Armstrong on Douglas
John Armstrong is puzzled by ACT:
Thursday morning’s press briefing was designed to garner more publicity for Act off the back of Sir Roger’s high-profile return to the party’s inner sanctum.
It sure did that. But it was sloppy tactical thinking on Act’s part.
When the party is on 1%, and it presents a programme as if it is the party on 50%, then no wonder it got short shift. It would be like Jim Anderton demanding that the Government abolish the armed forces, increase all benefits by 20%, and hike taxes.
Key was immediately put on the spot. Would he be torn between loyalty to a centre-right ally or preserving his party’s support? It was no contest.
Key was forthright. National would not sell voters down the river by presenting itself as a pragmatic, moderate conservative party before the election only to run an Act-instigated far right agenda in Government afterwards. And no, Sir Roger would not be a member of his Cabinet.
It was a faultless display from the new “decisive” Key – but one once again made on the defensive.
High praise – a faultless display. I’m actually fairly annoyed that the media demanded that what was an incredibly hypothetical question – having Douglas in Cabinet – be ruled out. As Bill English had said earlier, the party is at 1% (2% in latest Morgan pollI note though) so it is far from certain Douglas would even be an MP.
Act may need Sir Roger’s agenda for re-branding purposes. His ideas are a lot more exciting than Hide’s endless mention of his red-tape cutting Regulatory Responsibility Bill. But there is a consequent risk Sir Roger could overshadow Act’s leader.
I must say as Sir Roger outlined his prescription, I did wonder if he had been given the power to unilaterally set ACT policy.
The other question is how Sir Roger’s broad-brush reforms would square with Hide’s strategy of developing bottom-line positions on just two or three issues from which Act hopes to extract policy concessions from National. The lesson from Thursday is that parties on the same side of the political spectrum are mutually obliged not to do things which end up disadvantaging both.
Exactly. Hide’s strategy is sound – a modest number of bottom-line positions which will give ACT some wins, but not make it look like the tail is wagging the dog. Obviously the more seats a party gains, the more influence they get.
If Act can win three or four seats, it will make it easier for National to form a Government. It is win-win for both parties.
However, Thursday’s behaviour was lose-lose by jeopardising National’s grip on centre-ground voters and in the process Act’s big chance of being in Government.
Act cannot afford to upset National by overplaying its limited hand. Its bargaining power is weak. Hide has to vote with National or feel the wrath of Epsom voters.
If Douglas is seen as the de facto leader or policy setter, and is proposing too radical an agenda, then Epsom voters may get nervous.
NZ First is the obvious candidate. Ignored this week was Winston Peters’ reinforcement of his earlier declaration that NZ First will negotiate first with the party that wins the most seats. He has now added the following: “We will work with the party the voters tell us to.” It is a signal he is willing to enter serious negotiations with National.
It was highly significant. NZ First did not say they will give first priority to the biggest bloc, but the biggest party. So even if Labour/Greens combined get more seats that National, National still gets first negotiation.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
Yes Winston is already backtracking. The DOuglas thing can be good for Key in that it provides a ‘lightning rod’ for the far-right maniac-fringe, and further will emphasise his centrist credentials. In retaliation to slurs from the left that Key has a ’secret agenda’ he now has the perfect foil – he can be as vocal in condemning such attitudes as he wishes without offending his own voters or party. By the same token, it will raise in voters’ minds why labour is attacking Key’s ;far-right’ agenda, when he is plainly different from Douglas and Act. So all in all this could be a gift that keeps giving.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
Winston also didn’t say the “biggest bauble”. But he probably doesn’t need to now, as everyone already knows!
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
From an ACT point of view National is selling itself as similar to Labour.
The far right should be unhappy with that – the election should not be about getting keys group in or getting Helen’s group in it should be about getting certain policies enacted. As such it would be natural in a democracy if national’s move to the left (even if it is just faking it) resulted in ACT being more competitive on the right via laying out a aggressive right leaning set of policies. And that ACT might indeed cause national to shed support on the left as well as the right of it’s support base. As long as the right still wins then ACT is serving its voters by doing that – if the right looses, they may still be serving their electorate in the long term if the difference between labor and national has shrunk enough.
At this stage ACT has a lot of time left before the election and they can if required keep their heads down or adjust their strategy.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
“It was a faultless display from the new “decisive” Key – but one once again made on the defensive.”
Because now the PM in waiting is expected to have the ability to time travel or read minds?
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am
“However, Thursday’s behaviour was lose-lose by jeopardising National’s grip on centre-ground voters and in the process Act’s big chance of being in Government.”
Ah hah, but what Mr. Armstrong overlooks is the Machiavellian cunning of Mr. Key and the extreme right. As any smart leftist will tell you, this is all a plot to give substance to Key’s denial of the allegation that he has a secret far right agenda. He’s down on record now as firmly rejecting any suggestions he’s going to slash and burn once the public are fooled into electing him, and this effectively removes the opportunity to smear him with such allegations. But the left know, nuttin more certain- he’s still gunna do it..!!!!
You realised I was being facetious as soon as you read “smart leftist” right?
Shame really that the right have performed so poorly in protecting their corner that they now have nowhere to go but to deny their very purpose. What a socialist basket case NZ has become. Its the right’s failure. While the left have beavered away and never lost sight of their socialist objectives, the right have fiddled and navel gazed. Gutless spineless compromisers, hopeless appeasers and ideologically inarticulate losers. Fractured by the political confusion of pseudo liberalism and undermined by dumbfuck bereft of strategy “Libertarianism” they don’t have a clue where they’re going. Addle brained incompetents, fit only for helping the left push the totalitarian snowball at a faster pace. Pffft.. country’s fucked for three generations at least.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Well said redbaiter. Who does a conservative vote for, as John Boy Key the centre pc fence sitter won’t rock the apple cart ?
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Dad and Red, you’ve got your man now. Sir Genghis Khan. Why don’t you just vote for him and stop your moaning?
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
“..John Armstrong is puzzled by ACT:..”
(as are we all..as are we all..)
suddenly..they have become..
the party of/for the party pills..
and an antipodean version/remake of ‘the night of the living dead’..
