Talk:New Conservatives Party

Christian politics image
has several times removed the image "Christian Politics NZ.svg" on the grounds (in edit summaries) that "The Conservative party is neither Christian party nor formed from the kiwi party."

has twice restored it, explaining in edit summaries that "image does not suggest Conservative Party was formed from Kiwi Party, it suggests elements of Kiwi merging into Conservatives, which is what happened"

I suggest that both parties look for a compromise here on the talk page. No one appears to be arguing that the Conservative Party is an explicitly Christian party. Is there any dispute that elements of the Kiwi Party merged into the Conservative party? I suggest adding a caption to the image along the lines of Fanx's edit summary.- gadfium 23:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The image is clearly showing a different relationship between the Conservatives and The Kiwi Party, and the relationships between any of the other parties. The horizontal line showing a merge into the CP is a gradient that transforms from the generic purple as used for the overtly Christian parties, and those with a heritage from that Christian influence, to the cyan that is recognisably the colour of the Conservative Party. This colour difference is to emphasise the stated nature of the CP that it is not an overtly Christian party. It also serves to clarify that The Kiwi Party merged into the CP after its effective disestablishment (it remained registered with the Electoral Commission until Feb. 2012), rather than being a party to the establishment of the CP. There is only so much information a graphic of this nature can convey, but it is conveying this information as clearly as possible.
 * It is a matter of historical record that upon the KP's decision not to contest the 2011 election its leader Larry Baldock and deputy Simonne Dyer announced they were standing for (and subsequently received high list placings within) the CP, and said their membership was joining the CP. Several other KP members also stood, including KP president and ex-MP Gordon Copeland. This statement can only be interpreted as a KP merge into the CP - even if it was only KP personnel, and not KP policies involved. The only edits has made are to remove the image from this article, and as such I would suggest it is his only interest here. Whether that suggests a misunderstanding, a conflict of interest or a desire to obscure the latter history of the Kiwi Party I'll leave that to him to explain. Fan  &#124;  talk  &#124; 05:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a caption to the image. Anyone is most welcome to improve the wording, of course.- gadfium 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The diagram is still misleading in that it shows a link between the Destiny and Family Parties that (unlike with the Kiwi Party) does not exist.Aslan112 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the histories of the parties concerned, Destiny Party and The Family Party. This is the talk page of the Conservative Party, any issues you have with other parties should be raised on their respective talk pages instead of here. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 11:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The diagram is misleading on many levels and I note that it has already been objected to by other contributors. The Conservative Party was formed in 2011. It has no direct predecessor party. It is a secular, not a religious party with no direct link to any previous religious party, which is what the diagram implies. The diagram wrongly implies that Destiny New Zealand/Family Party ultimately merged into the Conservatives which is wrong because no merger between Destiny and the Kiwi Party occurred, it was stalled as the article Destiny Party on the subject states. It is straining credibility to say that because one member of the Kiwi Party joined Destiny that amounts to a merger. The diagram implies that the Kiwi Party merely changed its name to the Conservatives which is incorrect, in fact the Kiwi Party disbanded. The fact that Kiwi party members joined the Conservatives does not amount to a change of name of the Kiwi Party. The diagram ultimately implies a link between United Future New Zealand and the Conservatives -one a liberal centrist party, the other a right wing conservative party, there is no link between United Future and Conservatives.

