviour of any sort is unacceptable in the home.”
A small but very significant acievement to get the Minister of MSD saying those words. Small steps.
It is what having someone WITHIN parliament consistently sticking up for fathers and mens rights can do.
I admire what the Republicans are trying to do, but honestly there is not chance of even getting 1% and nobody will be taking notice, compared to what even ONE MP can do. It is a long term strategy but until men can even get a decent lobby group together that is moderate and organsied – i don’t hold much hope a long-lasting political party.
The fact is that people are better off making sure Judy Turner gets back into Parliament.
Comment by doug — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 10:44 am
Doug,
Fact is a vote for United Failure is a vote for National-this cannot be disputed. A vote for Judy Turner is a vote for national.
Fact if you are a seperated parent a vote for National is a dumb vote. When Judith Collins et al legislatively screw you over dont bother complaing as by voting for United Failure you are voting for National and draconian family law policy and legislation. Go ahead shoot yourself in the foot.
Fact Dunne is the Leader and his past actions are clear. He has been happy to screw over seperated parents as Child Tax Tsar but hey thats OK with you and having screwed over seperated parents we should reward him with our vote.
Feel free to vote for National because that is what a vote for United Failure is.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Peter is a dead-set certainty to be in parliament anyway. whether you vote for United or not. The only difference is if Judy Turner joins him.
United will not have enought votes to decide whether National or Labour is government. If it is that close, then the Maori party will decide. But MPs can make a difference if theya re good, whether in opposition or support of government.
A vote for republicans is a vote that will not even influence parliament. You may as well abstain.
NB: The term ‘united failure’ comes across more lame and childish than clever. Lets keep to debating policies and issues rather than name-calling or weak insults. Not a biggie – it’s just a little irritating more than anything and dumbs-down the tone of the thread.
Comment by doug — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Doug,
The only dumbing down of the thread is the idiotic suggestion that voting for National, which by Dunnes admission is what you are doing when you vote for United Failure , is going to make it better for fathers. Really dumb!
You can vote dumb and maintain your illusion that United Failure really care about men but I will vote wise and vote Republican knowing that im helping grow the Kauri seeding into a mighty tree.
N.B. Thank you for confirming that I should continue to use the term United Failure.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Dear “Scrap_The_CSA”
With all due respect, what you keep labelling as “fact” is merely your opinion.
By the way, the party’s name is United Future. How would you like it if I called your lot the (re)Pubic Party? Not very much I would imagine.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Dear Darryl,
You can espouse whatever opinion you like it does not change reality. A Fact is defined as something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Fact: National Party leader John Key has promised Mr Dunne a seat around his cabinet table after the United Future leader yesterday ruled out supporting a future Labour government.(see link)
Fact : Mr Dunne said yesterday he was supporting National because its policies lined up “far better” with his own and would move the country in the right direction.
Fact a vote for United Failure is a vote for National. Or is Herr Dunne lying?
Fact Peter Dunne has prostituted himself politically to the highest bidder election after election.
Fact United Failure have delivered no legislative change that improves the situation separated families.
Fact Judy Turner is a United Failure MP subject to Herr Dunne’s Leadership. She has and will continue to tow the party line.
Fact Herr Dunne is the Current Child Tax Tsar and has pushed through legislation that has resulted in a more draconian and punitive Child Tax system.
Fact : Peter Dunne has laid in place the groundwork for tax officials to stop alleged child tax debtors at the border. This lays the base for former Family Court Lawyer Judith Collins to drive home Nationals punitive get tough on so called deadbeat dads policy and allow detention without trial by tax official if you have an alleged child tax debt and attempt to leave the country.
Fact overseas jurisdictions that have enacted court based gate keeping for paternity assurance have seen dads and children denied paternity assurance as it has been ruled that paternity assurance is not in the best interest of the child.
Fact: National has polices that are very father unfriendly. Child Tax policy an example.
This list is fact your comment is opinion. (a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.)
You can call the Republic of New Zealand Party what you like and I would fight to defend your right to do so. Its called freedom of speech and will be enshrined in the constitution. I had thought you could be a little more inventive. I consider it surprisingly insightful that you see the Republicans as a party of the public.(Public : pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole.) It’s heartening to see the message getting home.
United Failure is the correct description of Dunne’s Party. Its been a failure at delivering any legislative change that produces real reform of a fundamentally flawed system of Family Law. Its been failing to do this for years.