(great entertainment value..!..tho’..!..
so..cheers for that..!
eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
“Who does a conservative vote for”
Nobody. He packs his bag and gets the fuck out of it. Let the commies sink in their own shit. Its the only way they’ll ever wisen up.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
“Adolf Fiinkensein”
Posing as another contributor on blogs is a cowardly and unprincipled act. Its no surprise to see such impersonation is predominantly carried out by the left, who try and justify it as satire, but its in the end just ignorant yellow backed cowardice and a denial of the civil behaviour that allows such forums to function. Keep it up scumbag, you’ll wreck this forum just like you’ve wrecked this country, with the same smug gutless slimy amoral behaviour.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
we hear/feel yr anger/pain,,reddy..
but..but..where will you go..?..reddy..?
aussie has a labour-regime..britain has a labour-regime..
america is about to elect a lefty-black man..!
wtf..!..eh..?
maybe..the likes of singapore would be best for the likes of frustrated/impotent fascists such as yourself..?
(and i think some sth american countries also offer havens/solace..for the likes of you..)
but wherever..!
bon voyage..!..eh..?
and..soon..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Ahem. AHEM. There are around 20% of us Kiwis who want the Nuke legislation repealed, want an airforce, want to be friends with the Yanks again, want school choice, want OUT of Kyoto, want Health choice, want destructive welfarism arrested………..
WHO DO WE VOTE FOR?
Why be so negative about getting back Ken Shirley, Deborah Coddington, etc., and a massive increase in the number of NZ’s brightest ever MP’s?
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
(as are we all..as are we all..)
Learn to speak for yourself you ignorant poorly brought up dumbfuck. What were your parents to produce such lowlife ill mannered offspring? ? Were they orangutans who shat where they stood and ate with their hands??
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
(heh-heh..!..gotcha..!..)
(and..um..!..phil-the-inferior..
why don’t you get together with reddy..?
y’know..!..group-fares..?
“..and ate with their hands??..”
and..um..!..which appendage/limb/member(?)..?
do you eat with/off(?)..?..
reddy..?
(or do you just stick your head into a trough/bucket..?..
and inhale..?.)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
“but..but..where will you go..?..reddy..?”
Where ever I and people who think like me might go Phil, that country will have supremely better outcomes than the foul hopeless poverty stricken crime riddled socialist sewer YOU AND YOUR ILK will make of New Zealand
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
C,mon Phil B- Deborah Coddington?? …!!!!!!!
Politically she don’t know her arse from her elbow.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
Philbest. Hear hear. I wonder how many more Kiwis are overseas because Labour and National sing from the same song sheet when it comes to school choice, repealing the nuke legislation etc etc.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
“..and ate with their hands??..”
Obviously they (your parents) were (orangutans). Read a book on civilization Phil, especially the part where people started using knives and forks.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
hey..!..clint-butt..!
why not join the travel party..?
(i hear they are getting a ‘good deal’ on tickets..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
the moment’s passed..!.reddy..the moment’s passed..!
(once again..you are left gape-mouthed/floundering..)
bon voyage..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
“(once again..you are left gape-mouthed/floundering..)”
At what for fuck’s sake? Surely you’re not suggesting that your incomprehensible smug self important shit would create such an outcome?? Its what a self obsessed child would write Phil.
Quote-
“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
Unquote
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
having to ‘explain’ your punchline..in response to a riposte..
is..most definitely..waving the flag of the vanquished…
(y’know..!..on a micro-level..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
Readers- don’t think that the dialogue with Philu is off topic. Its a good indication as to why the Nationals have been forced to elect a leader like Key and that Key uses the rhetoric he does. As more and more good people are driven to leave, so do the Nationals have to appeal to a less and less savvy electorate. John Key has nobody to reach out to other than the Philus of New Zealand. That’s why Key says what he says and does what he does. He’s trying to get the votes of the centre (to use a wildly inaccurate generalisation) left. His mission is to try and get a country of idiots like Phil to see sense. Mission impossible.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 am
“having to ‘explain’ your punchline..in response to a riposte.. is..most definitely..waving the flag of the vanquished…”
No Phil, its just proof that you’re too damn thick to get the point. Not only of that comment, but of anything worthwhile that’s ever said here.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Red & D4J – Just remember to let us know your postal addresses, so we can contribute to you airfares to Aus.
Best of luck for your new country.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Dalley you gormless git, I wouldn’t accept a cent from you even though my life depended on it. Give the money to a charity that is helping repair the damage that the pinko radical feminist government has inflicted on its bewildered people !! What a dull witted munter.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
“When the party is on 1%, and it presents a programme as if it is the party on 50%, then no wonder it got short shift. It would be like Jim Anderton demanding that the Government abolish the armed forces, increase all benefits by 20%, and hike taxes.”
That’s bollocks DPF. What is wrong with a party laying out a full policy prescription? They’re not saying they are going to push it all through, they’re simply pointing out what they would like to achieve.
I’m surprised you haven’t linked to Fran’s article, which said that, with the addition of John Ansell Act will pick up at least 3%. Also mentioned a possible Don Brash candidacy and that he attended their election year planning hui.
[DPF: A party can lay out whatever policy prescription they like. But don't be surprised when their policies get ruled out in advance, because the cost of not ruling them out is too high. I hadn't read Fran's article when I blogged this, and have already covered John A]
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Note from Grant to Bill English:
My vote for your party is now in jeopardy, particularly after seeing the way you handled that persistant questioning regarding Douglas in Cabinet. That whole thing was just such a setup and sure enough TV3 ran off to cullen with a load of tales and gave him the opportunity to exercise his snarky sense of humour for the benefit of the nation.
Bill, had you told Garner to sod off, told him to show some manners and some respect, and informed him that the National Party does not announce its cabinet allocations at the behest of leftist journalists, then the Nats would have my vote in in the bag.
To butcher a line from the Braveheart movie:
“One day you may be a Prime Minister. At least try to act like one.”
G
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
“I wouldn’t accept a cent from you”
I doubt any cent would in reality be his. Like most socialists, his primary source of income is probably other people’s money. JD is possessed of the delirium that being a superior of motive collectivist, he has the moral right to steal our money and spend it as he sees fit. Subsidising the airfares of departing citizens who object to his totalitarian attitudes would be something he would see as a perfectly appropriate use of taxpayer’s funds. What he doesn’t know is he’s exiling the very source of those funds. Only the left, obsessed so insanely by their quest for power and control, could be so bitterly and endlessly determined to destroy themselves.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
For a party polling at 1.5% …. its very interesting that both National and Labour are allowing ACT to set the agenda at the moment.
