Colin Craig sticks a knife into Peter Dunne

Peter Dunne goes on a rant about the Conservative Party, maybe because they are so much more popular than United Future.

United Future’s Peter Dunne has lashed out at the Conservative Party, branding it “seriously extreme and nutty”.

Then he starts putting the boot in.

“Any relationship with the Conservative Party … suggests it’s going to be dogma on one side versus pragmatism on the other side, and I think it’s a pretty unhealthy mix.”

Mr Dunne believed the party had “little tolerance” for alternative views.

“It’s a real moral jihad; it would be smacking, not just resisting any change to the abortion laws, it’s tightening the abortion law, it’s anti-prostitution, you name it, the whole suite of agenda items.”

So Colin Craig responds with a very, very subtle play, making Peter Dunne look like an intolerant bigot against the Conservative Party.

Mr Craig said he was happy to meet Mr Dunne when next in Wellington. “He should probably get to know me and … let’s have informed comment.”

Maybe Peter objects to people who don’t take Tobacco Money.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • cowboy

    No wonder they call him Peter Dunhill – what’s the story with Dunnie boy taking money off big tobacco?????

    • Polishpride

      I have heard it alleged Dunhill received money from big tobacco for No progress on cannibis laws and that No progress on Cannibis laws was one of his two conditions for signing on again as a coalition partner with National. interesting information in light of that he lead the charge last term on banning synthetic cannibis too.    

  • toby_toby

    I do tend to agree with what Dunne is saying about the Conservative party. I don’t think they really represent more than a minority of New Zealanders who have fringe views (a bit like Mana).
    I’m sure Mr Craig has previously made comments in the media which suggest has is anti-anti-smacking law, anti-prostitution and anti-abortion (hell, he led a march against the anti-smacking law). Dunne is probably right to make those comments.

    • The Gantt Guy

      Oh Toby. You do nothing more than prove how terrified progressives, liberals and the political establishment (represented by socialist Labour and socialist National) are of the Cinservative Party.

      That they secured 55,000 votes a mere 4 months after their formation with virtually-unknown candidates speaks volumes about them.

      And you’re really going to criticize Colin Craig for opposing John Key’s anti-parenting law? Really? When 88% of voters were also opposed o it? Youre in the 12% And you think Craig has fringe views?

      • Tony


        Toby – seek the truth and you will find it. Spout crap and you will believe it!  :-)

      • toby_toby

        Tony, Gantt Guy – is Craig not against what Dunne said he is against? Put aside for the moment whether you believe he represents a minority or not. Was Dunne wrong?

      • Bunswalla

        TGG it possibly says more about the wisdom/intelligence of 55,000 people that threw their votes down the drain. Backing a horse with no realistic chance of winning either a constituent seat or reaching the 5% threshold is not the smartest use of your vote(s).

        Some of the CP issues definitely strike a chord with the majority of New Zealanders, and they’re not the first to come out against the anti-smacking bill. However their views on abortion, prayer-meetings at work, and prositution (which let’s face it is the world’s oldest profession and even JC was mates with Mary Magdalene if the stories are to be believed) are definitely not shared by the majority of New Zealanders.

        In light of that I believe they do represent a minority of New Zealanders and some of their views can be considered fringe.

      • Russell Belding

        Bunswalla – it surprises no one you mock CC on “prayer-meetings” (where did that irrelevant topic come from?) as you have said here you have found no meaning at all in life (do you want the quote?). who want to listen to one who declares there is no meaning at all in life and blogs here about meaning in political contexts. Which is it Bunswalla? There is meaning in mocking others or there is no meaning at all?

      • Tony


        Not sure that I would agree with the ‘wasted vote’ argument. After all the Cons did get more votes than United and Act put together (as I understand it).

        While no candidates were selected the size of the vote reflected peoples’ opinion – that is important.  

        What about next election? Is it your judgement that all votes for them would be wasted? As it was clear that labour would not get in to government again were all of their votes wasted?

