Roger and Rodney make up
It looks like Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide have made up. Good. ACT needs to be united to do well. A centre-right Government is more likely is ACT and United Future both do relatively well. If both parties are restricted to one seat each, then National really needs at least 59 seats to govern without having to be reliant on the Maori Party. Maybe more than 59 if there is more than one overhang seat.
But if ACT and United Future can each get say three MPs, then National/ACT/United Future can govern with National just getting say 55 or 56 MPs.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: ACT, Rodney Hide, Roger Douglas
February 27th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I’d hope that National don’t give Dunne the light of day. Having a weak unprincipled coalitio partner like him will mean National will be a one term Govt. We need people who actually want a centre right government to succeed.
Surely National have not got *that* short of a memory from what Dunne has said over the years????
Otherwise, good news. Roger and Rodney are exactly what NZ needs to repair NZ when Labour are kicked out. The left had better brace themselves!
February 27th, 2008 at 10:05 am
This reminds me of Mike Moore’s ‘making up’ with Helen Clark in 1996. I would be more confident it was genuine if it wasn’t so close to an election.
That being said how much support will a clear endorsement from Roger Douglas really bring to ACT? IIRC in 1994 he stood down as parliamentary leader precisely because he felt his association with ACT was hurting the party.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I agree with Clint Dunnys a liability not an asset Lets hope the good people of Epsom have the nouse to realise that a tick for Rodders and a tick for the Nats is their best hope of a Nat lead government
February 27th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Hopefully they will start to become a party with some of ACT’S former `base’ policies such as:
Flat Tax
Education Vouchers
Bulk Funding
etc.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I missed what is probably the main one – Personal Responsibility!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 10:33 am
This is great. I would like to see Roger start his own party and ditch Rodders. The problem is that the election is for winning and an overtly pro-business party might scare the gravy trainers enough to vote labour again. Best keep our right wing strategy of putting children to work in factories and retiring oldies, logans run style, quiet until after the election.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Haha. Roger is looking oooooold too.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Hell, I didn’t think I would ever see ACT demonstrate such a high level of recycling. Just a shame they are recycling such old dead wood.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I meant ‘haha’ about NZD.JPY’s post, whoever that negative-nelly was. Also just surprised at how…weathered he looks.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:35 am
….but of course minor parties scoring higher than usual at the general election is a myth David, so this post is somewhat fanciful thinking.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Just don’t think ACT will figure as a major force.
When you have a deeply flawed and highly unpopular government people are going to say “What party will get rid of this mess?”Answer The National Party. Fringe parties in the Centre-Right area will not do well this year. See the wipe out of Winston First,United Future and ACT will only survive with an Epsom tick.
Besides, the days of hard ideology and market forces have lost popularity.Politics is about creating an economy which gives a good way of life to all, not making a few more filthy rich and others struggling, like Roger Douglas did along with Ruth Richardson.
Us Bloggers might have deep ideological bents(I used to) but people just want to get on with life, without Auntie Helen and not talking indefinitely about politics..
February 27th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Im with you Neil, and have been saying this even thou many stick with the old paradigm that the minors will rise nearer vote time.
I wonder if the citizens have had a gutsful of MMP given the Nats and the socialists have had to fawn and pander to some who the citizens regards as dog turds on the soles of their shoes.
Maybe just maybe with the exception of the Maori Party most will say stuff it We want it one way or the other No more of this pussy stuff with Luigi holding the whip hand etc
February 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“Best keep our right wing strategy of putting children to work in factories and retiring oldies, logans run style, quiet until after the election.”
I ask myself how anyone can possibly write something so detached from reality, and I guess the answer lies in the recent book called “The Liberal Mind”.
There has to be some kind of psychotic disorder behind a mind that would make such an arse about reference to ACT/ Logan’s Run. Logan’s Run was an attempt to portray the dangerous outcomes of big powerful collectivist style government. ACT also advocates against this, and promotes the rights of the individual in society over those of the collective.
By attacking ACT, NZD. JPY is identifying himself as someone who would identify with the villains of Logan’s Run. Perhap’s that poster, with his childlike imaginary threats and delusional fears needs to read the book I mention. Here’s part of a review-
“Modern liberalism’s irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche.” “The Liberal Mind” reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
lol “psychotic disorder” you say…NZD.JPY was doing something called “taking the piss”. Called ‘humour’.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
This is a gutsy move by Rodney and took some real humility to pull off. As noted Act needs to stop sending mixed messages and no one ever got old waiting to find out what Roger thinks.