Every day this week ACT has been in the paper…
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
“To butcher a line from the Braveheart movie:”
Got any from “Dumb and Dumber?” Should be a treasure trove of lines much more appropriate to the Nats.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
2% in the latest Morgan poll MikeE. Which I think was before the Sir Roger/John Ansell announcements.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Phil you tool. I’m already out of Clarkistan. Am not considering coming back to NZ just yet. Any country that educated you is way down my list
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
“Phil you tool.”
Sorry Clint, but must disagree, as I find tools rather useful
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
“..Also mentioned a possible Don Brash candidacy and that he attended their election year planning hui..”
yes..!..yes..!..
utterly brilliant..!
ya gotta get ’strewth’..!..too..!..eh..?
y’know..?
to complete the triumverate..?
and where is michelle boag..?
when the rabid righties want/need her..?
“ladies and gentleman..!..
the ‘new’ face of act..!”
and the curtain rises to the ‘gimlet-eyed-trio’..
(failed-pig-concentration-camp-commandant douglas..
the ‘cheap money for all’ architect of the economic whirlwind/bubble-bursting..
we are about to reap..don (‘we hardly knew yea..!..but that’s enough!’) brash..
and ’strewth’ richardson..
architect/driver of ‘the-mother-of-all-budgets..
(“it hurts..!..mummy..!”..)
now..if those three don’t scare the electorate into the arms of labour/greens/maori party..
nothing will..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
“rabid ” drugs today phool ?
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
First things first. The priority for me this year is for Labour to be voted out of office, and preferably into electoral oblivion. There is only one way to ensure that – party vote National. There’s no place for tactical voting this time around – although we are in an MMP environment, the 2008 election is essentially a FPP contest.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“[DPF: A party can lay out whatever policy prescription they like. But don’t be surprised when their policies get ruled out in advance, because the cost of not ruling them out is too high. I hadn’t read Fran’s article when I blogged this, and have already covered John A]”
Ruled out by whom? The Nats? How f**king arrogant is that? Sorry DPF, but if Act are required by the Nats for a government then I would expect Key to give in to SOME of Act’s policy requests. And if the Nats don’t like it then, as has been suggested, there’s always a possibility of a Goff/Act government. Judging by Key’s recent statements, maybe Phil is further to the right anyway…
[DPF: If ACT are required, of course there are some policy compromises. But if National has a choice of Maori, United Future, NZ First and ACT and only needs two or three of those four parties, then ACT may find its rhetoric makes then not the first choice. And hey if you want to promote the idea that a vote for ACT is a vote for a 4th term Labour Govt, just make sure you do so in Epsom]
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
ACT can roll out the hard right agenda because they have nothing to lose.
National have to appeal to the centre or risk losing their hard fought 50% rating.
The balance of power is hanging by a thread at the moment so it is more important that the right win this election and have a future 2 or 3 terms to sort out the details.
ACT can pick up 3 or 4 % off National but let National pick up that shortfall from the swinging centre and and maybe from the more intelligent greens ( assuming that person actually exists)
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
” so the ignorant centre voting mums and dads who watch twenty second clips on the news but know fuck all about politics ”
Look, how the fuck could they “know anything”? All the mainstream media bring them is templates based on socialist/ left liberal bullshit, and that’s all the fucken Nats provide as well. What the true opposition needs to do is confront the media as the foundation of the left wing/ socialist domination of the NZ political spectrum, and after that, provide some rhetoric that challenges socialism rather than endorses it.
Until the people who aspire to better political outcomes than socialism awake to the fact that the information gate keepers, those leftists posing as journalists and objective commenters in our mainstream media are just totalitarian socialists in disguise, there will be no change to NZ’s political and social condition.
Assault the media. They are not the bringers of truth and enlightenment, they are mostly lying socialist toadies, who will occasionally make token strikes at the left, but they are really there to ensure that in the long term, totalitarian socialism is the winner.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“If ACT are required, of course there are some policy compromises.”
I’m glad at least one Nat gets it. When will the National Party leadership realise that they can’t rule anything out in an MMP environment? Bolger knew that. Since then it’s all been born-to-rule bravado.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
What would be the worst case scenario for the right would be the Nats going with Dunne or Winston for the sake of being in Government. It would show that they have not learned from their past mistakes and will only succeed in delivering to NZ the 6th Labour Govt.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
We can expect the same old same old socialist shit.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“It would show that they have not learned from their past mistakes and will only succeed in delivering to NZ the 6th Labour Govt.”
Wow. I’m amazed you still think this is an issue that needs demonstrating. Key’s emergence as NZ’s (probable) next PM is down to the fact that he is promising very little in the way of real change. The narrow political spectrum that prevails in this country (mainly as a result of the political dialogue being so totally controlled by the left) is what forces that strategy upon him.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It’s a mistake to assume that an ACT revival only pulls votes off National.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Yes I reckon it needs repeating over and over again Red because some people simply don’t listen
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Look I tell them ACT last time,
you got to get Girls in there, proper girls, [ not them ones talking about education and that ]
three weeks training with me first, clothes and lipstick and smiling eyes and that stuff
mn good branding more later dudes
its like Stephen Franks says [sort of] people don’t vote for issues they vote for people,
people vote against Douglas not for him,
Key and NAT can take ACT for granted and keep hunting down the middle line .. and the appointment of Douglas makes that middle line further to the left than it was before,
Key took his first set back over assets last week, and now he knows something very new to him,
Over two thirds of New Zealanders want NZ RAIL back.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Lod Denning one of the greatest Jurists in legal history said that when he was a Barrister he used to sit down and write the Prosecution’s case before he prepared the Defence.
Lesson: know your enemy.
Try this short overview for understanding liberal thinking.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/09/21/explaining_liberal_thinking_in_a_single_column?page=full&comments=true
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“Yes I reckon it needs repeating over and over again Red because some people simply don’t listen”
Right Clint, as shown by the following comment-
“Over two thirds of New Zealanders want NZ RAIL back.”
