–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?

“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.

By 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.

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.

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.

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.

Where’s the second referendum that the Nat’s promised?

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.

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.

I rest my case!

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?

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.”

The only case you’ll ever rest is in the mental case department – you leftist dipshit jaffa wimp.

I rest my case!

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?

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?

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.

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:) ).