ACT Board Survey
January 26th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarACT on Campus had a great idea – they surveyed the candidates for the ACT Board on various issues.
The full responses from the candidates is here as a 39 page pdf.
They have also done a summary of the responses here. They asked questions on:
- Role of the Board
- What ACT is most lacking
- Should Board or members determine final list
- Who from history you would most want to meet
- Which two laws you most want to repeal
- MMP vs FPP
- Should NZ become a republic
- Views on Wanganui gang patch laws
- What is your conception of equality
- Penal policy
- Death penalty support
- Alcohol purchase age and sale restrictions
- Drugs policy
- Internet censorship views
- Prostitution legalisation
- Student loans policy
- Main three policies ACT should campaign on
If I was an ACT member, I would find the survey results invaluable in helping me decide who I want to run my party.
Maybe the Young Nationals could do the same for the next National Board elections?
Related posts:
- Was this an alcohol issue?
- Conservative Party policy?
- NZer elected to ICANN Board
- Paul Swain appointed InternetNZ Board Chair
January 26th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Great feedback mechanism. National would do well to emulate this initiative and refine it a bit.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Hell, I thought (at least) one of the prime questions would be-
” What in your opinion is the optimum size of government? ”
Instead we’ve got all that touchy feely trendy stuff.
I guess that’s what happens when the party becomes basically a haven for “socially conscious” urban liberals.
Wonder David Garret can stand it.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
We sorta assumed all the candidates would agree on that sort of thing – and there were two questions about what policies they would repeal, and what they would like ACT to run on, so they revealed any minor differences.
Would love to see the Young Nats survey the Nat’s board – ideally with the same questions for comparisons sake!
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
” We sorta assumed all the candidates would agree on that sort of thing ”
Well what is it then?
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Interesting to see… however it appears there is some contention with the results – to anwser a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is difficult as we all know our views can be dependent on viarable circumstances and regulations imposed
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
18. Is there anything in your past that you wouldn’t want to see in the news?
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Agreed Captain, that’s why we suggest you read the full survey for the actual answers.
A summary can only ever be lossy.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
The list of questions tells us a lot about the future of ACT if ACT on Campus supplies leaders.That, is another 0.005 per cent ghost party, of libertarian fringers. Gimme Sir Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble any time.
What’s in these students’ minds? Decriminalise drugs? Hands off student loans? Open slather on booze? Republican? Soft on criminal gangs?
Which historical figure from history would you like to meet? Would that by any chance be a toss up between Jack Kerouac and Ayn Rand?
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Hi Jack,
Met any young people recently?
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Reading through the full report now Peter, a great initiative and good lunch time reading!
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Peteremcc asked at 12.35:
I meet them every day, Peter, mostly, of course idealistic. But very few of them fit the picture suggested by the ACT questionnaire.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Well, other than our student loans position, i’m quite confident that our view would be more popular than the alternative.
I’m pretty sure criminalising drugs, restricting alcohol and monarchy would be more likely get a party to 0.005% in the future than our ideas.
Then again, since when did being popular have anything to do with being right?
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
@Guy Fawkes
Or, indeed, The UK Conservatives. I have absolutely no idea if there is any synergy between the shadow cabinet and the grassroots of the party. Care to shed any light?
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
In case nobody had noticed, ACT is currently a fringe party. Being a bit bolder instead of trying to be National-but-a-bit-more-right-wing would at least be doing something to up their poll ratings that hasn’t been tried before.
However, the advance of classical liberal ideas and laissez-faire economics would probably be a lot better off with ACT’s non-existence. The place for adherent activists with these views is both National and Labour, the major parties, where we might get better and more policy-oriented government as a result.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
How’s that going in National at the moment Blair?
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I’ll let you know after the next two elections Peter
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Ok, but I’m not willing to wait 9 years to see if National will do anything, and risk nothing having happened when Labour get power back!
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Excellent point Blair.
BTW, funny that ACT’s spokeman here is apparently stumped by a simple question such as “what is the opitimum size of government?”
I would have thought that as Peter suggested, they’d all have a good idea of and a rapid answer to such a simple question. (I note other questions have been answered.)
Apparently not.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Very useful. I see the board is pretty much hijacked by urban white liberal males. I’ll read the pdf but I’m now 99% sure I’ll be actively campaigning against ACT as well as National at the next election. Sad really considering these two parties were our last hope to stay on the OECD ladder.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Good move by ACT on Campus.