Because Mr. Quixote, they’re so soaked in left wing propaganda, and they’re almost completely isolated from views that challenge those of the politically ascendant left, and they therefore wouldn’t know of any better solution. That’s the problem.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Keys is absolutely clear. There is not a single principle he won’t sell out in order to get elected. But we already knew that.
One can only hope he gets the same knife in the back that he gave out to the only decent National leader in a very long time.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I think John Armstrong is on the money with his article. I can see Labour doing the “Vote Key and get Douglas” routine, which would be kind of ironic as voting Labour gives you Fitz, Anderton, Peters and sprinkling of Dunne.
ACT will only attract right leaning National supporters. However, the methods they use (throwing RD into the ring) could reduce National’s vote by scaring right leaning Labour supporters looking at National.
Part of me thinks that ACT letting Roger Douglas speak as he did has actually just given Labour a fourth term. If I’m correct, then I shall be another brain-drain statistic.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“..the only decent National leader in a very long time..”
aww!!..
let’s hope the architect of our current economic woes..don (‘cheap money”.”.bubbles for free”..!) brash..
is here to read (what’shisnames’) little,,(sob-choked) eulogy..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“..Part of me thinks that ACT letting Roger Douglas speak as he did has actually just given Labour a fourth term…”
you’re not wrong..dm..
this (deeply-flawed) reprise of ghosts/nightmares past will be marvelled at by political studies academics..
now..and in the forseeable future..
and if hide wasn’t ‘forced’ into this..
(y’know..!..no wodger..no lolly-money..!..)
then he is a bigger fool than ever dreamed of…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“…the architect of our current economic woes…”
And yet only last night phil you were saying:
“reid..it is outside forces doing this..to the economy..”
I know vaporising interferes with short-term memory encoding but this is ridiculous.
Tell us which alternative you really believe phil.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Phil: get back to the bong and think a little longer.
DPF: “And hey if you want to promote the idea that a vote for ACT is a vote for a 4th term Labour Govt, just make sure you do so in Epsom”
Fran’s piece is good one.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10499469
Well of course the Remera Electorate (largely Epsom now) nearly did vote for a Labour Government in 1987.
What probably matters to Epsom voters in the personal qualities of the centre-right MP, the policy stands ACT wants to make and whether they think ACT will play a productive role in Parliament.
What we know is that advocating big ideas (even by small parties) can shift public policy debates, even if the small party ipso facto cannot implement them. ACT would be foolish to have too many bottomlines but none is equally foolish. And big ideas don’t necessarily need to be bottomlines.
We do have to watch the Nats though.
When they vote with Labour it is of course in the “national interest” and ACT is extreme in holding out. We see this time and time again. The Smacking Bill was the highest profile recent example. National votes more often with Labour than ACT does. On the very limited occasions ACT negotiates with Labour in order to perhaps reach a mutually agreeable public policy outcome, the Nats are tempted to declare this to be a betrayal of the centre-right, and petty Epsom National potentates threaten to makes this betrayal notorious. We saw this on the homeopathic medicines Bill. Key then offers to vote for it without concessions from Labour! He then retracts despite their being multiple recordings of his statement including one in his office.
One of the skills the Labour team have over National is that they have gone into Parliament and built coalitions of Parliamentary support for their programme. Key is personable as is English. They need to work on this side of managing a government under MMP.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
the bursting of the bubble is happening due to outside forces..
(namely untramelled-greed..and other bubbles bursting..)
the causing of that/the bubble(s) here..
..is down to brash being an (american)-fed-bitch..
and slavishly echoing/their (now shown/proven to be deeply-flawed/bubble-building) policies/ideologies..of ‘cheap money’..
hence the don (‘cheap mon-ey..bubbles for free!’) brash..moniker..
(and yes..labour are complicit in their own way..but..?..)
(got that..?..reid..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
but what phil? Labour are the good guys because they make you feel good and the Nats and selfish and nasty? Is that your unstated “but” phil?
got that…? phil???
anyway mate I can’t be arsed repeating the conversation we had last night so I won’t bother to reply if you follow it up.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
see ya..!
(close the door on your way out..will ya..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
You won’t have a door soon Phil, you’ll have to burn it for firewood…
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
that was ‘deep’..reddy..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Not as deep as the shit you’re in bludger.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
gee..!..going even ‘deeper’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
What is “extreme” about leaving people with their OWN money to spend? Whats extreme about redusing red tape and impediments to growth and progress? Whats extreme about letting free people trade freely without force being used against them (a free market in other words…) Whats extreme about letting PARENTS deciding for themselves and their children what sort of education they will have….? Whats extreme about letting people have the choice to shop about amoungst different health care providers to get what they want at the price they want?
And whats fucking extreme about having policies and goals that the NATIONAL party itself is supposed to belive in and base their very existence upon..???!!!
ACT’s not extreme in the slightest…its the only party advocating reality based solutions to the mess that socialist,coercive policies that ARE extreme devations from cause and effect reality have brought about…
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
James , some people have the foresight to see that, but for many people out there ACT represents a great step into the unknown.
100 years of socialist mindset is not undone in a single day.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
To more or less repeat the first post of this thread, I think National have sealed their win by associating themselves loosely with Act and then telling the public they won’t be giving Douglas a front bench seat. Labour have already taken the bait and started howling at Act and Douglas, the braindead media have followed and lookee who’s wailing the loudest…your favorite mummy’s boy, John Armstrong. Who would have guessed. But mainstream, work-all-day-don’t-know-politcal-shit-from-a-hole-in-the-ground voter …which is the vast majority, now see National as the reasonable choice. Act have the appearence of “way out right” – even if they aren’t really. Labour’s in death throws – voter X know’s they can no longer be trusted. The media and Labour will keep bagging ACT because they can’t give up their inherent abusive nature and fear of the “rightwing bogeyman”, while Key and party look on in silent amusement and continue to climb in the polls. National get voted in, ACT will get enough to to have a seat or two, the real laugh is that Douglas doesn’t even need a front bench seat to be effective – that’s the hooter! And all the while dumb fuck media and even dumber fuck lefties are too fuckin’ dumb to see whats going on. Brilliant strategy – from National and ACT.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Sir Roger – as Frankenfurter put it in Rocky Horror “One from the vaults”
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I was this close to switching my vote from National to ACT when I saw John Key on TV the other night saying we won’t be following ACT “hard right” agenda
Key sounded like Jim Anderton to me. He should be treating Roger Douglas like a hero.