Members of the National party have joined the Conservatives yet no link is shown to National -why not?Aslan112 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The diagram has not been objected to by more than one account seemingly created for just that purpose - and you, so your Argumentum ad populum doesn't wash. There is no claim in the diagram or anywhere else that suggests the Conservative Party has any direct predecessor party. There is no claim that the CP is anything other than secular, the differentiation in colour - purple for the parties that had expressed significant Christian values, and cyan (their party colour) for the Conservatives - clearly suggests they are not the same. Colin Craig has stated his Christian beliefs as a motivator, but he studiously keeps the CP as a secular party and the diagram respects this. The diagram in no way suggests any link between the CP and Destiny and/or The Family Party - it shows the Destiny/Family Party line coming to an end, and a full year before the CP was created. The merger of Destiny and ex-United Future into what became the Family Party was stalled because Gordon Copeland decided to form The Kiwi Party with Larry Baldock instead, not because it didn't happen. Destiny was wound up, and elements of Destiny then created the Family Party. When the Kiwi Party decided not to stand they voted with their feet and joined the CP en masse, then wound up the KP some months later, and after the election. Like many parties, United Future was never a monolithic party of one single political persuasion - they had a large number of conservative Christians, including Copeland and Baldock. As both Copeland and Baldock (and Bernie Ogilvy) were in United Future and ultimately ended up in the CP after starting up and then winding up an intermediate party there is an indirect, but clear, link between UF and the CP. Members of National joined many parties (as did Labour MPs) including United, however National was neither founded as an overt Christian party, nor formed from other Christian parties, nor merged into any other other party and no significant number of its MPs or members fractured off to form a Christian party so they are entirely irrelevant to this discussion, and this diagram. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 15:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Christian Democrats were formed by Graeme Lee, a former National Party MP and Cabinet Minister, as is stated on Lee's biographical page Graeme Lee (politician) and the Christian Democrats article Christian Democrat Party (New Zealand). The diagram should show that Lee left the National Party to form the Christian Democrats.Aslan112 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, the National Party was never a Christian party, nor formed from or merged into any Christian party. On the day that National state they are a Christian party, or a significant Christian party joins National and converts them to a Christian political path is the day I'll update the diagram to reflect that (unlikely) eventuality. Most parties have professed or practicing Christians within their membership and amongst their MPs, but that does not put them within the scope of the diagram or as significantly relevant when discussing Christian political parties. 1992's Liberal Party split from National to join the Alliance, then when the Alliance began to disintegrate the Liberals moved to Christian Heritage, and Meurant's Right of Centre/Conservatives also split from National to join Dunne's (ex-Labour) United NZ, but these were not religiously inspired moves. Graeme Lee founded the Christian Democrats after leaving National, but his move was more philosophical than theosophical so again the National Party finds no reason to be included in the diagram. If you want an image with more parties try this image from teara.govt.nz - Political parties Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Election campaign material and chronological history
On 27 August 2014 Aslan112 (User talk:Aslan112) re-organised sections on the Conservative Party of New Zealand page relating to Conservative Party history (diff), commenting "I have reversed the order of the election campaign material placing the most recent and topical material first". -- I doubt that "election campaign material" belongs in Wikipedia. The re-arranged sections (along with the "Formation" section) amount to a history of the party -- which may become difficult to follow (and difficult to write) when written in reverse chronological order. (Note that the individual sub-sections we now have which discuss events prior to 2014 broadly follow chronological order internally.) Models of articles on political movements that our article could emulate include: Conservative Party (UK), United Future, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, Party of Regions, Free Democratic Party (Germany), Yabloko, Democratic Party (United States), People's Progressive Party (Malaysia), or even The Kiwi Party. -- I propose using chronological order for the history (and for any records of electoral performance) in this article too. - Jandalhandler (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally encyclopediac material is done in chronological order. The aim of Wikipedia is not to allow NZ voters to find "election campaign material" quickly, but to act as an encyclopedia. I support a shift. --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the point and re-arranged the history section including the formation chronologically.Aslan112 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war - 'Christian Politics in New Zealand'
As a compromise to this ongoing battle over this link, I suggest we make a See also link to The Kiwi Party, as that is the key party on the Christian politics in New Zealand page related to the Conservative Party. Ridcully Jack (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Criticism was by two editors, one who only ever edited this page, and the associated image showing a connection between the two parties. To clarify their relationship I have edited the image to better show this and hopefully for those that objected will be satisfied with how it looks now. Fan &#124;  talk  &#124; 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like the image (discussed extensively above), I think its important for the wider context of this party and its formation.--IdiotSavant (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What does CNSP stand for?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligent Mr Toad (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 October 2014