If it was important to United Failure it would be a bottom line, it isn’t.
Your rhetoric and bluster, and that of other United Failure (AKA National) supporters is insufficient to stop the kauri growing to a giant tree. Men of vision know that one day we will have political representation in Parliament and that Representation will be the Republicans.
Voting for United Failure is a vote for National and if you are a seperated father thats a dumb vote, vote wise and vote Republican the only party committed to real reform of Family Law and that Darryl is a bottom line.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 1st November 2008 @ 12:12 am
I get accused above of being a United Future supporter. This is a misrepresentation. I work with all parties for reform of family law. That potentially includes the Republican Party.
I deliberately do not seek political office, this allows me to be objective and independent.
Many posting above have political affiliations, this affects their independence and objectivity.
Bruce Tichbon
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Sat 1st November 2008 @ 10:37 am
Doug
Thanks for your detailed response. I am inclined to agree with you that Turner has had some positive impact recently concerning DV attitudes in parliament and concerning the gender gap in education, and that she has provided pretty well the only voice in parliament that has challenged feminist propaganda. I accept that my level of respect for her deserved to be greater than has been expressed in my posts. I also agree that on the strength of her press releases over the last year or so, and in the absence of anyone else in parliament who seems to give a damn about men and fathers, it would be desirable for her to remain in parliament.
It is nevertheless true that throughout the last term of government ending only three years ago she was spokesperson on women’s affairs, when UF had no spokesperson on men’s affairs and showed little awareness of the plight of men and fathers. It may well be that Turner started to read the MENZ site etc, and she must be given credit for allowing such reading now to influence her positions.
It is also true that Dunne’s direct and deliberate actions have only brought about a worse situation for families and especially for fathers. His response in an interview when challenged about the morality and family implications of his bill to allow NZ based internet gambling was appalling. He aggressively and intolerantly dismissed the interviewer’s questions, refusing to answer them and refusing to take responsibility for the likely family-damaging consequences of his actions. Dunne we can do without, and it remains to be seen whether his self-serving political prostitution will allow much or any consideration of families, fathers or men by his party in the future. Promises are easy to make leading up to an election. He turned-coat on the anti-smacking bill, I guess because Labour asked him to, and required his party to vote in support of that legislation that is now being mainly used as yet another weapon to harass fathers and the odd mother, aside from wreaking further havoc against parental authority and parents’ ability to shape their children’s behaviour adequately.
A look through the UF website shows a confused array of policies. Only a few of them are favourable to men or fathers. The family policies seem inadequate, with no mention of the family-wrecking effect of the current DPB programme and no-fault relationship property law. The “Gender Affairs” policy includes renaming the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, but there seems little to stop the newly-named ministry from simply continuing its reign of feminist domination and misandry. The remaining gender affairs policy contains little that recognizes men’s needs. Some UF policies will merely extend our society’s persecution of men; for example, they call for longer sentences and non-parole periods for sexual offenders, without any consideration of the high risk that innocent men will be found guilty of such offences under the current law that has now discarded most safeguards against false conviction.
Further, a closer look at your 14 examples of Turner’s press releases puts things into perspective, and is also worthwhile for exploration of some important Men’s issues.
10 of the 14 releases were during 2008, 7 of those concerning the three policies that have been discussed on this site.
One of the 2008 releases announced the three policies.
Five of the 2008 releases were promoting the DNA testing policy and her related bill. This policy has been criticized extensively here, generally recognized to be an inadequate response but argued by some to be worth supporting as a step forward.
One of the 2008 releases was an excellent challenge of the sexist DV “cake” promotion and police favouring of female offenders. I was impressed by this release and a couple of the education ones.
The remaining three 2008 releases criticized gender inequality in education and the lack of concern shown by government to this.
The other four releases were from 2007. One proposed the Ministry of Gender Affairs.
Another 2007 release was in support of honouring fathers on Fathers Day. That was nice enough, although she ended it with “One assurance I can give ahead of Fathers’ Day is that UnitedFuture will continue fighting to improve things for all fathers and their families.” Well, since then the main thing Dunne has done was to take away from fathers the freedom enjoyed by every other passport-holding citizen (except suspected criminal offenders) to travel freely out of the country. This does unfortunately demonstrate how little UF can be expected to honour Turner’s promises. And Turner’s suggestion that UF would “continue fighting” implied that they had been doing so already, a claim for which I have seen little evidence.