Anyway I hope goodgod is correct and it is all an elablorate ploy although I really doubt it
But it’s going way over my head if it is
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
goodgod..it’s ‘death throes’.
(yours in literacy..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Adolf hasn’t got a bad theory on Key’s indecisive vacillation.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Emmess,
It is my pick that the right will win enough votes to take the government benches at this election. The makeup of that government is the important thing. People, such as yourself by the sounds of things, who believe in reducing taxes, government spending and giving choice in education and health need to vote for that change. As we have seen from Key he does not support those changes and looks prepared to offer more of the same. However if ACT has a strong enough presence then he may have no option – heck he can blame ACT if he’s that electorally sensitive.
I would hate to finally see the back of Labour for only more of the same policies that will not lift us up the OECD ladder or improve our living standards.
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
The policies pursued by the Labour-led government have seriously eroded New Zealand’s economic performance. They have more than halved productivity growth – back to levels we haven’t seen since Muldoon days.
As result the wage gap with Australia and beyond widens. 400,000 kiwis have left for good since Helen Clark became Prime Minister.
To reverse the slide, New Zealand needs to change direction.
National’s approach to the election is politically-smart –promise to change the government, but nothing else.
It’s left to ACT by default to argue the alternative vision, direction and set of principles.
It’s true ACT is polling at only one or so percent. But that doesn’t stop us pointing out the folly of Labour’s ways and offering up the alternative. If we don’t, who will?
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen label the alternative “hard right”. It saves them having to debate the ideas or the policies.
For the record, here are the policies Sir Roger, Heather and I have advocated in the past couple of weeks.
1. A scholarship for every child. Parents should have choice, and shouldn’t have to pay twice to send their children to an independent school. Hardly “hard right”. Even the Swedish Social Democrats support this policy. The only party in Sweden now who oppose their voucher scheme are the Swedish communists. I could equally argue then that Labour and National sticking with our present Stalinist approach to education are “hard left”!
2. Regulatory Responsibility Bill that asserts Kiwi’s rights to their property and the basic freedoms. This Bill received support from all parties bar the Greens. It’s our Parliament’s first systematic approach to dealing to red-tape.
3. Dropping Cullen’s pernicious and wealth-sapping envy tax of 39 cents. This is hardly “hard right” — It was Labour who dropped the top rate down from Muldoon’s 66 cents to 33 cents.
4. Adjusting all the tax thresholds for inflation. United Future advocated the same policy. So too did Bill English.
5. A tax free income threshold in return for taking out health insurance. The Greens advocate a tax free threshold. National used to support private health insurance.
6. The greater use of the private sector in health. They key thing is to get the operations and not get hung up on who owns the hospital. ACT is open about supporting competition, choice and private enterprise.
7. A restatement of ACT’s lone opposition to the Emissions Trading Scheme now before Parliament. Initially, Kyoto was going to make us money. Then we discovered that the deficit to 2012 has an estimated value of one billion dollars. The advisers told the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee last week that Treasury estimate the cost of the deficit 2012 – 2050 at $30 billion. That’s a lot of money. That’s the cost of the deficit if we try and hold emissions to 1990 levels. National’s response? To promise to halve 1990 emissions by 2050! No plan. No costings.
I don’t see these policies as hard right or radical. Commonsense really.
Sir Roger Douglas over his political career has demonstrated vision, principles and guts. I note that John Key says he wouldn’t want Roger Douglas in his cabinet. National should perhaps explain what polices Sir Roger implemented in the 1980s they now oppose. Or does National now just oppose Sir Roger because Labour does?
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Rodney, what do you think about the comments above regarding the fundamentally leftist nature of the media and NZ society in general, and the effect over time that has had on the thinking of the current electorate? And how does one shift that to a more centrist/rational position?
And I agree that in reality ACT’s policies aren’t hard right or radical, but perception is reality in politics is it not?
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
ACT is the natural party of Government.
Let Mr Jandal flip flop National to the left of centre all he likes.
It won’t wash with me.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Well done Rodney for coming on here to debate the issues.
Don’t underestimate the power of blogs.
Best wishes for the future.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The above two posts (Rodders/Reid) reflect a basic fact, that Labour have so managed to dominate the national psyche, with the assistance of a lazy and intellectually unchallenged media that they can claim that anything which isn’t Labour is either ‘hard right’ or a secret agenda in favour of taking NZ to the ‘hard right’.
I think the levels of contempt with which Sir Roger is held by ‘decent hardworking kiwis’ because of his crimes of the past also indicate how much of a hold Labour has on the national psyche, so that it can even indulg in a bit of a witch-hunting when it suits them. if they play this right, Sir Roger could be this election’s ‘Exclusive Brethren’ ‘rich-prick’ ‘enemy within’. (Unless of course they still intend to pursue Key with this line).
The onus is on ACT to expose the infantilism which pervades NZ’s modern political debate, and expose Helen and Co for what they are, not to make it look like ACT and National are freefalling through the stratosphere fighting for a single parachute.