Conservative Party. Ollieinc ( talk ) 07:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Debacle
I changed a section heading from "2015 leadership debacle" to "2015 leadership dispute" with the explanation that '"debacle" is not very neutral'. Akld guy reverted that change and posted this on my talk page, which I have moved here to allow other editors to join in the discssion, if they wish:
 * Ground Zero, despite what you may think, Debacle simply means disastrous collapse. It has no negative connotation for any party. This in reference to your edit on Conservative Party of New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think describing what is going on as a "disastrous collapse" is also a matter of opinion, and does not meet Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Yes, there is a cloud over the current leader, and a number of board members have resigned, but other political parties have dealt with worse and recovered. I think it is too early to predict that this is a collapse or a disaster. If Craig resigns and the party finds a nother leader, it could bounce back. It is just too earlyt to tell. Ground Zero | t 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that "debacle" is too strongly weighted a word and "dispute" is more neutral. Our subheadings should be as neutral as possible. I would not necessarily object to adding sourced content such as "The editorial in described the situation as a "- gadfium 19:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that "debacle" conjures up a sense of derision in the minds of some, despite its simple meaning of collapse. Ground Zero says, "If Craig resigns and the party finds another leader...". In fact he already resigned (the first to resign) on June 19th. The leadership collapsed on that date. Whether the party finds another leader or not is moot. The leadership collapsed on June 19th, with repercussions that went far beyond simply finding a resolution to a dispute. If one regards the board members as also leaders, the subsequent resignations mean that the leadership has truly collapsed. Nevertheless, I know when I'm outvoted, and will let "dispute" stand. I guess that due to overuse by mainstream media, the term "debacle" has acquired the sense of "circus" or "farce". Akld guy (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How about a more factual and less interpretive heading, e.g., "2015: Resignation of leader and board members"? Ground Zero | t 15:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that heading and it would certainly remove any contention over the current one. Go ahead. Akld guy (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A minor point: "Resignation" should be plural. Akld guy (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservative Party of New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111063126/http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/HowCouncilWorks/Elections/Pages/Finalresults-Mayor.aspx to http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/HowCouncilWorks/Elections/Pages/Finalresults-Mayor.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925161400/http://votecolincraig.co.nz/documents/Dirty%20Politics.pdf to http://votecolincraig.co.nz/documents/Dirty%20Politics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Split off detailed Colin Craig material to its own article / merge
I propose that sections 2015_resignations_of_leader_and_board_members, Litigation involving Colin Craig, Colin Craig Resigns from Party be merged into Colin Craig and replaced with a summary paragraph noting the cause of Craig's scandal, the existence and effects of the leadership dispute, and the existence of subsequent litigation, with a link to the Colin Craig article.

The content is already duplicated in the Colin Craig article, is overly detailed for a political party page covering a decade (c.f. National, the content I'm proposing to merge is longer than sections on entire National Party governments), and is more specific to the individual concerned than the current organisation.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)SeanusAurelius