      • Bunswalla

        Tony – sure they got more votes than the other parties but it was clear both Dunne and Banks were very likely to win their electorate seats, so party votes could conceivably get more MPs in the house. Certainly that was the strategy with ACT, albeit it failed miserably.

        I wouldn’t risk a judgement on the next election this far out, and how Craig handles himself between now and then will determine that one. but I still think the votes were wasted because they achieved nothing in terms of results, and they probably made it easier for the Greens or NZF to get another seat each.

        Because not all of the party votes went to parties with MPs (and the Cons were not alone here), both those parties ended up with one more seat than if the Cons had got an electorate seat.

      • Bunswalla

        Belding – it’s not irrelevant and I got it from a quote on the Conservative Party website: “We have weekly team meetings, which are usually closed with a short prayer,
        shorter than the prayer they say to open Parliament” says Mr Craig.

        Stop talking out of your arse, stop trying to hijack the thread, and stop stalking me you creep.

      • David Garrett

         Well said Sir…of course to the “Progressives” guys like me –  who are strongly opposed to the gummint telling me how to parent my kids  – just want to “bash” our kids every morning. I am told constantly what great kids mine are…and both got the odd smack on the calf when they were too young to respond to anything else, or the other stuff hadn’t worked.

        What’s worse, Bradford once admitted to me that she didn’t think her Bill would stop a single asshole who thought it was ok to hit his kids with a lump of 4 X 2…and that weasel Borrows wouldn’t even vote for his own amendment!

      • Russell Belding

        Bunswalla – OK the issues is relevant to you and irrelevant to me. Of what concern is it to you if I pray in my office. (I do) By your words it cannot be relevant because there is no meaning anywhere. It will do you no good to squeal that I am stalking you. You dish out mocking comments and don’t take it well. Stalking you? Rubbish. Stop replying and so will I. 

      • Duncan Brown

        Bunswalla, totally disagree. Voting is about choosing who you (mostly) agree with, not picking a winner! That sort of race-horse thinking is what helps to create the swinging voter, and also helps to explain the lower voter turnout.

      • Bunswalla

        Belding – I don’t give a carpet cleaner’s toss what you do in your office, but I note you don’t deny threadjacking or talking out of your arse.

        Duncan – it may well not be about picking winners, but wasting votes on certain losers is not how I want to use my votes. I don’t understand what you mean by explaining the lower voter turnout – do you think people don’t vote because they can’t find a candidate or party that they mostly agree with? That could well be the case, but it could just be apathy at the very ordinary and increasingly negative campaigning that went on.

        I was unfortunate enough to spend most of the 2010 Australian federal election campaign in Sydney, and it was incredibly depressing. Barely a single positive speech or policy – the rest of it was all negative attacks from both main parties. Gillard’s message was vote for me – I’m not Tony Abbott, and Abbott’s was the reverse. If it wasn’t for compulsory voting the turnout would have been very low and by the time of the election everyone was completely sick of the pair of them.

        There’s an unfortunate trend for NZ politics to head the same way, which I hate to see.

      • Duncan Brown

        Bunswalla, re picking winners and lower voter turnout. My argument is similar re that of picking winners and swing voters. If people think voting is about picking a winner, and they think that it’s only a two horse race, or they can’t be bothered getting enough info to have a considered opinion, the chances are they’ll wait till voting day to decide who to vote for, or just not bother.

        In contrast, if people vote by who they agree with/support/trust/want to see have influence (not equal to who they want/expect to win), then parliament will be closer to a reflection of the will of the people, rather than a reflection of people’s betting strategies.

        A wasted vote IMO is a vote that is not cast, or is cast on the flimsiest of reasons.

        Re apathy and disenchantment, I agree. If politicians stuck to policies rather than politicking, mud-slinging, and negative campaigning, public perception would have to improve. A case in point must surely be Dunne’s comments which we are commenting on!

      • Bunswalla

        Duncan – I don’t think it’s a two-horse race. Clearly since MMP came in it hasn’t been. But parliament will only reflect the will of the people if the party/candidate you vote for meets the base threshold of either a simple constituency majority or 5% of the party vote. Of course you never know for sure if that will happen, and perhaps enough people believed the very unusual poll figures Colin Craig paid for.

