Matt and I have been going to the Forum on the Family for some years now. We always enjoy it as the speakers are generally thought provoking, considered and worthwhile and the opportunity to catch up with other bloggers and see people we are usually only in email or Facebook or blog contact with is really good but what I like best is being surrounded by people who care about their communities, who have clear opinions on the policies being set down by government and ideas as to the way forward. The people are real and genuine – sure there are politicians and media present and ‘celebrities’ but the bulk of those present are just average people with families who are not content to just bump along without giving some thought to the direction our policy makers are taking us in.

This year Matt cannot attend as he is relief-teaching that day and we cannot afford for him to lose a day’s pay. We were also worried that I would not be able to go due to the cost of the ticket – which in previous years I have been more than happy to pay as I think the event is worthwhile – but you all know our current financial situation. However, I am happy to report that in exchange for blogging the event my ticket is complimentary.

So I will be there and that, of course, is yet another reason for you to be there too

The line-up looks promising: Aric Sigman, Melinda Tankard Reist, Tuhoe Isaac, Judy Bailey, et al.

Apparently ticket sales are already in excess of last year and there is a reasonable media presence expected so if you turn up and contribute to the discussion there is a very good chance that you will help make the conservative viewpoint heard so go and secure your ticket now!

Anyone who might be in a position to donate me/loan me an air-card for the day will enable me to live tweet the event across _MandM_. If you can help see our Support Page for how to get it to me.

The tradition begun in 09 of going for drinks afterwards is still on – Matt will be able to join us for that much at least. If someone can jog my memory as to the name of the venue we went to last time or can suggest somewhere nearby I will I have set up a Facebook Event page.

We then went straight into the Family First Forum on Friday followed by dinner and drinks with a few bloggers, bloupies and others at the forum.

Then we hung out with Andy Moore who stayed with us til last night. Then we began writing blog posts but then it was 1am and we were not finished… church now so check in later.

If you want some Family First Forum tidbits, Big News has a few posts, Andy Moore has done a write up and if you are friends with David Farrar on Facebook he has half a dozen cryptic comments about things MP’s said on his front page, things said to MP’s that he Facebooked from the Forum (not that he conceded where he was):

We’ll get our official report on the forum up later today.

Matt and I have been to the last two Forums on the Family and can thoroughly recommend them as interesting, informative and a great place to network and meet people; at this stage we plan to attend this one.

The FC was ostensibly created to monitor legislation and policy and comment on its impact on families and make recommendations for future policy but was, soooooo predictably, captured by anti-family lefties who have refused to define a family leaving the definition wide open and who championed the anti-smacking bill and so on.

United Future Party Leader Peter Dunne, who was key architect of the FC, is apparently angry at Christine’s appointment and is calling for her to decline it, “Her taking up this role will seriously undermine the credibility of the Families Commission.” Funny, amongst most families I know it has no credibility to undermine and having the likes of Pilbrow and Rankin appointed to it has been the only bright spark in an otherwise dim history.

The Greens’ Sue Bradford, architect of the anti-smacking law, is claiming that National are “subverting the commission through political appointments” and is accusing it of “sabotage.” I sincerely hope that this is precisely what National are doing but I doubt it because both Pilbrow and Rankin have spent the past years working in NGO’s promoting family and researching real causes and child abuse and working to prevent it.

The opposition leader, Labour MP Phil Goff, former communist and a long time left-wing politician said “Ms Rankin aligned herself so exclusively with one side of the political spectrum [pot, kettle] for example attending Destiny Church and Families First rallies, that it was hard to see how she could be representative.” Mr Goff clearly is not aware that members of his party have attended and spoken at the same rallies – someone should brief him better.

Further, Christine is not a Christian, something she openly speaks about at these rallies and she does not attend only those events on that side of the political spectrum and I fail to see how this is relevant anyway – does every appointee have to share Goff’s politics or is it broader than that, anyone can be appointed but those tarnished by association with Christian groups? At least she has raised a family unlike the childless high-profile women on Mr Goff’s side of the spectrum.