Source for "pragmatism"?
The article in several places says that the party "advocates for pragmatism", or a similar wording. It's unsourced each time. I couldn't find the term in the party's own website, and a search of Stuff didn't find pragmatism linked to the party either. I've marked the first appearance as 'citation needed', but if it isn't sourceable it should be considered elsewhere too. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The change from Agrarianism to pragmatism was made in this series of 10 edits by User:Mandelbrot Set123 only a few days ago. Akld guy (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think it's necessary. It seems to be an arbitrary change with no source. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Political position
The political position implies/states that the New Conservative Party are far-right, when they are not. The referenced article appears to be the only article directly stating/implying that the New Conservative Party is far-right. Any objections to removing that part? --Cairo2k18 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox says they are right-wing to far-right. That seems accurate. The Stuff article makes a good case that at least parts of the party are far-right. That doesn't mean all members are.- gadfium 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly inaccurate as the majority of the party and the party itself is libertarian-right, dven if a small amount of the party is far-right does not constitute it being completely far-right in general. Cairo2k18 (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the consensus amongst political analysts and the media is that the party is far-right, so I'll change it now. I appreciate this wasn't the case at the start of the 2020 campaign. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 22:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any new evidence of this consensus because I was not aware and I have been following the entire 2020 campaign? Cairo2k18 • (talk)  •  (contribs)  07:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The additional source provided only states political opponents accusing them and their policies of being far-right. Cairo2k18 • (talk)  •  (contribs)  07:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles call the party far-right.    --  haminoon  ( talk ) 08:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The party's positions don't show themselves as far-right though, and two of those three sources come from the same site. Cairo2k18 • (talk)  •  (contribs)  06:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Having looked through their policies I didn't see much to say far right. I believe just Right-Wing is more apt.LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 4:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2020
This page needs a complete update - New Conservative is a "new Party" with a "new Board" the way it is tied to Colin Craig is incorrect. The old "conservative" party should live on its own wikipage. I have edited pages in the past for technical documents and never come across a locked down page such as this; as you would be well aware, the community is the one that adds accurate content to build the wikipage, which is the whole point of Wikipedia. While politics can be very subjective; I know a political beat up when I read one. Just for a start the New Conservative party is not "right wing" and that needs to be removed asap. The NC policies should be referenced rather than left leaning stuff article's. I wont go on further, but suffice to say, I don't know where you (the controller of this page) is sitting in the country, but its clear which side of the political spectrum you sit on. Release this page so it can be edited by someone that actually can read and write information with out their biases getting in the way. SuperCooge (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The page is semi-protected to prevent disruptive editing by un-registered or unconfirmed users. It can be edited by any confirmed user. If you wish to make edits to it, I suggest you confirm your account.
 * To address the first point: legally the New Conservative party is the same entity as it was under Colin Craig - the same party with the same registration but different leadership and policies. So I oppose a proposed split. Colin Craig is part of the party's history, just as Michael Joseph Savage and Roger Douglas are part of Labour's, or Robert Muldoon is part of National's. Omitting it would be inaccurate.
 * As for sourcing, media sources are generally considered reliable, independent, and neutral. If you have reliable, independent, and neutral sources which would paint a different picture of this party, then I suggest you add them. --IdiotSavant (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Who added the obvious bias website when describing them as far right?
https://fightback.org.nz/2020/06/12/how-the-far-right-found-a-home-in-the-new-conservative-party/

its literally a wordpress stock site with a left wing bias to it lol

Whatshisnamee (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fightback is one of NZ's longest-running journals of political analysis. It's regularly cited by academics, carried by all the major universities, and has been continuously published since 1991. It has a left-wing perspective, but if you look at the the other references you'll see that the centre-right Stuff website now regularly refers to the New Conservatives as far-right.
 * If you want to know who added a reference please look in the history instead of clogging up the talk page. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 19:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

tfw i clogged up the talk page with literally two lines, and what a politically polarizing world when you refer conservatism as "far-right" lol and please show me where fightback has been used in all those scenarios, it's still literally a left wing bias wanting to "destroy capitalism" while hosting on a literal wordpress website lol. Whatshisnamee (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I have revised the opening paragraph into something less akin to a hatchet-job. We certainly don't need to link to far-right politics twice. I have removed the FightBack source given the concerns raised. Let's be clear that the current citations are news articles describing the party's policies as "far-right". In this talk page I think we need to discuss the exact phrasing of the lead. --Hazhk (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hazhk, your mainspace comment was "As per objections raised on the talk page, I have removed one citation to FightBack - we don't allow self-published sources that are WordPress sites."
 * Respectfully I'm asking to engage with this in good faith. This is the only political journal that has written about the subject. It's not self-published. Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines against journals that use the Wordpress CMS. Its pretty normal for academic journals to use Wordpress. Both you and Whatshisnamee appear to have missed the comment above about it being continuously published since 1991, i.e. several decades before Wordpress existed. If either of you still have a problem with Fightback I suggest you take it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 07:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User: W ( talk) In my opinion New Zealand First deserve more significantly to be acknowledged as far-right. New conservatives aren't even nationalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.197.253 (talk • contribs) 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Fightback, AKA Workers Party of New Zealand. See --- So basically (the citer) cited a rival (socialist) political party as a source for this party being 'far-right'. In common parlance, this would be called what is known as a 'massive l'. Editors need to be sanctioned. I'll add that re. the above that ''Fightback is one of NZ's longest-running journals of political analysis. It's regularly cited by academics, carried by all the major universities, and has been continuously published since 1991.'', I was not able to verify any part of this statement. The Fightback newspaper (as they describe themselves in the source given) was established in 2013 when the Workers Party of New Zealand changed their name. There is no 'journal' nor does anything date back to 1991. It's not political analysis, it's a political party. Will monitor this article indefinitely. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Another biased source in the opening
https://waateanews.com/waateanews/x_news/MjU2NTA/Opinion/Dr-Rawiri-Taonui-Election-%7C-Colmar-Brunton---The-Main-Contenders-25-September-2020

