Are you implying that ACT people “imply” what you said above, that we assume people are dumb and that we refer to them as “smelly brown people” etc?

I have never heard such nonsense in relation to how anybody I know would refer to other people like that, across the political spectrum. Nice attempt to call us elitest though – if anything, the far left are the worst at doing that. They hate almost everybody (rich, hard workers, businesses, capitalism, go getters, free thinkers)… everybody ACT and Libz actively love.

“black helicopters circling your house now.”

Ahhhh I think that should be “African American” Helicopters you insensitive racist you…..:-0

It’s the kiss of death to say voters are too dumb to know what is good for them. Many ACT and libertarian type people imply this.

I would argue you’re way off base there. There are many examples of ACT policies that are quite the opposite – the general philosophy is that most if not all people can get on with their lives without government intervention, and that intervention should be reserved for those who genuinely need it. To give examples.

1. Education. ACT policies include things like school choice and school vouchers. Labour policies include zoning and no choice. ACT believes that if you give the poorest people the choice as to where they send their kids for school, they’ll make a good choice (studies show that even the “worst” parents want more for their kids, and will send them to a school that helps to achieve that). There is also a lot of evidence that different educational styles suit different kids – some kids need discipline, others need a lot of opportunity to follow their fancy. ACT policies allow this. Labour believes that the people are too stupid to make their own choices, and that everyone should have a one size fits all education – you should go to the public school nearest you and you should have no or little choice over the education that school offers.

2. Justice. ACT believes you should stick to laws on things where people are impacting each other negatively. If parents believe that a smack is good parenting, then they should be allowed to do so. If parents believe that there should be no physical discipline of children, they can do that too. When smacking turns into abuse, ACT believes we should throw the book at the abuser. But at levels below abuse (i.e. a smack) there are many conflicting studies, and reasonable people can disagree about whether it is a good idea or not. ACT thinks that, in that situation, the govt shouldn’t be making the decision for you. Labour thinks that parents are too stupid to make this choice, and that parents are too stupid to know the difference between a smack and abuse. Therefore, they criminalised all smacking.

I think if you look objectively you’ll find the left are the group that most commonly treat citizens as they are stupid. The bit that particularly annoys me is that the upper middle class do-gooders who like to vote for Labour generally think that these policies should be applied to “those other people” – but often have no desire at all for the policies to apply to them personally. In short, they think they are smart enough to make their own choices, but all “those other people” aren’t, and should have their choices dictated for them. It drives me quite insane when they can’t see that “those other people” are just people like them, and don’t really need busy bodies telling them how to run their lives.

“….they’re polling well with a “change” message. Too bad they can’t actually be honest about what that change really means”

Actually I don’t think the Nats are pushing the time for a change thing at all… its a natural phenomenon .. they are just cashing in on it.

A Change in Ministerial personnel with National actually means not much change in existing policy settings. Probably insufficient to scare stay at home Labour voters out to vote Labour again.

I work for a government department, and I’d have a hard time finding anyone at work who’ll admit to supporting Labour.

“EPMU intimidates workers”

Anyone from the media here?

I guess thats another reason people are switching off liaboring – The electorate has moved on, only liarboring havent twigged on yet.

As Ruth notes, radicalism easily turns to fundamentalism and blinkered thinking.

Yeah – despite wages dropping for working class people in the 1990s because of National’s Employment Contracts Act and benefit cuts, they’re polling well with a “change” message. Too bad they can’t actually be honest about what that change really means.

Another offense is to claim women should support Clark simply because we share a similar anatomy. The same mistake was made with Hillary Clinton. In my feminism I’m allowed to choose my allegiances based on criteria other than shared gender.

In my feminism, men do not get to be automatically wonderful just because they’re men. And women don’t get to be automatically wonderful just because they’re women and we’re supposed to be working on some kind of “sisterhood.” I’ve been knifed in the back by too many rich white yuppie “sisters” in the course of my life to trust them blindly. I’ve also seen too many organisations that were completely disrupted by their combative operational style.

Not everyone is, or wants to be, as urbane as the Wellington Central latte sipper *thinks* they are.

It’s got such a ‘New York loft feel’ – Yeah Right.