        Even when a prty wins seats or more than 5%, the end result is often far from the will of the people, as deals are done to form a government. Do you think all those that voted for the Maori Party in 2008 believed or even had any idea that their votes would help put National in power? The same was true with NZF some elections back, when Peters told everyone he’d go with Labour and then went with National.

        You can’t say that a vote made without considering all the available information, or on the flimsiest of reasons, is wasted. They all count the same mate, somebody’s vote that they made by throwing a dart at the board is just as valid as a deeply considered one.

      • Duncan Brown

        Bunswalla – Fair point on the wasted vote, though I still regard a non-vote as a wasted vote. I would like to see the threshold dropped, it distorts the picture, and were it to allow a “fringe” MP, I suspect that is exactly where they would stay! Re MMP, I am happier with the after-election unions in later elections where the various parties indicate their position before the election.

    • Tony

      Hi Toby,

      I think that their position on parental correction, prostitution, land sales and partial asset sales makes them in-line with the majority of the population.

      Also, if you identify what they actually stand for and compare it with what the media says the party stands for, my assessment is that you would be very surprised.

      Personally, I would tend to trust their word over the likes of NZ First and the Greens.


    • Tony

      Toby – I think that you have switched your argument. First, you said that Mr Dunne was right b/c the Conservatives hold fringe views “anti-anti-smacking law, anti-prostitution and anti-abortion”. When challenged that their views in these areas more-closely represent the views of the population you changed to concentrate on whether Mr Dunne was correct. By my reading, Mr Dunne had two arguments. Firstly, that the Conservatives have an internal battle between the ideologues and the pragmatists and secondly that the Conservatives are bad b/c they are “anti-anti-smacking law, anti-prostitution and anti-abortion”.

      As to the first point there is almost no party that does not have a creative tension between the idealists and the pragmatists. I would suggest that the reason why Mr Dunne regards this is strange  is that he is almost the only member of his party and also they actually have no idealogical basis – they are purely pragmatists – the ultimate political prostitutes. 

      To the second point, his complaint about the Conservatives being “anti-anti-smacking law, anti-prostitution and anti-abortion” places him on the wrong side of the popular debate in these areas of political discourse. 

      So, in a nutshell – was Mr Dunne correct? Yes he was. Is it an issue? No it isn’t b/c he is irrelevant. 


      • toby_toby

        I don’t think you understand my argument at all. It was always that Dunne had said the Cons were anti a bunch of stuff and Craig said “no, that’s not true, you don’t know me, wah waah!” So my argument was that Dunne was actually right in his criticism.

        My comment about the Cons being a fringe party probably confused the point I was trying to make, though I do still believe they are a fringe party.

      • Tony

        Fair enough Toby,

        I guess that I didn’t think that Mr Craig actually said anything substantive – he just said that Mr Dunne didn’t know him.

        While the substantive issues “anti-anti-smacking law, anti-prostitution and anti-abortion” are easy to identify I am not so sure about the argument that he has little tolerance for others’ perspectives. 

    • Russell Belding

      Toby at present the CP represents no-one in Parliament, as you kow. The views I think CC has coincide a bit with mine. We are close on murdering unborn persons. I would allow abortion in rape-like cases and for health-of-mother situations. Only with a reviewed permission process.   I acknowledge others will disagree. If this is a minority or fringe view I don’t care. I hold this view  thoughtfully. I care little about the smacking debate. Managing prostitution is important. Here I reckon we can be prakmatic with a view to reducing it. But murdering children for the convienience of parents who willfully had vaginal intercourse is to me repulsive and clearly wrong.

      • David Garrett

         We used to “manage prostitution” very well Russell…with a useful fiction called the Massage Parlours Act. Everyone knew you didn’t got to the Shady Lady for a sore knee…the cops quietly kept an eye on the girls, and knew their real names. If something happened to them they were quickly onto it.