The remaining 2007 release was a confused response to the introduction of a policy (now fully in place — be aware) to question all female hospital clients, including outpatients, about family violence. Although she made a couple of good points, these were largely negated by the rest of the article that indicated she had a very poor understanding of the issues as they pertained to men. For example, she failed to mention the sexism and false research methodology involved in asking only women and ignoring the victimization of boys and men. Also, the press release focused on only one of the questions now asked of all female-only hospital clients in New Zealand. That question was “Have you ever been asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t want to do?”. She then went on to bemoan the fact that the identity and details about “perpetrators” were not being collated and used to combat child abuse. For men, the most important issue about that question was that it doesn’t measure abuse at all, but nevertheless all affirmative responses to it will be defined as abuse and will be added to false statistics and anti-male propaganda. For Turner to suggest that details about “perpetrators” resulting from this question should be kept and acted upon by the state, is simply to encourage more disrespect for civil rights, mainly men’s. “Asking” a woman to do something sexual that she doesn’t want to in no way amounts to sexual abuse. And because men are still largely expected to make the first move in courtship and sexual intimacy, they will be the ones most often seen to commit this crime of a man asking a woman for something he wants.
Turner appears to be the only person in parliament brave enough to talk some truth about some men’s concerns. The jury is still out on how genuine her positions are given the recency and pre-election timing of her insights, and given the confusion of some of her positions. Her party’s achievements to date have only been bad for men and fathers. You decide.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 1st November 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Bruce,
I seek to clarify your comment.
It is easy to set the record straight. Have you or have you not been advocating that Fathers should give their vote to Pter Dunne’s party, United Failure (AKA National) ?
Have you or have you not described a vote for the Republicans as a wasted vote?
Please note I am asking honestly as from previous communication from you the position has appeared to be very clear that fathers must vote for Peter Dunnes’s United Failure and a vote for the Republicans is a wasted vote. If this is not the case I give you the oppurtunity to set the record correct.
I have been open and proud to state my political position in supporting the Republicans as they are the only Party who hold Family Law Reform as a bottom line.
There is no doubt Dunne will support National thats why I wrote the blog to inform readers of the reality and truth that a vote for United Failure is a vote for National.
The fact that I and others support the Republicans is a total red herring asour position is decleared, we are not hiding behind any claimed neutrality and are honest and proud to do so.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 1st November 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Time is running out for these discussions!
Last election, I voted for the party that I was least scared of. I feel that it is a pretty sad situation, when this is the best analysis that can be made to decide who to vote for.
Since then, I have read Hansard for Domestic Violence Act, Relationship Property Act and Child Support Act. I was not at all impressed by the wisdom displayed. I am now much more scared of both of the two main parties, than I was just before the previous election.
Therefore, I wish to show respect for people who want to put together a party, showing the proper amount of concern for men. However, I am not persuaded that their policies are mature, sufficient to the task, or sufficiently well thought out, to actually deliver any positive value.
Don’t Vote, it only encourages them! seems to show some promise, but I am aiming to be more constructive and positive than just this.
At the end of the day, I guess voters pretty much get what they deserve, maybe a bit more, but not much.
Have you done your homework?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 1st November 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Murray,
Fine, its your right to say so but it is equally my right to chanllenge your analysis and call it what it is a sweeping generalisation that could be applied to any political party. In fact night after night I hear John Key and Helen esposiung the same position about Lational and Nabour policies.
Its easy for individuals to be knockers, its much harder to be disciplined and be part of a team that are doers. If you want to make a differnce or influence Republican Policy join the Republicans and become part of the team.
9 years of “homework” and the answer is simple only legislative change will provide equal parental rights and responsibilites. No incumbent Party will effect that change so the only answer is to grow the Kauri by creating a new political identy that will effect real change, the Republican’s.
Regards
Scrap
P.S. Bewrae that you dont end up in a state of paralysis by analysis!
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 1st November 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Scrap,
You are confusing me with someone else. I have never advised on any blog or list who people should vote for, or who they should not vote for. I simply seek to advise people of the facts.
Bruce Tichbon
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Sun 2nd November 2008 @ 11:41 am
Hans, a couple of things
This is simply incorrect. United Future treated the section 59 bill as a conscience issue, and 2 of the 3 MPs voted against it, so the party did not support that legislation. National and Labour, however, did force their MPs to support it.
i also read the hospital questions and it seems that Judy was linking two different issues in the release. She was not calling for CYF to collate and act on the answers from the hospital questions, she was raising the fact, separately, that CYF do not collate the identity of those they consider to be perpetrators of child abuse and argues that they should so we can see what patterns emerge. She said that the gender of those who CYF consider have abused children are therefore not known, but she mentions that most research shows women abuse children at higher rates than men, and this policy assumes that only men are abusers and is just another example of a flawed approach to family and sexual violence. I agree it is not the clearest release.