I really like Christine Rankin (I really like Bruce Pilbrow too but he is not controversial for some reason). I have heard Christine speak twice now and met her briefly and I have always felt a kindred connection, like if she and I knew each other better we would seriously hit it off. She and I both have had pasts as solo mothers who toughed it out on welfare and got ourselves out of it; She and I both have a somewhat abnormal (amongst women anyway) drive to do, to change, to get involved, and both of us have been famous for having amazing legs. We have both been criticised for being polarising and divisive – something I think most women in politics, particularly right wing women, get regularly accused of *yawn*. She is not perfect, none of us are, but she is strong at spotting PC crap and standing up to it and she is not afraid to be the only one in the room talking sense. The FC won’t know what hit them and will have someone in there who will work hard and hold them to account and that can only be good.

So Christine, don’t you dare even think about turning this role down – I am sure you are not anyway!

Can you spot which one? Its a fairly major ommission and I bet the ommission is not on the part of the organisers.

To save you having to squint, here is the line up from left to right (on the advertisement, obviously):

Pita Sharples – Maori Party

John Key – National

Rodney Hide – Act

Winston Peters – NZ First

Peter Dunne – United Future

Jeanette Fitzsimons – Green Party

Larry Baldock – Kiwi Party

Taito Phillip Field – NZ Pacific

Richard Lewis – Family Party

(The absentee I am speaking of is not Jim Anderton of Progressive who isn’t listed but really who cares that he’s not?)

Regardless it will still be a great event, last year was very worthwhile though it is a wee bit disappointing to hear that David Farrar of Kiwiblog (a fellow Student Choicer from back in the day) will not be speaking this year as has been rumoured about the blogosphere but I am looking forward to it and have September 8 circled on my calendar.

Of the speakers, Christine Rankin was especially memorable for me. Maybe it was because she spoke a little about her background and motivations and life turning points and I could really relate to where she was coming from or maybe it was the outspoken, confident, right-wing, woman thing – cause I so get that.

John Tamihere was impressive too. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said and wondering how he could ever have been in the Labour Party.

The political panel was really good too. Judith Collins was outstanding. Absolutely outstanding (it warranted repeating – you had to be there). Nick Kearney (who stood in for Heather Roy) was a close second and did a very good job. The two Future MP’s Judy and Gordon basically had the same policy so it was kind of funny thinking of them as being from two different parties – Gordon is an impressive individual and I really do hope he has success with Future NZ but I just cannot… I am just not a centrist. He was really good on some issues but goverment sponsored marriage courses just make me want to run and scream – Judith and Nick were great on that when they pointed out that those initiatives, whilst excellent and important for the good of society, were not and should not be in the domain of the government. Russell Fairbrother and Sue Bradford did a good job of playing the villians – given the audience they were almost always going to bomb with their answers though they did both manage the odd answer that got agreement.

I somehow ended up baiting Russell Fairbrother – Bob says he will hereinafter refer to me as the giggle girl for it – a few questions on conscience issues had come up, the panel had all stipulated that this or that issue was a conscience issue for their party and then gone on to expound their personal view. Each time Russell had his turn at this it grated me more and more – I mean Labour allows conscience votes?!? puh-lease! I sat quietly (well fairly quietly) through Russell’s “smacking was always illegal” then 20 minutes later “this bill did not make smacking illegal” contradiction but the repeated references to Labour allowing conscience votes was too much – I laughed out loud, my giggle audibly echoed just as Russell paused after alluding to yet another of the instances Labour allowed their MP’s to vote on a conscience issue, other giggles erupted but mine was lingered in such a way that any cynic present might have suggested was a little too perfectly timed and executed (never!). It seemed to hit a nerve, Russell began aggressively claiming that Labour respects conscience voting which simply elicited more howls of laughter from the audience and the panel of MP’s.

Another pearler was Sue Bradford’s suggestion that the claim that a light smack was essentially the same thing as beating a child with a horse whip, block of wood or a piece of hosepipe – this elcited howls of outrage. At another point she said she could not see any value in locking up violent, recidivist offenders for long sentences and did not understand why anyone might think doing so was a good idea.

I sat next to some very impressive teenagers – homeschooled (what a surprise) – very sharp. Their reasoning skills and ability to see how things followed was evident by their comments to each other both as they critiqued and evaluated the answers the MP’s gave to the questions and as they commented on Matt’s commentary to me (he cannot watch panel discussions without commentating – even talks to the television during political debates).

All in all a very worthwhile and enjoyable day.

Madeleine

[Photos swiped from http://section59.blogspot.com]