Hooton Plan in Rodney Results in Committee Resign Threat- National Unfriendly to Conservatives and Christians?

Whale is reporting on the drama unfolding in Rodney as different political factions struggle for power within the National Party. The seat is up for grabs after Speaker Lockwood Smith decided to go list. Matthew Hooton wanted to put his name forward as a candidate, but Whale reports that upon hearing of this, the whole Rodney electoral committee (evidently politically Conservative) threatened to resign en masse. Hooton was dissuaded.

It bears noting here that Hooton is described frequently in the media as a “right wing commentator”. I don’t see Hooton this way at all. I see Hooton as a very weak social and economic liberal with very few credentials that would qualify him as “right wing”. He to my mind typifies the political faction that supports the soft left policies of John Key, and has taken the National Party far from its original ideological roots into a socially liberal big spending high taxing socialist party that panders to racists and does nothing to stand by its founding principles.

I can’t join in with the moral outrage being expressed over what is happening in Rodney. If anyone could provide examples of where written protocols have been breached, I would be pleased to receive that information so that I am able to make an objective judgment on the matter. At the moment, all of the information seems to be coming from the anti-Peinaar faction, and I reckon it is always dangerous forming an opinion when only one side of the argument is known. I am particularly disturbed by anti-Christian sentiments expressed by “a senior National Party source”- (Matthew Hooton?)

members are particularly concerned about the party being hijacked by the Christian-right”

“…conservatives are viewed as not in touch with middle New Zealand and not in line with John Key’s broader image.”

“…the politics of the Christian-right does not fit in with the party’s broader appeal.”

This sounds extremely prejudicial and anti Christian to me, and I would question the wisdom of any National Party spokesperson who makes such statements. The principles the National Party claims as its own are rooted in Conservative principles. John Key and his atrocious collection of Progressive flunkies have taken the Nationals far from those principles. In view of the very plain and unfriendly statements above, Christians and Conservatives need to seriously review their support for the party.

If you are a Christian or a Conservative, John Key and too many of the party clearly have no political sympathies with you, and therefore no loyalty to the party’s principles. Worse, they show, by allowing the above statement, an arrogant disregard for your position. You’re wasting your time supporting these charlatans and fakes and cowards and fifth columnists who put popularity before principle. They cannot articulate a position because they have no position. They have no position because they believe in nothing. They cannot lead, because they don’t know where they are going themselves. Stop voting for them, and look for an alternative.

Whale story.

Update- Assertions that need substantiation-

1) “Cehill Pein­aar intim­i­dates four can­di­dates out of the race”. Not only does this need substantiation, it needs clarification. If they can be “intimidated” into removing themselves from the selection process, were they the kind of strong willed and determined people we need in parliament anyway? The verb “intimidated” needs clarification and there needs to be some supporting information.

2) “the word is most of the new mem­bers are from a fun­da­men­tal­ist church that Brent belongs to” Needs verification.

3) “Cehill Pein­aar is outed as an extreme right wing for­mer South African politi­cian” He has been the electorate chair for some time. Apparently he has done the job well. If he has committed no transgressions of late what is the problem?

4) “The fun­da­men­tal­ist Maxim Insti­tute have been pointed to as behind this selec­tion jack up, as the first stage for the takeover of the National Party by fundies.” Verification needed.

5) “Back­room sources are sug­gest­ing that PM’s office is now being forced to get involved. Cehill Pein­aar is going to be scru­ti­nised care­fully, and Brent Robin­son may be told to grace­fully with­draw so he can run again in East Coast Bays in 2014.” So unless there has been some breach of National Party internal regulations, aren’t the PM’s office the one’s acting like “bully boys”?

Once again, I state I am not taking a position one way or the other. I merely seek further information. I will though say this. It would seem a bit uncharitable to raise issues from Mr. Peinaar’s past in respect of what is occurring in Rodney today. He has been the chair for sometime, there have been (AFAIK) no complaints about his chairmanship. To raise such issues only at this time would indicate that the case against him here is perhaps not that strong. I would really like an answer to this question- What rules has Peinaar breached?

Without satisfactory responses to these issues, it would appear that this is merely a desperate attempt by the Key faction to prevent the election of candidates who do not support their own liberal political views. I am hoping this is not the case.

15 thoughts on “Hooton Plan in Rodney Results in Committee Resign Threat- National Unfriendly to Conservatives and Christians?

  1. I agree with the above. My goodness Christians in the National party-horror?
    I wonder what the problem is?
    I suspect the weak kneed liberals in National are terrified of someone spoiling their fun. Maybe we will have a nation with limits,with moral restraint.Something which in my opinion is sorely needed.


  2. Red, I agree with you completely on Hooten. He is a Progressive in Liberal’s clothing, like so many of the current National caucus, and as typified by their Great Leader.

    My main concerns with the story are the allegations of branch stacking and candidate intimidation.

    Intimidating potential candidates (even weak ones like Hooten) into not putting their names forward is totally unacceptable. If Robinson is such a strong candidate, let him stand against all-comers and if the electorate committee considers him the appropriate candidate he will win.