        Then that stupid f…from Christchurch decided that legalisation would be just the ticket; all the girls would pay tax, there would be no more exploitation, and everything would be just peachy. There would be no increase at all in the numbers of street girls. Go and ask the shopowners at Hunters Corner  how that has worked out.

      • Rodger T

        And yet Russ, you are ok with the the idea of your god murdering thousands if not millions in the plagues ,pestilences and floods he  allegedly sent when he got his nose out of joint?
        Not to mention the rape of a certain unmarried jewish girl a couple of thousand years ago.
        Its in your holey babble Russ, are you saying the inerrant word of doG is wrong?

      • OnemoreGuest

        If you want to debate theology Rodger there are plenty of other blogs you can go to where someone might give a shit and give you a proper answer.  Russell just gives you an easy target.

      • Russell Belding

        “Roger T” I’d be happy to reply to your question Roger if you wan to engage in a civil conversation. EMail me. As you also have said here like “Bunswalla”, you are here for the sport of mocking people.(I’ll give you the quote if you like) If you want civil conversation with real people try replying with sensible comments as for example David G does. He says he disagrees with me and does so with reason and respect. You by contrast come blazing in with insults only.

      • Rodger T

        No insults there Russ,just legitimate questions to your statements.

      • Russell Belding

        I apologise to you Roger. I thought “holey babble” and “word of doG” was insulting. By your words I am wrong. To continue with a civil conversation off this blog, email me at [email protected] and I’l try my best to answer your legitimate questions about what I think about meaning, significance and faith. I will behave politely.

      • Rodger T

        Well I`ll apologise too Russell, just my sense of humour run amok.
        Not much point in continuing ,we`ll just go around in circles.


      • toby_toby

        You say first that ” I hold this view  thoughtfully” but then go on to say that people are murdering children out of convenience. That doesn’t sound thoughtful at all. In fact, that sounds like sensationalism. I just can’t take you seriously when you talk like that.

      • Dion

        > Go and ask the shopowners at Hunters Corner  how that has worked out.
        David – in all seriousness you’ve just made a pretty respectable attempt at outlining Helen Clark’s legacy.

  • Russell Belding

    The headline here could be “Peter Dunne sticks a knife into himself”.  If Colin Craig is an effective politician (yet to be tested) and could reduce the number of abortions this for me is a case for giving his party my party vote. By any name the killing of children not yet out-of-the-womb is murder. The sooner it is reduced the better.

    • Random66

      Russell, do you know what church Colin Craig attends e.g. Catholic, Protestant, Destiny or Bretheran etc?

      • Russell Belding

        I know little about him. Don’t know.

      • Tony

        he said on tv that is not a regular church-goer, but I believe that he is a christian of some type.

      • Random66

        I picked up the phone and asked the question of the Conservative Party myself.  Really nice guy on the phone.  He agreed with what you said Tony, Colin is not affiliated with any church but is a Christian. Most importantly, in my view, he is in no way involved in Destiny.  Big tick from me. 

    • The Gantt Guy

       Belding of Winlaw fame?

      • Russell Belding

        Winlaw has been replaced with bcdDocuments. I’m working on an Application export and import facility for it. Its document production for professional firms. see

      • Russell Belding

        Winlaw has been replaced with bcdDocuments. I’m working on an Application export and import facility for it. Its document production for professional firms. see

      • The Gantt Guy

        Very nice, Russell. I remember the first iteration of Winlaw from (was it?) about 15 years ago. I was at a certain large debt collection firm at the time, and Winlaw was the automation engine for our litigation arm. Without naming names, you may remember?

      • Russell Belding


  • Apolonia

    Yesterdays man complaining about the man of the future.

  • Dunne is a slimy cowardly compromiser without the guts to be what Colin Craig is brave enough to be.

    • Tony

      I wish that you would be a little less obscure in proffering your opinion RB!  :-)

    • Duncan Brown

      I’ve gotta admit I was kinda surprised at the intensity of Dunne’s statements in the first instance Craig was mentioned – more than a little over the top…

  • Boss Hogg

    As long as Colin Craig is pushing for serious welfare reform he will get my party vote.