On one level, it is a bit of an indictment of the Party system that there are so few new ideas or personalities getting through that they need to wheel out a fossil like Sir Roger. On the other hand, his eloquence and fire, even as an old geyser, has already exposed many of the newer generation politicians as semi-articulate, smug and dull.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
wheel out a fossil like Sir Roger
Lee I think that is a bit tough
only fools underestimate the wisdom of experience.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Many a good tune played on an old fiddle? Just poetic licence, bwakile – i was highly complimentary of him in the following breath, and needed the fossil reference to underpin the implied dullness of the so called younger generation, as well as the stultifying effects of the modern party system. I genuflect frantically. And I certainly do not understimate the ‘Rogmeister’ he has already got himself a spot on radiolive by calling in to defend himself from Willy Jackson. I for one, will be all ears.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“only fools underestimate the wisdom of experience”
Agree bwakile and evidentially there are obviously many fools active in the NZ political debate, to our national detriment.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Lee
I was just winding you up
I know your heart is in the right place
Give me a call some time as i have read your predicament and may be able to offer you some advice.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
coolas bwakile, I’ll be in touch next week, even the few remarks I got yesterday were a tonic. I do have a plan, and we are determined to make the thing work. Move location and get rid of the present millstone – am looking at a smaller place in New Lynn on Tuesday. Cannot wait to inform my present Landlord. I’ll give you the lowdown when I contact. Anyway off to watch the television now. roger and out.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Thanks Reid
Actually I wasn’t really thinking about Douglas with that comment but about my father in law who at 75 has just completed a 5 day tramp, is hugely involved with youth work with a Christian perspective, has at least 5 “interests” on the go and is a bloody wise old bugger.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Yes bwakile the wisdom of older people is very overlooked. As my parents have moved into their 70’s and 80’s I’ve realised myself that their wisdom remains intact and grows with age and that applies when you look at everyone in their age group. (Duh to me for not knowing that before eh?)
It’s a great shame and significant loss to all concerned, that society makes absolutely no effort at all to tap into the resource of wisdom that they are happy to freely offer and also that society doesn’t give more attention toward nurturing them as they move into the evening of their lives and become helpless to react to changing conditions such as those retiree’s who’ve lost money in the Blue Chip episode.
See this link for a rare exception.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
If I’ve learnt one thing from my FIL it’s that if you can’t express your vision on a A4 sheet or less, don’t waste your time.
The “changing conditions” that you refer to are at the crux of the matter.
As much as we like to think that the world doesn’t change the reality is that is does.
On a rising market a business like Blue Chip can make money for everyone, but as history will tell us the people that drive these “deals” are generally *****, more interested in paying for their lifestyle.
Which is why human nature will always better communisom, socialism, sitting on the fence, capitalisim and everything in between.
Ps my wife is at the movies and I have had several glasses of a very agreeable pinotgris.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
[off topic alert] What sort is that bwaklle? I like pinot gris. Also FIL??
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
It was a Matua,
Mind you I have a soft spot for them as I lived around the corner for several years.
Thanks for the link. I have had a very close association with Africa for many years and am always amazed at the the unleashed potential of the continent. The world should listen to Mandela
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
All this crap from resident ‘Actoids’ and particularly the invective directed at John Key suggests to me the advice of my tutor in politics that there is nothing really to distinguish between the rabid right and the loony left was clearly correct. That both are equally deserving of contempt. I see too one ACT poster has repeated the ascertain by Hide that could be a deal between Labour and ACT. Well done, a second brillaint own goal to rival and surpass the drug pushing escapade by ACT on Campus and one that’s really going to resonate well in Epsom.
Look guys. There is/was a certain respect for you in National. But your antics are starting to piss many of us off. Please focus on the defeat of Labour. If you do I can, for one. accept that ACT may have a part to play in a National co-alition government. But continue undermining the centre/right (where the battle will be won or lost) and you need to remember there are other options for National and if the best you can offer is a giant step backwards to the 1980s and throw-back Cabinet Minister from the 1980s as your leader in all but in name then you may find yourselves wondering why you are still waiting on Platform 3 when the train left from Platform 1.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
rodney..did you put your residential address on that exhortation to vote act..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Ross,
Yes it is important that Labour are defeated this year and our focus must be on that. However it is not sufficient to simply defeat Labour and assume the rest will take care of itself. We want to defeat Labour because their policy and governance style stink. We must seek to replace these policies with substance and the arrogance with grace, not a vacuum or more of the same. With that in mind it is perfectly reasonable to announce policy (pretty novel in an election year huh?). If National or John Key have a problem with that, well that’s up to you guys. ACT has every right to lay out its agenda and aspirations for government. That this has angered some (by no means all) in National and elsewhere, well tough titty.
It seems to me that in order to avoid this “undermining of the centre/right” that you mention, ACT should shut up and say nothing. Well sir with the kindest of respects, don’t be so naive. ACT has every right to announce and agitate for its policies. Silence is not an option.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Ross I was a one-term member of the Hutt South executive for the Nats and I decided to resign this year. I have always supported centre right policies even when I was young. I have never voted for anything but conservative politics although post-MMP I have not always given my party vote to National. (Once I gave it to ACT.)
I resigned because Key is a vacillating compromiser in the political arena thus far. He has given me no confidence he will take hard decisions to maximise our great little nation’s potential, rather he has consistently indicated he is willing to compromise with policies that will ensure negative outcomes for the country.
To me, that’s bollocks. Douglas in the 80’s saved this country by taking hard unpopular decisions – he should and would be lauded for that, if it weren’t for the lefty propaganda and P.C. psychobabble b.s. that infests the media and the schools and the universities.
Yes, Key is unproven, and maybe I should have given him the benefit of the doubt. But the hard decisions necessary by the incoming administration require someone with political balls. Key has not demonstrated those thus far, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them. Show us the money John. There is no-one else apart from you.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
no..that’s all good..!..mike..!
reminding the ’soft’ centre just what act/national means..
is doing us all a service..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
“rodney..did you put your residential address on that exhortation to vote act..?”
Good on you rodney.Don’t worry about our resident drug addict phoool, as he is a sad case who is best ignored at all times.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“nothing really to distinguish between the rabid right”
Can’t you read? The whole point of Mr. Hide’s post was that ACT’s policies cannot be described as “rabid right”, and he made a cogent and relatively objective argument in support of that view. Your problem Mr. Miller is your pathetic inability to perceive things outside the shallow perspective of NZ’s incredibly constained political spectrum. In fact, you are wrong when you describe yourself as “centre/ right”. As a National loyalist, you’re actually on the real political scale, far closer to the looney left than ACT is to the looney right. (BTW, your political tutor was a fucken idiot too.)
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
We should all pack Rodney’s comment up and put it under our pillow and remind ourselves of it during the next 6 months.
Hear hear RB – I dismissed Ross instantly I saw the advice he took from his ‘politics tutor’, who was more than likely just a 23 yr old Honours student with no experience in actual politics.