It will certainly give the conservtives some shop around options for those who remember where National voted on section 59.
Also where Peter Done voted for self-interest over democracy. No room at the right inn for little Peter this year I think. You short sheeted your own leftist bed, deal with it.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“lol “psychotic disorder” you say…NZD.JPY was doing something called “taking the piss”. Called ‘humour’.”
Oh yeah.. OK. I missed it. With the growing insanity of left liberals lately, and not knowing NZD.JPY’s usual style, I took it as a genuine expression of the leftist/ liberal’s thinking style. My apologies NZD.JPY. ..and thanks for the (delayed) laff.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I could be wrong though…Probably would pay to take a few deep breaths before replying to posts sometimes Redbaiter – works for me.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
While its a nice headline for ACT, it is far more revealing that Stephen Franks is interested in standing for National.
Douglas as an ACT MP is surely a joke. It’s around a decade too late – Douglas should have stood in 1996 or 1999, not when he hits his 70s.
What’s more important for ACT is that Douglas’s involvement is a green traffic light to ACT’s funders, who have enormous enthusiasm for Douglas even 20 years on from the end of Douglas’ tenure as Minister of Finance.
However, there has been a long history of antipathy between Douglas and Hide, and I doubt that one kiss and and make up session is going to undo 12 years of suspicion and political mistrust. Hide might get some funding for ACT, but at what price to his leadership and party direction?
February 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Well I think that this is excellent news.
If he stands (which isn’t certain) he will still be younger than both Jim Anderton and John McCain.
And I don’t think, like Sushi Goblin, that this is “one kiss and a make up session”. From what I have observed of Douglas, he is not the sort of person to do that. I suspect there have been discussions for some time, possibly going back as far as Hide’s move away from attacking politicians personally, and advocating policy instead. This is of course what Douglas wanted of his young protege, back in the early-mid 90s.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Besides, the days of hard ideology and market forces have lost popularity.Politics is about creating an economy which gives a good way of life to all, not making a few more filthy rich and others struggling, like Roger Douglas did along with Ruth Richardson.
Us Bloggers might have deep ideological bents(I used to) but people just want to get on with life, without Auntie Helen and not talking indefinitely about politics..
Mate I wouldn’t be so quick to put the knife in Ruth Richardson… it is because of her that employment has been so low and growth high in the early 2000s. Of course it would have been even lower and higher if the Labourites hadn’t been around to sit on the economy like Jabba the Hutt and squish it, but you need to give the credit where it’s due and that credit is to Ruth.
You say ‘the days of hard ideology and market forces’ are gone, but you need to understand that market forces is not hard ideology – it is letting people get on with their lives and jobs without the government stepping in to yark it all up. We will have plenty more market forces and plenty less ideology after November, and finally the good work Ruth did in 1990-93 will be rewarded.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I just have one question….where are Roger Douglas’ eyes?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Sushi:
Yes Stephen Franks seeks a National nomination and would probably make an excellent National MP. This is no reflection on ACT.
And National has selected Terry Heffernan in Port Hills ex Social Credit, ex Democrats, ex one time Alliance candidate although he actually withdrew his candidacy. Is this a reflection on National?
Perhaps we do need Roger and Rodney engaging with a new National Government – they might need help.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
aah..!..redbaiter..!
feckin’ priceless..
still doubting your sense of humour bye-pass..?
i don’t think you’ve ever ‘had a laugh’..eh..?
and that’s kinda sad..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
douglas has become what he failed at farming..
and..um..!..will rog ‘n rodders be ‘getting a room?..”.
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
douglas..the prototype ‘hollow man’..
look into his eyes..if you can find them..
he is empty..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Point of order Mr Speaker.
Can we have a limitation on the consequtive number of post by one person who can only hear the replies in his head please.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
is none of your thought done by sound..?..blubby..?
my consolations..
most of the rest of us think using sight/sound/pictures..
(that sorta explains a lot..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
No one uses the words phil and think together other than in the negative.
Like your karma readings.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Death throws for ACT. How nice How sad.