This article is cited for the opening sentence 'Observers describe the party's policies as far-right'. Firstly, it's 404ed so you'll need wayback. Ok, so the average person can't verify the citation, whatever. Anyway, I checked the source out. Regarding the Māori Party, Taonui has this to say in his 'observations':

''The party is further stymied by racist electoral policy which prevent Māori from switching from the general to the Māori roll to support their candidates. The next electoral option to do so will not be until 2024 meaning their best electoral chance will not come until 2026. The party has strong Kaupapa Māori centred policies on big issues like Tangohia Tamariki, housing, health, and education. The party has strong candidates deeply connected with Māori communities. Co-leader Deb Ngārewa-Packer is articulate and among our most skilled candidates. John Tamihere has launched a seriously energised campaign in Tāmaki Makaurau. In the Te Tai Tonga, Tākuta Ferris caned incumbent Rino Tirikātene in their live debate.''

Wow, every party other than the Māori party is described negatively or in lukewarm terms, while the Māori party has 'strong polices' centered on 'big issues', 'strong candidates' with "deep connections"... 'articulate', 'skilled', 'seriously energised'... I was surprised until I read further and learned that

''Radio Waatea is Aucklands’ only Māori radio station that provides an extensive bi-lingual broadcast to its listeners. Based at Nga Whare Waatea marae in Mangere, it is located in the middle of the biggest Maori population in Aotearoa.''

This is a real stretch of the word 'observer'. The electoral policy is 'racist' because of the low Māori Party turnout? I guess it's a valid 'observation', so someone get over to Electoral system of New Zealand immediately and make sure to add that observers have noted the Maori roll system is 'racist'. Oh wait, that's not going to happen, right? So why is this same article, from a completely unknown and clearly biased source, being cited here? In the future I'm going to monitor this article indefinitely and 'clutter the talk page' whenever I see a citation like this. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Appears to be a few new editors engaging in sealioning with regard to sources here. Rather than waste experienced editors' time with point-by-point rebuttals I recommend that if you seriously consider a source to be at fault you take it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll be happy to engage over there. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 04:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No experienced editors here. Just people googling "New Conservative Party" and "far-right" to find any source they possibly can - in this case, rival political entities - in order to write what they want. That's why one bad source was immediately replaced with another to meet the quota. Don't worry, I won't waste time upsetting the languid and precious Wikipedians by 'sealioning' any further. It's in such poor taste to ask experienced editors to take responsibility for their actions when there's a perfectly good bureaucratic labyrinth I could be navigating. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreverted edits by party co-leader
User:Tedlawnz seems to be the co-leader of NCP. They have not declared a COI. The following edits are not tagged as reverted:

             

These edits are from a couple of months ago so I'm unsure if they've all been dealt with. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The COI is beyond doubt. I've thus put this page on my watchlist., do not edit this page. If you've like to see changes done, please ask for that on this talk page.  Schwede 66  04:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)