    Wasted it on ACT and that other “Yesterdays Man” – Banks – last time.  Bugger, but what was the choice??

    • Tom

      Same here, on both counts.

  • Robert M

    The issue isn’t reall the pre election rhetoric of any potential National coalition partner , it’s what the coalition agreement will say and whether the new coalition partner will have the power or interest to enforce the agreed terms.
      Reagan and Bush 41 were always keen to cultivate the Christian fundamentalist vote and made some anti abortion speech’s in the  1980’s. In reality both they and their wives supported abortion and regarded the fundamentalists as a joke. Reagan never went to church, passed after very considerable considerable the most liberal abortion laws ever in l967, was determined to give the minimum ground to the anti abortionists and appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court for that reason. Of Bush 43 it can be seen his wife was definitely pro abortion and that his supposed conversion to born again christianity, was  pretty much a get out of jail free type move.
      The real issue with future coalition partners is the reality that the cost of getting into bed with Winston Peters is just too hard in terms of the cost and resistance to useful change that will come for more subsidies of the old and increases in police numbers. In terms of Dunne, hé’s always been a liability. Surely a real Nat could win Khandallah, Karori. Few specialise in moral sanctiomony as Dunne who is relentlessly anti party pill and booze as Jim Anderton. Also Dunne and Mystery Morrison have been relentless drives of the motorway which is vandalism, disfiguring central wellington and an immense sourt of power to Celia and the Wellington radical. The real achievement of Dunne was to put Prendergast out of offfice. Like most of the right in Wellington he was too stupid to see the disaster of STV which is an even worse con introduced by the left than MMP.

  • Rodger T

    Just what we need ,another religious  political party .
    Blatantly obvious he`s called it the Conservative rather than the Christian party because of the negative connotations involved with religious politics.I daresay he will go the  way of Capill , once his head gets big enough and he thinks he is above the law.

    • Tony

      I don’t think that it is religious at all – why not consider the policies?

    • David Garrett

       And you base that sage prediction at the end of your comment on…what exactly? You have met the man of course, otherwise you wouldn’t be commenting thus….Oh? You just form your views from what the MEDIA  tell you….riiiiight…

    • Duncan Brown

      Calling themselves Conservatives makes sense. Just because the leader is a Christian to some degree doesn’t make a party a Christian Party. Logically it can’t, only people can “follow” Jesus.

      Different parties over the years have played the Christian card i.e. Destiny, Christian Coalition, Christian Heritage, United Future, etc.

      Here’s the difficulty with such a label – People who call themselves Christain have a myriad of beliefs and bents and ideologies, many similar, and a reasonable number of differing views – e.g. The Pope, The Queen, Cameron Slater, Jonathan Young, Chester Borrows, Michael Jones, denominations. No surprise there – churches, like political parties, are made up of a diverse group of people, which, in many ways, matches our multi-society.

      Christianity is also a journey, hence the varying viewpoints. In many respects, a Christian Party would be as hard to define as “left” or ‘right”, or “even “centre.”

      My vote always goes to the party or candidate who I think most has the interests of the nation or my electorate at heart, whom I mostly agree with or trust. Their faith is just part of the question.

  • AngryTory

    Ironic, isn’t it, that the only bottom line The Craig Party actually had at the last election was — mandatory smacking?  nope!    Abortion bans?  nope!  Compulsory prayer?  nope!

    Their bottom line was no asset sales. 

    If we had a Nat/Cons government today, there’d be no asset sales — but there would have been massive welfare reform and we’d have been in surplus this year

    Sounds like a pretty-fucking-compelling case to me!

    (especially with the Euro imploding, we won’t be able to get anything at all like the projected prices for any of our assets!)

    • The Gantt Guy

      Angry, I was corrected on this point myself just a couple of days ago. No Asset Sales is actually only half of their policy position. The rest was “…without a referendum.”

      In fact, their entire platform kinda makes sense really, whether you believe in God or not.