The list i put together were just some recent examples i got off the website – not an exclusive list.
Comment by doug — Sun 2nd November 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Ok, thanks Doug. I retract and apologize for my uninformed claim that Dunne required his party to support Bradford’s Bill as he ended up doing. I should have checked.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 2nd November 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Get real, people!
Any vote for the re pubic party is a wasted vote.
Comment by Chris M — Mon 3rd November 2008 @ 1:51 pm
And for just $5000 we can get Dunne to do anything!
Comment by Tigerseye — Mon 3rd November 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Chris M. It’s rather unbelievable that someone on the MENZ site would claim that a vote would be wasted for the only party to promote most of the very policies men and fathers want. Ridiculous. If you don’t vote for the kind of policies you want, then you deserve the policies you get but don’t want. That of course assumes that you want policies respectful of men and families. Who knows who you are or what your agenda is?
Unless men and fathers get in behind some party that generally represents their interests and preferences, don’t expect anything to change. Show me any party that represents men’s and fathers’ interests more so than the Republic of NZ Party. It’s a really weird experience being in a party that is devoted to progressing men’s issues only to have those within the men’s movement turn against that party and disparage it. Go figure.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 3rd November 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Well said Hans.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd November 2008 @ 11:45 pm
“the only party to promote most of the very policies men and fathers want”????
That is your opinion.
I would suggest that your policies are NOT what men and fathers want, given that your support is almost zilch.
I will concede that your intentions are good, but any vote for you is a WASTED VOTE.
Fact.
It would be far better to vote united future and get Judy Turner in on the list.
Comment by Chris M — Tue 4th November 2008 @ 1:56 pm
4 days and counting down till this argument is all over.
Comment by julie — Tue 4th November 2008 @ 2:42 pm
I agree with you 100% Julie. This thread is getting nowhere fast. Numerous to and fro posts arguing the same thing each time. If I was completely objective I would agree, in part, with Chris. But would also lean very much toward Hans and Scrap simply because of their expanded reasoning.
If we forget all the name calling and just put the cards on the table it comes down to UF or RONZ who are doing anything for our cause – all other parties have not so much as acknowledged existence of our suffering.
Objectively speaking, I don’t trust Dunne to keep his word on anything and Judy’s proposed Bill is not really drawing attention to our cause or men’s rights. But, it goes with out saying that he will be in parliament. So, voting for UF has an very unknown outcome with this our issues, will anything actually be Dunne?
RONZ has policies in place for all of Men’s issues and there is no reason why the party wont get enough votes to be acknowledged as a new contender for the future. The RONZ may not take a seat but there is enough campaigning for the party that you will all be pleasantly surprised as to just how far they come – that seat is in the crosshairs. So, even though you may have a point, Chris, it doesn’t mean that voting for the RONZ party is wasting your vote. If anything it is telling the other parties that the RONZ is here to stay and is giving men a voice.
To take a non-objective stand, We are standing for every man who has been done over my the current political system and we are here to make a change and we are here to stay.
So the choice is yours. Plant the seed and watch it grow or water the shrub.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 4th November 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Thats Right Chris,
Go and vote for National they will make it all better, Judy Turner Tells you that while Peter Dunne screws dads over with her support.
A vote for United Failure is a vote for National and it plain Dumb for Dads to elect a National Goverment.
Fell free to vote dumb I’ll vote wise and vote Republican, despite knockers like you, because I wont vote dumb amymore because nothing changes if you vote dumb.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th November 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Peter Dunne is so concerned about families.
He wants all families to have a decent standard of living.
Yeah right.
Let him tell the kids who’s parents are not able to work anymore that they are only worth $70 a week.
Comment by Rosie — Tue 4th November 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Chris M: Which of the RONZ men’s related policies are not what men and fathers want?
Everyone else: We must remember that feminist spies and saboteurs can pose here anonymously as contributers pretending to be concerned for men and fathers when really their agenda is to create division and infighting.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 4th November 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Is it possible to close a thread ?