    I’m still murky on that particular claim in this case. Why would the electorate committee threaten to resign if Hooten put his name forward? Surely selection is up to the committee and they could just not send him forward from the preselection stage? I suspect there’s more to this part of it than meets the eye.

    Secondly, branch stacking. Traditionally a tool of the left, for example when Liarbore Head Office bussed in a bunch of EPMU members to ensure Kris Fa’afoi was selected for Mana ahead of the locally-preferred candidate. Or, as is more common with (for example) NSW Labor, people from outside the electorate register as members inside the electorate and ensure their man (or woman) wins enough support for selection.

    Red, in the GD you asked what would be wrong if Robinson simply got enough of his mates to join up to ensure he was the most popular candidate. The answer is: nothing. Unless of course his mates live not in Rodney but in North Shore, East Coast Bays, etc. Then it is morally dodgy even though not a breach of any of the rules.


  3. “…conservatives are viewed as not in touch with middle New Zealand and not in line with John Key’s broader image.”

    WTF??? shonKey has no image, he’s a hollow vessel that, if the Nats had any balls, should be rolled tomorrow morning.


  4. There is also the issue of attacking South African immigrants. National would need to tread carefully in this matter in terms of the SA immigrant vote in Auckland.


  5. I just read that despite the Foreshore and Seabed scam and the plan for asset sales, Nats are still polling as well as ever. They’ve simply slipped into the space left by Labour’s demise and Kiwi voters are perfectly happy with that.
    I give up.


  6. If they can be “intimidated” into removing themselves from the selection process, were they the kind of strong willed and determined people we need in parliament anyway?

    That’s an issue that goes well beyond one electorate. Weak and malleable people are precisely the type that are sought by the parties, because those are the sort who’ll do what a small cabal tell them to do in order to further their own ambitions.

    All sorts of gerrymandering goes on at the candidate selection stage to ensure selectors get a choice of Weak or Weaker. It happens on the left too… just look at how the outspoken but energetic and potentially highly effective Louise Pagani was bumped to make room for the smiling, indolent yes-boy Kris Fa’afoi.

    We need laws that regulate candidate selection just as we regulate voting. Intimidating or attempting to influence an MP can get you sent to jail. Doing it to a selected candidate would certainly see you breach the Electoral Act, and be punished accordingly. Yet the parties themselves can do it to would-be candidates with impunity. Just as they can place unselected, unknown (and thus generally undeserving and unsuitable) people high on their lists with reference to ordinary members (c.f. the entire NZ cohort in 1996; David Garrett, and plenty of others).


  7. Thanks for that Rex. It kind of addresses my point in a way, in that is what has occurred at Rodney out of order in a real way, or is the scenario being painted and the allegations against Peinaar just the result of factional infighting of a kind that is pretty normal in such situations?


  8. It would seem a bit uncharitable to raise issues from Mr. Peinaar’s past

    One’s future behaviour is predicted by one’s past…..but you must get the past correct before judging a person.

    As an ex South African I’m horrified by some of the comments on Whale’s blog. It would seem that all SA’s are tarred with the same feather – that we supported Apartheid. In the 40+ years of National (that’s the SA National) Party rule, on only one occasion did they get over 50% of the popular vote in the white only electorate. Gerrymandering ensured that they got the Parliamentary majority. So, by my count, at least 50% of white South Africans did not vote for Apartheid.

    Pienaar belonged to the Conservative Party which made it clear that they did not want to live under a black government when the only options were a Marxist ANC or the racist PAC. They quite simply said that they wanted independence from such goverment, not that they wanted to prolong Apartheid. When the CP fell apart, mainly because of internal bickering, he joined the Inkhata Freedom Party of Mongosotho Buthelezi which was essentially a Zulu nationalist party but offered a chance of opposing the massive popularity of the Marxist ANC. His only other option would have been the PFP/DA who were/are very much an English liberal party…….and many Afrikaners will not support them as the wounds of the Anglo-Boer War are still very evident.

    Like most Afrikaner South Africans, Pienaar will probably be deeply Calvanistic…… and to the left, any one who is Christian is “extereme right”, so take it with a pinch of salt.

    I hope my analysis is correct, and that it helps.


  9. “It would seem that all SA’s are tarred with the same feather – that we supported Apartheid. ”
    You can thank Kiwi teachers for that simplistic (dishonest?) view Mawm–the marxist bastards need villains and who better than white South Africans, who represent everything socialists love to hate?
    I haven’t forgotten the outpouring of hate during the Springbok tour and the total lack of balance in the NZ media.


  10. Thanks Keith – I feel the love 😉

    It was not easy going overseas in the early eighties when all one met was hate…..especially from the POMS. In fact the best memory I have is sitting next to a young black lady on an internal flight in America. She was so friendly and non judgemental…..and had a far better understanding about race issues in SA and the rest of Africa.

    Now I must be off to face the wrath of cyclone Atu.


  11. I’ve worked with plenty of Afrikaneer and English South Africans, also English Zimbabweans…

    Great workers, self reliant, logically minded, ambitious, we should let all of them we can talk out of moving to Aussie in…


Comments are closed.