Roger Douglas has the personality of a dead fish and will do F###all to save Rodders.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The idea that “you need coalition partners to govern” is a myth if all of ACT’s voters would vote for National if the party did not exist. National getting 49% and ACT getting 2% is basically the same as National getting 46% and ACT 5%. Unless ACT is able to turn out non-voters or win votes off other parties, the probability of a change of Government does not increase. If ACT was able to successfully copy Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, they could attract large numbers of new voters.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
DPF. 4.56pm why is this site so FFFF#####King Slow.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Dalley you poor half educated commie, its “throes”. But agree with the other post, , the site was/ is sometimes very slow.
” if all of ACT’s voters would vote for National ”
People who support ACT at the moment see little profit in supporting National. I’d rather see Klark re-elected than endure another term of Labour lite. Same as McCain in the US. I’d go for Hillary Clinton, as disgustingly wrong as she is, over that slimy turncoat any day.
How is such a view justified?
The only time the general population will turn away from leftism with any finality is when the full force of that failed ideology is imposed upon them. The sooner that happens the better. Toying with liberals like Key, Schwarzneggar ( as a typical example of a dropkick substitute left/ liberal/ commie) and McCain only makes the death of the left a slower affair and will only prolong the agony.
The population wants to listen to idiots like Klark, fine. Let her win the election, and let her get on with her goal of reducing NZ to a country with a tyrannical one party state and massive poverty. Sooner we bottom out the better, for only when the true impact of this desperate ideologue’s historically discredited policies hit home will the slumbering misinformed apathetic public of NZ wake up to what they have brought upon themselves.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
So phool can read it.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I’d like to express personal admiration to Redbaiter.
He’s the main reason why I read kiwiblog. (Even though I agree with DFF on most issues, his views on economics are not as sharp.)
February 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Yeah, thanks Redbaiter for the reference to the book “The Liberal Mind”. I must read it. I’ve been wondering about this topic already.
David Horowitz said something like “I conclude that reason supported by truth is insufficient to dislodge from the human heart a lie grounded in desire”…….
which says a lot to me……
February 27th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Thanks for your kind words May. Bouquets for Redbaiter appear as frequently as blue moons.:)..!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Thanks to you to Phil, and also for the many great posts you make. How about the last line of that review? What a powerful statement.
———————————————–
“The Liberal Mind” reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
your welcome..!..reddy..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
and you have a fan/groupie..!
aawww!!!!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Oooooooh, look, Redbaiter, she likes you!
Redbaiter’s got a girl friend! Redbaiter’s got a girl friend!
PS: Hyde & Douglas – a capitalist’s wet dream. Yay – soon all the “unproductive” workers who are dragging our economy down will be back in the gutter where they belong, and paying a fair market rate for the privilege of being there!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Handy to have Phil and RRM show up and illustrate the point of the book so accurately.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Redbaiter’s got a girl friend! Redbaiter’s got a girl friend!”
How insane are these lefty cowardly creeps?
February 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Insane?
Remember that time when you posted a link to your own blog on here, and it was all about how you were sick of people on Kiwiblog hassling you and telling lies about you and defaming you (on Kiwiblog) – and you were going to take us all to court with an affidavit from your daughter about how upset it made you, and then we’d all be sorry?
February 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Most, if not all, readers who are economically literate appreciate Redbaiter’s arguments. They (like me) are just too lazy/busy to comment.
To those who think Redbaiter is someone who lacks personal hygiene and can’t have a relationships with people, I believe he’s a lot smarter/saner/nicer/sexier than all of you combined.
I admire Redbaiter for having the stamina to fight so tirelessly to show that New Zealand is not yet devoid of sensible thought.
Redbaiter, please keep a cool head and keep up with the good fight. Be assured you have many “invisible” supporters.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I’m a bit of a cynic. I find it hard to believe that May is real……
ACT does not just take votes from National. That logic is like suggesting that the Greens only take votes from Labour, so they may as not exist. Actually, the Greens pull votes across the spectrum because of their Green branding (however misguided those so enticed may be). Similarly ACT are not a more business friendly version of National (or as phil would have it, evil baby eating capitalists). They fit in a quite different place on the political spectrum as their moral politics are quite different from those of National. There are people who would never vote for National due to their sometimes too overt religious influences, and their moral conservatism, but whom would happily vote for a party that is both socially and economically liberal.
Roger D has a very strong left wing history. He didn’t abandon his principles about support for the underprivileged in society in the years after Muldoon, nor when he started ACT. He simply decided that the traditional policies of the left were actually doing nothing for the underprivileged, and decided to advocate for policies that he thought would do something useful for them. Whilst you may disagree with his logic it is incredibly discourteous to disparage his motivations.