Comment by Martin Swash — Wed 5th November 2008 @ 3:03 am
Martin, Yes it is possible but not something I am inclined to do.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 5th November 2008 @ 12:44 pm
It’s only through robust debate that many issues and differences can be resolved. Personally, I try to debate fairly whereas some others are prone to more destructive or shallow posts. But I welcome debate and I don’t see any need to stifle it even if it seems to become a little boring. As with television programmes people don’t like, they can always avoid watching them.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 6th November 2008 @ 9:21 am
What’s more, the debate on this thread has been directly concerned with men’s issues and how likely they are to be progressed under the policies of various political parties. It does seem surprising that some seek to disparage and to stifle such debate when other threads continue unabated on matters such as Japanese military history and world domination!
Incidently, (if it’s not too relevant to tolerate), people might be interested in the following National Party policies:
They support giving police the power to impose instant protection orders.
They plan to require DNA testing for every person arrested for a potentially imprisonable offence, but they have no interest in allowing fathers to obtain DNA testing of children they have to pay for but dispute paternity of.
After supporting Bradford’s law to reduce parental authority and parents’ ability to manage their children’s behaviour, National now plan to profit from their handywork through major increases in fines for parents of truant children.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 6th November 2008 @ 10:02 am
Thank you to those of you who have supplied actual facts and figures to illuminate this debate.
I personally see merit in both sides of the argument, and have yet to make up my mind who I will vote for.
I agree that name-calling such as: “United Failure” seems childish, and does little to inform or change attitudes, but I accept that’s politics. In general, I find negative, personal political attacks turn me off the attacker more than the intended target. The TV advert of the housewife who does not trust John Key is particularly repellent to me.
I do think Judy Turner is the best friend we men currently have in Parliament, but whether she has the skill to turn good intentions into useful policy remains to be seen. I also feel betrayed by Peter Dunne – I have a White Ribbon on my desk which daily reminds me of the anti-male campaign promoted by his “Families” Commission.
On the other hand, I don’t support one of the basic planks of RONZ – I haven’t got a problem with the Queen and I don’t really think replacing her with President Bevin is the way forward. I can see that thousands of votes might cause the bigger parties to adopt Republican policies which would certainly be good.
I don’t want to vote for the Labour/Greens because they introduced the anti-smacking law, and I don’t have much confidence in National being any better, given their past responsibility for the Domestic Violence Act and the Child Support Act.
I thought ACT was worth voting for in the past when Murial Newman was an MP, but I don’t hear much from Rodney this election about how he might help men.
I believe that if you don’t bother to vote, you don’t have a right to bitch and moan, so that isn’t an option for me.
So what to do???
Hang on, I can’t see anything I dislike about Bill & Ben…
Comment by JohnP — Thu 6th November 2008 @ 4:40 pm
I note John that Bill and Ben on NewstalkZB this morning described Wninstons and Dunnes Parties as a joke party like themselves :o)
Flower Pot Men in Parliament is a novel idea but hey, like I keep saying everyone is entitled to a different point of view.
As to United Failure, yes it is politics and I am judging on legislative outcomes of MP’s who calim to support men and in that respect they are a Failure. its no differnt than lational and labour who show very little policyy difference.
I draw back to the point of the thread, to make sure MENZ readers are well aware a vote for United is a vote for National.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 6th November 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Hey John I don’t think Jim Anderton is too bad a man.
I’ve bitched and moaned to many MP’s and he’s the only one who’s had the decency to reply to me kindly without all this kind of nonsense…In my capacity as MP for bullshit bla bla bla
Comment by Rosie — Thu 6th November 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Since this is turning more into discussion I would like to add something. I have already voted a week ago because I made my mind up.
I voted for Paula (National) because she is pro men’s rights in Waitakere. We had a good talk about men’s issues when she was on the side of the road holding up a cardboard.
There is a lot going on that we don’t know about.
I am with John when it comes to the Queen yet I have no problem with
Bevan[Edit by JohnP: RONZ leader Kerry Bevin]. I just think we have already lost enough by pushing away the Privy Council.Comment by julie — Thu 6th November 2008 @ 11:14 pm
There are some good points here guys and, John, you made some well thought out comments about each contender.
I would also like to point out a couple of things for those that are undecided. Firstly, a vote for RONZ is not going to make this country a Republic. Being a republic is a means to an end – it won’t happen over night, but it will happen. When this country is ready.
