We have still not decided who we will give our party vote to so tonight’s mission is to finally work out which party we are voting for. Our previous list of potentials has been whittled down to:
- ACT – have Sir Roger Douglas, NZ needs him right now, they are the second most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties and they have this fantastic 20 point plan but their inconsistency on life issues lets them down.
- Libertarianz – are the most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties but their inconsistency on the life issues lets them down, [UPDATE:] however, they are the only secular party who at least would remove public funding for state-sanctioned homicide, as Libertyscott states below in the comments section, “one clear point Libertarianz holds is that private health care means you wouldn’t have to pay for other people’s abortions.”
- National – are not Labour so they have to be looked at seriously; if their policies were closer to their stated philosophy they would earn more admiration from us but they are still better than what we have and the ethical values of their people are closer to the Judeo Christian position than the other secular parties.
- The Family Party – Andy Moore called them the closest thing to a Christian version of ACT and I think he is right. They get things right on the life issues and fairly right on the limited government and civil liberties issues, certainly far better than the Kiwi Party or the Pacific Party and it turns out that the allegation they do not separate church and state is a falsehood promulgated by the Kiwi Party – definitely the best Christian option.
These are the four least nanny state parties that have the most going for them. Their success means a definite change of government and they are the closest fit to the biblical role of the state out of the lot – though all fall short.
We will not waste our vote. Votes for Christian parties or parties that will not cross the threshold have led to Labour continually, narrowly, winning elections because such votes are not counted. We will not contribute to this, so basically it will be ACT or National as the other two do not stand a chance.
At this stage we look like we will be voting differently but as we argue with each other that may change. Matt might see the light – well, I am still conflicted too truth be told. Not telling whose argument is whose but basically our wrestle goes like this.
A party vote for National is a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in some social conservatives (horrid term that that is) and you might just help Stephen Franks make the list if he misses out in Wellington Central.
A party vote for ACT is still a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in Roger Douglas and enhance the chances of NZ’s economy surviving the downturn if the number of ACT MP’s is decent and National needs them to form a government. A vote for ACT has the potential to pull National back to its roots and away from being Labour-Lite.
However, if there is a vote on a ‘life’ issue, ACT are more secularist and despite their principled ideology are inconsistent on life issues. As a Christian, can you in good conscience bring such people into parliament?
When you have no alternative, yes, as ought implies can.
But do you have no alternative? Is Labour-Lite really that bad when you consider the life issues as National are generally not consistent on them either?