Similarly, whilst I think that Labour have their policies wrong, I don’t for one minute believe that Helen and friends actually want the poor people to stay poor. It is just that they don’t understand human nature, and don’t have a good grip on how to raise people out of poverty. They seem to believe that increasing the amount of the benefit and raising the minimum wage are what it takes – basically we just legislate more money for people. Apparently it isn’t necessary for those people to do anything for themselves, nor do the (dis)incentives that we are creating have any impact on those people’s behaviour. Roger has some quite different views on how to get people out of poverty, and his book “Unfinished Business” remains a great read as an exposition on how he believes this should be done (albeit that the numbers in it are 10 years out of date).
As an example – does anyone in NZ disagree that the health service provided by private health insurance is better than that of the public system? (I presume not, otherwise why would people go buy private health insurance). So Roger asks the question – why don’t we (the govt) buy private health insurance for everyone in NZ? It would be cheaper than the publicly provided health system, and as we just agreed, it would be better. We can then follow the next step, why should the money wash through the government with centralised decision making? Why don’t we just mandate that everyone have health insurance, set minimum standards for those policies (with flexibility for people to extend or to vary that coverage in response to their personal circumstances) and provide money to those who don’t have enough such that they can afford health insurance. It isn’t evil capitalism at work, it is basic economics (not to mention common sense).
Similarly, school vouchers, the bete noir of the left. Except of course that Denmark (or one of those absurdly socialist countries in Europe) has implemented them and they work brilliantly. So what exactly is the objection, why are they seen as some evil capitalist plot? They people advantaged by vouchers are the poor, not the wealthy. The left portray this as self interest by the wealthy, but self interest for the wealthy is served quite well by the current system. Vouchers would give the poor the same opportunities as the wealthy, why do the left resist them?
February 28th, 2008 at 8:28 am
May, “nicer”? As in ‘if i dont like your views you’re a communist lickspittle’ etc? Funny parallel with revolutionary Marxists there in that they NEVER wanted to compromise with the capitalists so people would eventually revolt!! Heh.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Nice post PaulL. I remember trying to read Douglas’s book a year or two ago, and thought that at the time an economics degree (or dictionary) would have been useful in understanding it.
The impression that i get from people on health insurance is that the companies are more inclined to find some way to tell you to get stuffed rather than interfere with their profits, which is certainly not an issue in otherwise flawed public hospitals. Never the less there are certainly compelling arguments for privatised healthcare, maybe Rodney in his new ‘policy’ form will manage to articulate this!!
February 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
stephen, when we say privatised we should always be careful to distinguish between privatised provision and private funding. The two are very different. The first is a philisophical debate about whether public sector organisations should have a monopoly, and often involves a discussion about whether it is immoral to make a profit in health (despite GPs, one of the public’s favourite groups, doing so). The second is a discussion about whether the government should make sure that everyone should have access to quality health care.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Nice PaulL, very very good analysis. Hear hear.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Redbaiter – Belated response here due to timezone differences but I do enjoy your posts. I was indeed taking the piss and trying to wind up Tane and his cobbers with the child labour and logans run comment but not the best delivery I must say. I obviously had the opposite effect. I can’t believe that I got –7 !!! I made myself chuckle though and the dressing down was worth it.
Also May, I don’t think you should speak on behalf of economically literate readers in support of redbaiter. Not just because he looks dimly upon those who self-appointedly claim to front for a collective but because he isn’t an economist, not here at least. He is a moralist. Which makes for better reading.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
RRM the socialists wet dream team is Klak & Kullen. The unholy tag team of Smear and Sneer.
Its a dream that most of us plan to wake up from thanks.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am
And come on, philu and RRM were bloody funny teasing RB about having a girlfriend.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
PaulL
A related Roger — Roger Kerr — who’s often dubbed an advocate of “far right” policies, hates those “left” and “right” labels.
Kerr even said “If I was pinned to the wall and had a label attached to me I would be more comfortable with a left than a right one.”
Why “left”? Because like Roger Douglas, Roger Kerr is concerned about the interests of the poor. He believes these interests can be best served by free-market policies, not increasing the minimum wage or welfare payments.
As Kerr says, “there are no left-wing or right-wing economic policies today – only good and bad ones.”
Like Roger Kerr, Roger Douglas and ACT should be considered free-market neoclassical. Left- and right-wing labels are too awkward.