By voting for the RONZ to get us over the 5% threshold or to get one of our candidates an electorate we will have a voice and influence. Once we achieve that the Men’s movement groups and the problems with Child Support and the Family court will be recognised, not just swept under the carpet. It’s that recognition that we all seek.
Let me be frank – the men is this country are being screwed over. I’ll say it again, the men is this country are being screwed over. If you are looking for somebody to make a stand, somebody to take this country in the right direction or at the very least have the government listen – here I am. I am standing up and saying I have had enough of this shit and I intend doing something about it. The RONZ has given me that opportunity and now I can proudly say that WE as the Republic of New Zealand Party are standing up and saying “We have had enough of this!”.
We are ready, we have the policies, we have the will. We have the youth and the experience and those that support us are very knowledgeable in their respective areas. Give us the recognition needed in Parliament and we’ll give you the recognition needed in the real world with real problems. I wonder how many of the MP’s have gone through the crap we are going through? I wonder how many of them are paying Child Support and have been screwed by the Family court? I wonder how many of them have lost a Child? I wonder how many of them have been so ripped off by the legislation that they can’t even afford to fight to get their child/ren back? I HAVE experienced these things and the members of the RONZ have experienced these things and our supporters have experienced these things and YOU have experienced these things!
Our main problems are:
CHILD SUPPORT
THE FAMILY COURT
CYFS
The legislation with the above needs reform.
We need:
A MINISTRY FOR MEN’S AFFAIRS
BINDING NATIONAL REFERENDUM
GENDER EQUALITY
Vote Wise, Vote Republican!
Comment by Tigerseye — Fri 7th November 2008 @ 9:33 am
A reminder to all,
Dont forget to vote tommrow. Remember the men who fought and died to ensure we had a right to argue about who to vote for and that we could vote.Our system is far from perfect but at least we have the chance of changing it.Democracy may be flawed but its bloody sight better than the other choices. Cast your vote wisely,
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 7th November 2008 @ 10:33 pm
My father didn’t fight for the rights of idiots like Peter Dunne to run this country that’s for sure.
Comment by Rosie — Sat 8th November 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Rosie, I know Peter Dunne, and he is no idiot.
There is some interesting stuff in his party’s family policy.
Can you name any party with any hope of having any MPs elected that can do better than this?
Kind regards
Darryl
From: http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,894,family.sm
UnitedFuture will:
* Amend the Care of Children Act to make explicit the presumption of shared care when determining the care arrangements for children when parents separate. This would be predicated on the assumption that both parents are competent, and that it is in the child’s best interest to continue to have regular contact with both parents after divorce or separation.
* Support all moves to introduce mediation services into the system to reduce the need for lawyers and judges when settling disputes.
* Hold a full review of the Family Court system with a view to make it less adversarial and legalistic, and stop delays.
* Allow for DNA paternity testing to determine parentage when a person is unsure whether they are the biological father
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sat 8th November 2008 @ 8:35 pm
If you know Peter Dunne so well Darryl then perhaps you should tell him that if he wants people to respect him he should get out there in the streets and talk to the REAL people.Another thing you could tell him Darryl is that people would warm more towards him if he showed them that he did have a heart.
Comment by Rosie — Sat 8th November 2008 @ 9:27 pm
I did not say that I know him extremely well, but I do know him well enough to know that he is no idiot.
Kind regards
Darryl
P.S. – If you have a message for him, you can always write to him.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sat 8th November 2008 @ 11:19 pm
P.S. – I would have more respect for you if you had the courage to use your real name when insulting people.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sat 8th November 2008 @ 11:20 pm
I’m not sure that making disparaging comments about a politician is quite the same as “insulting people”. An insult I think has to be conveyed to the person, and it’s most unlikely that Dunne will read MENZ as he has not shown a blind bit of interest in men’s and fathers’ issues but instead has brought about a law to deny normal freedom of movement to alleged child tax defaulters. Repeating the hollow UF policies after they have been extensively critiqued in this thread already will do nothing to increase their credibility.
As it turned out, the Bill and Ben Party received almost 11,000 votes around the country, beating half the other parties who stood. The Republic of NZ Party was at the very bottom of the list although it received some votes in every electorate except two of the Maori seats. We are on the radar and a lot more people know our agenda now. The next election campaign starts yesterday and we will improve our showing if I have anything to do with it. We will continue mainly to champion the causes relevant to men and fathers despite an absence of support or even courtesy from some within the men’s movement. Thanks heaps to those who gave their support.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Darryl
People don’t have to say a word about Peter Dunne.They just have to sit back and watch him make a fool of himself time and time again.
