Election 2010: Good bye Mr Fielding

The results have come in and Mr Fielding from Family First hasn't made the cut and will be leaving the senate in July next year.

I'm opposed to any religous party. It seems like they would just like us to become a theocracy. I'm much more impressed by Christians who want to influence major parties by joining them and spreading their 'salt' within.

Like Christianity in Australia I think the time of 'Christian' parties are in decline. Who knows what other religious groups will pop up though?

I don't think Family First will be able to make the transition away from 'Christian label', unless it can get its funds from others that aren't wealthy Christians. Thus in the long run I don't think Family First will be viable. Family First may pop up occasionally but I doubt they will have the balance of power like Fielding had.

MTR

I copped my first ear full of MTR the other day. I could instantly understand why they only have an average listener base of 8000 people.  (Close to the lowest you can go)

I thought that Steve Price was a pretty intelligent fellow I'm surprised he didn't think this through, but here are a few reasons they are languishing::
::Happy to promoted as right wing channel, automatically half their listner base has gone
::Jason Ackermanis, controversial yes, respected no.
::Steve Vizard, I'm sure the older talk back audience would all remember Telstra and insider trading.
::Sam Newman, His oozing snide cynicism is overpowering, he needs to stick to footy.

While I was listening the only adds I heard where for voting for "Family Fist", this in itself revealed they are in trouble.

I give them six more months.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Aka lashes out at Johnson (theage.com.au)
• MRN creates two new roles (mumbrella.com.au)

Election 2010: Family First branding

Reading Mark Connor's blog there was an interesting comment by Brent who put forward that 'Family First' did not represent Australian families rather 'Right wing Christians'

- the Bible says to be wary of half truths - like calling Family First "a party with a primary focus on looking out for families".
It is still a party focussed on "right wing Christian" values - not "Australian Family" values.
In Australia, based on 2006 ABS statistics, there are 5,219,165 families - meaning the majority of Australians live in some kind of family community.
So polling of what families want should [generally] reflect what Australians want - you should never see a case where the vast majority of Australians disagree with what "families" want.
If you do see this, you see a party with another agenda.
On abortion - polling shows that the vast majority of Australians (families included) support abortion rights. Family First opposes abortion of all forms. (Polling in support of Family First's policy is as little as 7%!)
On mandatory internet filtering - despite all polling showing the majority of Australians do not support support a filter, plus experts proving that it will not [as Family First claims] improve "child protection" (due to the fact that it will be impossible to effectively and accurately manage censorship of over 10 BILLION webpages and 234 million websites, and the filter will not affect Usenet, BitTorrents, IRC etc)....
...Still, Family First still supports an infeasible, unpopular, unmanageable, expensive (tens-of-millions of dollars) policy.
There are other examples (e.g. Climate Change), but you see my point: Family First is still, fundamentally, a political party representing the Christian "Right" - not putting families first.
It would be nice to have a party supporting family values (one with wider appeal) - but we're still looking at a Christian party in sheep's clothing.

 I think he is right. The majority of policies do not represent the average Australian family. Rather a Christian, Pentecostal-Fundamentalist understanding of family values.

The question for me then is :: Is the name "Family First" misleading and really just a branding ploy? (Pentecostal church love branding "Hillsong, Careforce etc etc) Would it be more honest just to call it "Christian Party" or "Christian Values Party". I also find the "Family" in the name discriminatory. I have just as many friends inside and outside the  Church that are single. How are they represented?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Conroy, Family First isolated on Oz internet filter (go.theregister.com)
• Abortion shouldn't be a crime: poll (news.theage.com.au)

Election 2010:: Family First's candidate in Flinders

Antony Greens blog from on the ABC has a bit more information about candidates from the electorate in Flinders.

Its good to see that Family First's candidate is a local, with experience in local government as well as environmental issues in the community.

Smith was raised on the Mornington Peninsula and joined the Victoria Police Force in 1989. During his ten years of service he was stationed in the local area and achieved the rank of Senior Constable. A Tyabb resident, Smith has served as a Counciloor on Mornington Peninsula Shire for the past eight years and works as supervisor in the Security Industry and as a Project Manager for Community Development Projects. He also works casually in the Film and Television Industry and is involved in local environment groups.

After a bit of snooping around I also found that Mr Smith attended an opening of a Buddist centre in the capacity of a councillor.

We were also very happy to be joined by Councillor Reade Smith (Mt Eliza Shire) 

A bit of a suprise considering family first is associated with been a 'Christian Party' whose roots are Pentecostal/Fundementalist.
Good on him. My respect for him has gone up a notch. 

Good bye family first...

When Mark Latham was defeated in 2004 the 'Family First' candidate snuck under the radar of all major political parties.


Yesterdays agreement by the Greens and Labour appears to mark the end of 'Family First'.

At the 2004 Senate election in Victoria, the Coalition polled 44.1% (3.1 quotas), Labor 36.1% (2.5 quotas) and the Greens 8.8% (0.6 quotas). The Coalition had a clear three quotas, Labor two full quotas, with Labor and the Greens competing for the final seat seat normally won by the left of politics. Labor's preference deal with minor parties was done to get Labor's third candidate ahead of the lead Green candidate. In the end, Labor's vote was lower than expected, and the preference deal with Family First and other micro-parties put Fielding ahead of the third Labor candidate, resulting in Labor's preferences being distributed instead and electing Steve Fielding. Fielding effectively grabbed one of the left's seats.

I can remember in 2004 there was more "Christian" motivation in the election than I've ever seen. Danny Nahlor was on the tick as was Alan Myers from Careforce. It seems with Rudd in 2007 the Labor party made a decicive effort to neurtralise the Christian partys.

In some ways I find the 'Green's' more in line with Jesus bringing in the kingdom. While tradition 'Christian' parties are about 'morals'. Its interesting.