Finally, I have read and read and heard all during the last two years that “Act has no policy”; “where’s Rodney & Heather” blah blah blah, and as soon as they start announcing stuff the nervous Nats start twitching their moustaches and visualise a decline in the polls because of Sir Roger Douglas’ return. I mean struth, we even have DPF saying Sir Roger is setting a radical agenda when Rodney quite simply points out these are ‘mainstream’ policies, to use Don’s word.
I have some news for the Nats, and it’s quite simple: Act does not exist simply to allow National to form a government.
I would much rather see Act disappear this election fighting for the sensible policy programme it is espousing, than existing in some pragmatic bubble-wrapped environment too scared to step on John Key’s toes because it might prevent him from becoming Prime Minister.
And don’t forget that National campaigned at the last election on Act policies and got ~ 40%. That is the support out there for that framework.
[DPF: I'm not sure cutting spending by $5 billion is "sensible". I'd rather just see govt spending increase more slowly than GDP, so over time it falls as a % of GDP, and tax rates reduce.]
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
philu says: “reminding the ’soft’ centre just what act/national means..” as if that’s something nasty.
That’s why all you lefties are dead wrong phil and have no chance in the election.
It’s almost that you don’t realise that the vast vast vast majority of people DO NOT see conservative politics as “evil,” as you do.
Keep “thinking” phil, it only helps the VRWC.
Bwahahahahahaha
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 am
Redbaiter, massive kudos for your eloquent speeches today.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 am
Actually, Rodney, I thought someone of Roger’s vast experience and wisdom might have waited until after the election before calling dibs on a ministerial warrant and not set up Key and English to be ambushed with that by the media. Do hope ACT is going to run a marginally smarter election campaign.
Couldn’t agree more, Gooner. But ACT might care to consider that a constructive working relationship works both ways; and I’m eagerly awaiting that ’sensible policy programme’ rather than idiotic stunts that backfire on the whole center-right.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 am
Gooner:
Ok, you had me there for a moment: politics tutor + 23 yr old Honours student with no experience in actual politics = Phillip John/Roger Nome – perhaps Ross could clear that up?
On a more serious note, I can’t find much to disagree with in Gooner’s comment.
Some musings:
Democracy isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a left-right concept, and indeed I’ve often seen leftists express their support for a democratic process. So here we are in election year, and those same leftists are afraid of … what exactly? Instead of rallying the troops and whipping up fear, why can’t they just articulate a compelling case against Act’s policies? If Act’s policies are so misguided, no-one will vote for them… will they? And if they do, isn’t that democracy in action?
The brazen born-to-rule mentality of Labour and its cling-on supporters is apparent for all to see.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
[Repost - original never appeared]
Gooner:
Ok, you had me there for a moment: politics tutor + 23 yr old Honours student with no experience in actual politics = Phillip John/Roger Nome – perhaps Ross could clear that up?
On a more serious note, I can’t find much to disagree with in Gooner’s comment.
Some musings:
Democracy isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a left-right concept, and indeed I’ve often seen leftists express their support for a democratic process. So here we are in election year, and those same leftists are afraid of … what exactly? Instead of rallying the troops and whipping up fear, why can’t they just articulate a compelling case against Act’s policies? If Act’s policies are so misguided, no-one will vote for them… will they? And if they do, isn’t that democracy in action?
The brazen born-to-rule mentality of Labour and its cling-on supporters is apparent for all to see.
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
DPF:
Any particular reason why my comment’s gone into moderation?
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 am
Ross – “But continue undermining the centre/right (where the battle will be won or lost) and you need to remember there are other options for National and if the best you can offer is a giant step backwards to the 1980s”
Ahhh Ross, National haven’t strayed too far into the centre right to be leading any sort of battle of ideas. Threatening ACT supporters that you’d rather go with Winston or Dunne just shows that you’re willing to compromise EVERYTHING so you can be in Govt. Your approach is undermining the whole CR.
Reducing spending by $5billion isn’t radical either. How much more has Labour increased Govt expenditure over their entire time in Government this time round? Nationals obligations are simple and clear. Dominate the agenda with clear policy that will offer a different alternative to Labour while providing leadership on the Centre Right. How is it that 2 MPs and a 70yr old are the only ones standing up for the CR while National is scurrying about practising damage control?
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
Gooner et al … take a powder guys. You know my comments weren’t about ACT policy. It was your rabid invective against John Key. But, if thats how you fellas get your rocks off then fine but I call it giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
But some advice. If you think the musing about ACT doing a deal with Labour is going to endear you to Epsom voters then perhaps you need to stop taking those party pills you’ve been flogging off around Auckland.
I repeat again. I think ACT has a part to play in a National coalition government because even if National scored over 50% (and I think that unlikely) it would be dumb politics to go it alone when really you need a build a consensus to take you through 2011 and beyond. But the sad gibber from some in your ranks I don’t think helps your cause. Lift your game guys.
BTW … Rabid right = Looney left was, I think, first directed at Hitler and Stalin back in the 1930s. Pretty accurate and that’s why a very small minority of ACTivists would feel equally at home having a drink with Keith Locke.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
But having said all that I would far rather invite someone from ACT to dinner than someone from Labour.
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Douglas was the birth and now the gravestone of ACT.
Soon we get our National identity and core assets like NZ RAIL back,
why?
because one train can transport up to ten thousand tons of goods.
One train can carry a hundred wagons dudes,
NZ is a long stretch of two Islands, and when we reclaim NZRAIL back,
we can service the Nation without selling our heritage as bmad Douglas wished,
people of NZ and Epsom wake up, Roger old and dither, Rodney lost in a dead world
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“BTW … Rabid right = Looney left was, I think, first directed at Hitler and Stalin back in the 1930s.”
Both big government totalitarians and mass murderers who started out as Socialists. What’s your point?
Y’know what the CR’s problem is Ross? Too many appeasers like you holding forth in National. Go and join Labour. Judging by the political mood you’ve displayed here, you’d be much happier with the collectivists.
Listen to me people- WE ARE TOO TOLERANT OF THESE CONFUSED SIX OF ONE HALF A DOZEN OF THE OTHER WAVERING POLITICAL CHAMELEONS. THEY ARE THE REAL REASON THE LEFT IS SO ASCENDANT.