He’s known as the man who leaps from one bed to the other.
Twice recently I have been with groups of people who were discussing politicians and when Peters name was mentioned,I saw the smile on peoples faces.
He lacks the skills of communicating with the public which saw his party go from 8 seats in 2002 to 1 seat now.
I have written to him on many occasions and received his pompous replies.
He reminds me of a doctor who has got no bedside manner.
He may have an impressive CV but unfortunately,he’s got no common sense.
Comment by Rosie — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Rosie:
United Future has never made any secret about the fact that it is a centrist party that can support either a centre-left or centre-right government and can be a moderating influence on either.
That is not leaping from one bed to another, that is MMP in action.
Your anonymous friends may smirk all they like.
How many of them have been in parliament for over 24 years?
You don’t get to hold onto a constituency seat if you lack common sense.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Hi Hans
It is not very fair to claim that Peter Dunne “… has not shown a blind bit of interest in men’s and fathers’ issues”. Can you name ANYBODY else in parliament who will promote the following?
From: http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,894,family.sm
* Amend the Care of Children Act to make explicit the presumption of shared care when determining the care arrangements for children when parents separate. This would be predicated on the assumption that both parents are competent, and that it is in the child’s best interest to continue to have regular contact with both parents after divorce or separation.
* Support all moves to introduce mediation services into the system to reduce the need for lawyers and judges when settling disputes.
* Hold a full review of the Family Court system with a view to make it less adversarial and legalistic, and stop delays.
* Allow for DNA paternity testing to determine parentage when a person is unsure whether they are the biological father
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Darryl,
Your analysis of Dunne’s Party political position is somewhat skewed. Reality is Dunne was a waka jumper who now sells his vote for Ministerial Posts. Thats not MMP its pension and perk planning!
It was good to see that his electorate majority has been reduced to a mere 1200 three years time and implementing his National Masters policies will see him struggling to keep his seat.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Darryl,
Re:61 Its a Tui ad.
What did they actually legislatively deliver?
More draconian child tax springs to my mind.
Anti smacking bill springs to mind
Those are some of the legislative changes Dunne drove through or supported.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Actually, Peter Dunne qualified for his parliamentary pension no later than 1993. That was three years before the first MMP election.
Peter Dune has worked well with a National led government before, from 1996 to 1999, and he is not ‘waka jumping’, but fulfilling the role of a centrist under MMP, which is to bring stability and moderate influence to a coalition government.
I have campaigned for fathers’ issues for almost 20 years, and only two significant political parties have ever paid attention to fathers’ issues: ACT (when it had Muriel Newman) and United Future, so I fail to understand by republicans are singling him out instead of others.
Is he perhaps perceived to be a threat to your aspirations?
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Re 63, UF did not support the anti smacking legislation. It was treated as a conscience vote, and 2/3 UF MPs opposed it.
As for what they delivered from the list I posted, that is from their manifesto, but who could blame them if they shunted it down the priority list, given the lack of appreciation that some in the movement (at least on this list) have been showing them.
I still fail to understand why the republicans are singling out Peter Dunne instead of targetting all pollies.
Is he perhaps preceived to be a threat to your aspirations?
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Darryl
You said
It is not very fair to claim that Peter Dunne “… has not shown a blind bit of interest in men’s and fathers’ issues”. Can you name ANYBODY else in parliament who will promote the following?
From: http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,894,family.sm
The truth is Peter Dunne used Judy Turner to try to get a few more votes for his party,but that backfired on him when most people saw right through him.
Comment by Rosie — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 10:00 pm
“most peopel (sic) saw right through him” ?
I know Peter Dunne, and I don’t have any issue with his credibility over that of any other politician.
I STILL fail to understand why the republicans are singling out Peter Dunne instead of targetting all pollies.
Is he perhaps preceived to be a threat to your aspirations?
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 10:13 pm
The election is over, Rover.
We can constructively and intelligently lobby those in parliament who are in a position to effect positive change, or we can simply p*** them off without achieving anything positive.
Our choice.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Darryl,
No its about reminding people what United Failure delivered and Dunnes political prositution as a more accurate representation than your “Saint Peter” view of his actions.
Do you dispute that Dunne ( Leader of United Failure and the only member left in the house) voted for the anti-smackig legislation.
Do you dispute that he and his family had lunch paid for by British Tobacco?