They must be driven from the National Party and replaced by people who know what National should be standing for. People who have the courage and the passion to pursue those ideas, and are articulate enough to explain them to an electorate deeply suspicious after decades of leftist ascendancy. I’m sorry Mr. Miller, but your time is over. You lost, and here, along with John Key, you’re only advocating strategies that will mean the right will go on losing. Its time to admit your failure and leave with some grace.
BTW May, thanks again for your kind comments. (Hope this one isn’t too OTT for you:) ).
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Miller, “If you think the musing about ACT doing a deal with Labour is going to endear you to Epsom voters then perhaps you need to stop taking those party pills you’ve been flogging off around Auckland.”
ACT and Labour! ROTFLMAO. Yeah, and Heather and Paul might stage a reconciliation.
Miller again, “But having said all that I would far rather invite someone from ACT to dinner than someone from Labour.”
Come, come, you might find some of us better company than you imagine. (Although, not having paid my dues for a few years, I might not qualify as Labour anymore.) Think carefully now, has anything that Redbaiter, for example, ever contributed here indicated that he has any of the qualities — humour, quality of thought, erudition, articulateness — that makes for a good dinner party companion? See what I mean.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“Instead of rallying the troops and whipping up fear, why can’t they just articulate a compelling case against Act’s policies?”
Thanks for the laff. They can’t of course, because what they would also need is an argument for leftism, and there isn’t one. Not one that stands up to logical scrutiny that is.
..and anyway, why would they ever turn their back on an electoral strategy (whipping up fear) that has always brought them so much success in the past?
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“dinner partner companion” ; haha drop kick comment, what the hell, this jaffa is cracked.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“See what I mean.”
But you’re a leftist. Mentally and socially crippled by the strait jacket of post modernist thought patterns, at the expense of real social skills, how would you ever know?
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
# Redbaiter Add karma Subtract karma +1 Says: March 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“See what I mean.”
But you’re a leftist. Mentally and socially crippled by the strait jacket of post modernist thought patterns, at the expense of real social skills, how would you ever know?
I rest my case!
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“I rest my case!”
The only case you’ll ever rest is in the mental case department – you leftist dipshit jaffa wimp.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Instead of rallying the troops and whipping up fear, why can’t they just articulate a compelling case against Act’s policies?”
Because they don’t need to. Too many NZers suffered too much under the neoliberal policies of 1984-1987 and 1990-1993. All that suffering speaks for itself. Easier just to shout “Douglas is back!” and try not to get trampled to death in the rush for the door.
Hope you noticed the similarities between Armstrong’s analysis and my comments the other day. Namely, “Thursday’s behaviour was lose-lose by jeopardising National’s grip on centre-ground voters and in the process Act’s big chance of being in Government.”
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Jafapete:
What case? Oh that’s right, some silly little infantile point-scoring exercise.
You claim Labour-leaning credentials (“I might not qualify as Labour anymore“). Got anything to say about why you’re so terrified of Act and its policies?
Edit: now seen your 5:02 comment. You rely on slogans “neoliberal” and date references “1984-1987 and 1990-1993“. That doesn’t really cut it as an argument, in my book. What else have you got?
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“Easier just to shout “Douglas is back!” and try not to get trampled to death in the rush for the door.”
Hahha, that’s funny. The only door people are at risk of getting trampled near is the one to the international departure lounge at Auckland airport. A risk that increases daily as the Nats under Key look less and less likely of achieving any real change.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Same old socialist pc wimp shit, as the airport departure lounges crank it up. John Key can look forward to waving at non existent crowds, just like Auntie Helen does all the time. What a country of politically deluded moonbats.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Gueez Redbaiter … feeling better now. Hope so, but with friends like you ACT certainly doesn’t need too many enemies.
‘Appeaser’ hmmmmmmmm seem to remember it was some broken down members of the aristocracy and elements of big business along with the ‘left’ that were the were the appeasers in the 1930s. You have some of those elements in ACT.
But hang in there old son. One day you might wake up and smell the roses and realise that (unfortunately) people voted for MMP which requires consensus building among political parties. The reality is that ACT is the political ‘right’ equivalent of Jim Anderton’s Progressives. He at least knows how to work through that. I suspect that Rodney does too. Pity you don’t.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“But hang in there old son. One day you might wake up and smell the roses and realise that (unfortunately) people voted for MMP which requires consensus building among political parties.”
Where’s the second referendum that the Nat’s promised?
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Because they don’t need to. Too many NZers suffered too much under the neoliberal policies of 1984-1987 and 1990-1993. All that suffering speaks for itself. Easier just to shout “Douglas is back!” and try not to get trampled to death in the rush for the door.”
Who suffered but those who were living off of the backs of others via of the State….and the unproductive and wasteful.And those who required subsides to remain in business making all kiwis worse off as a result.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“The reality is that ACT is the political ‘right’ equivalent of Jim Anderton’s Progressives. He at least knows how to work through that”
Actually Anderton has been wrong about every major public policy issue since he went to Parliament. ACT on the other hand is often right but operates in advance of most of the other parliamentary parties. You see this on tax cuts, treaty settlements etc. It’s therefore a good idea the small parties advance ideas – it helps shape and shift the debate.
Buy running the argument that Douglas scares off the soft centre support for National, this must be a concession that National’s policy programme is little different to Labour’s.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
You didn’t think that through very well. Where else are National going to get the votes from to actually win enough seats to be able to form the next Government? There aren’t anymore to be gained on the right as they got those in 2005, they certainly should pick up some of the NZ First oldies votes. There are policy areas where Key can sell the voters the idea the National isn’t a carbon copy of Labour.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Ross Miller said (to me):
“It was your rabid invective against John Key.”
I don’t think I have ever exhibited rabid invective against Key. I want the guy to be PM.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Craig Ranapia:
–But ACT might care to consider that a constructive working relationship works both ways; and I’m eagerly awaiting
–that ’sensible policy programme’ rather than idiotic stunts that backfire on the whole center-right.
Ahhh, Craig. I am still waiting for policy from National that proves they themselves are on the centre-right. Rodney above outlined a very sensible policy plan that I KNOW you would have supported years ago. All those years in opposition has softened many of you Nats up.
I want Key as PM too, the only people saying ACT folk don’t want Key as PM are the Nats. What gives?