You spin is just that and cant change the fact that Dunne spent the last 3 years screwing dads over child tax as a Minister responsible for it..(Something Muriel Newman never did!)
Words are cheap delivery is what matters and they didnt deliver any legislative change that improves fathers positions. He’s had years to do this and has done nothing.
Now hes supporting National.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 10:28 pm
I am not saying he is ‘perfect’.
Nobody is, and it is so obvious that you are targeting him with all the petty accusations you are making. Why don’t you have a go at National / Labour / NZ First / Green / Progressive / ACT / Maori pollies as well?
Having lunch with someone from a tobacco company? Hardly the crime of the century… and besides, you were smoking tobacco the last time I saw you.
To effect positive change requires building mutually beneficial working relationships with those who are in a position to influence government policy.
If I want to effect change, would I be better off having a good working relationships with the only two political parties in parliament who have ever had fathers’ issues on the agenda or devoting my energies to a small party that may have a few well intentioned members, but has come absolute last in the last two elections?
Let me think about it…
By all means, carry on with building up your party, but please accept that it is pointless to crap on everyone else who is trying to help us.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 10:59 pm
I should add that those republicans I have met are generally good people who have good intentions, even though I do not agree with republicanism.
My thought for the republicans is this: if you are wondering why you got less than 300 list votes across the country (not counting special votes) and perfomed the worst of any party, you may like to reconsider the wisdom of having an apparent primary focus of the character assasination of one politician.
If it is any consolation, Helen Clark made the same mistake. I am not saying that cost it her the election, but it certainly helped.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 6:41 am
Darryl,
Good comment, point taken. Although I also have to add that only the greens got over the 5% so New Zealand really wanted a change and we got it. It was an historical election and the next 3 years are going to be very exciting for me, the Party and New Zealand as a whole. We have given Key the key, lets see what he can do with it.
Comment by Tigerseye — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 8:38 am
So Dunne, after screwing dads over as head tsar of Child Tax is trying to help us. Your definition of help defies belief!
Wake up Darryl or share what you are smoking!
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 9:14 am
I am interested moving forward and effecting positive change, not in petty name calling or living in the past.
Such blinkered approaches defy belief.
Onto another matter, you need 500 members to register a political party.
However, I see the republican party only got 298 votes (not counting special votes).
That means one of two things.
Either a significant proprtion of the party’s own members didn’t vote for it, or a significant proportion of its membership is either invalid or expired.
Which?
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 10:05 am
The answer obviuosly is all members didn’t fully back their membership and to ensure riddance of the Clark administration voted in a two horse race.
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09) 271 3020
(Former Secretary – Republic of New Zealand Party)
Comment by Paul Catton — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 11:09 am
Thank you Paul, no it is not obvious, and many of us were wondering. (Of course, this is totally incongruent with the view expressed by one leading republican in this thread that it is abhorrent for UF to be supporting a national-led government, but I digress).
Thank you also for having the courage to use your real name.
It would do wonders for the republicans’ credibility if everyone else did likewise.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 11:22 am
How do we know what your real name is Darryl?
Darryl Dunne would have sounded better
Comment by Rosie — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 2:11 pm
How do you know whether this is my real name?
Many people on this forum know me and have met me over the last 20 years and they all know that I am a real person.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Darryl,
Your spinning again. The Facts are that Dunne supports National and National have already idicated their agengda (On the spot protection orders for example.
You continue to slag the Republicans and act as Dunne’s apologist and ignore the facts.
Your assunptions as to votes recivied by the Republicans is valid in only 1 fact 298 Votes. Given that the plan is long term plan is to grow the Kauri thats OK by me. As Hans points out the next campgain has already begun and we are growing the Kauri.
What you feel about the Republicans is in essence irrealavent as it wont stop growing the Kauri over time.
As to comment 79 you somewhat miss the point.
Dunne screwed liable parents and their partners and children and his Party has paid the price. He is politically irrealavent and nutered by his prositution to National.
You can continue to blog as you know my views on free speech (Note 1 comment that personally attacked Rosie was deleted from the thread – also note it was not Darryl!)
Im not going to respond any further to you on this thread as it is Dunne and dusted.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 6:26 pm
I don’t want to continue this either, as the election is over, but I do feel compelled to state that I am NOBODY’s apologist.
I am not currently aligned with or associated with any political party or movement.
I am just saying what I think based on what I see.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 11th November 2008 @ 9:43 pm