I hesitate to take the above comments seriously however here goes: So Blair what is wrong with being a fringe Party?
What is it in both the history and make up of National and Labour that makes you assume they can be persuaded to advance classical liberal ideas and laissez-faire economics?
Taking the National Party in particular, what post 1941 (when it gave up opposing the welfare state and adopted a platform of better managerialism’) would suggest a philosophical commitment or interest in classical liberal ideas and laissez-faire economics.
How would two duelling conservative parties (one of the centre left and one of the centre right) benefit from the ‘influx’ you propose?
Look at some issues first raised by ACT since 1996 which are now widely held positions in the NZ Parliament: a cut off for historical treaty claims and accelerated settlement (now supported by most of Parliament initially declared racist by most of Parliament) and tax cuts (initially declared socially irresponsible but now the size of Government is the pressing issue of the time)
ACT will always be destined to adopt and advanced new thinking on the centre-right. By necessity that means initially its positions will not be universally popular among Parliamentary parties many of whom for competitive response reasons will claim to oppose these ideas and then later as public policy moves on, quietly adopt them.
ACT has also adopted an approach which indicates some new thinking about how one advances the agenda as a tiny parliamentary and electoral minority in an MMP Parliament with two duelling conservative parties.
Game changing focuses less on substantive big bang policy packages and more on process. Look at the consideration of property rights now in the Cabinet Manual and more progress on the taxpayers bill of rights and regulatory responsibility bill to come. These are low political cost and risk for National (Labour will fight them but will get no popular momentum because of their technical nature) they start changing policy on the margins and over the longer term they really bit. This strategy recognises the parliament is into the status quo and both Labour and National and increasing reliant on the bureaucracy for policy innovation.
Today’s fringe is tomorrow’s orthodoxy.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
“Today’s fringe is tomorrow’s orthodoxy.”
Not “tomorrow” unfortunately. Maybe next century at the rate ACT is going. More likely never.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Peteremcc said … “Then again, since when did being popular have anything to do with being right?”…
Heh! keep the trainer wheels on your push bike kiddy. There are things like gravity that you can’t argue with.
A seat on the treasury benches is another.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Gotta say, on the basis of that report, I would vote for Tashkoff.
Sensible, eloquent with a right mix of populism and (written) flair. If this report does indeed reflect his personality, then a big future for him in politics, I do foresee.
Yoda
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Red, I’m not an ACT spokesperson.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
” Red, I’m not an ACT spokesperson.”
I thought “on here” (as I qualified it with) you were taking a lot on your shoulders.
I’m disappointed the question is apparently too hard for you.
(Oh BTW sorry for using “spokesman”. Just another redneck plow pushing hillbilly I guess. Can’t help myself.)
(BTW2- What do you think of the way the Tea Party movement has caught the public’s attention in the US?)
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Ok, what is the optimum size? Optimum for who?
Is it possible to pull something like that out of the air? Presumably it would take a bit of trial and error, and would need ongoing adjustment to account for changing demands, population etc.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Redbaiter
One half of the Statler and Waldorf of the New Zealand blogosphere.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
” Optimum for who? ”
Optimum for fucking ACT party members. Who the hell do you think?? Jezuz.
Go away. I’m not asking you.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Act started as effectively a liberal party, believing in “self determination” etc. It was the hypocrites like David Garret who stand for self determination so far as it has anything to do with money and rip it away when it comes to any other right with how to live ones life who hijacked the party, not the other way round.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
That if you manufacture news, heavily mislead on facts and fund the underlying “movement” you are reporting on that it can do ok.
Funny that.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I Liked this for three positions for elections best
Lech Beltowshi:
1) Tax cuts- because high taxes lower productivity and cost everybody (except the govt which rather explains things!) The best way to reduce tax is to make sure Govt is reduced to 1999 levels and is forced to live within its new reduced income
2) Law and order – Law-abiding citizens need to regain their full right of self defence while at the same time we need to make police legally accountable for their behaviour as well as their failure to reduce crime. Also, parole and mental health systems need to be (finally) held properly accountable
3) Fight global warming hysteria and its associated tax and freedom grab to save money, jobs and ultimately our society.
Vote your PARTY vote ACT next election!
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
“Act started as effectively a liberal party, believing in “self determination” etc.”
Jut the kind of ideologically confused rubbish that ensures that ACT will remain a minimal influence on politics in NZ. Most ACT people I have had conversations with think “liberal” and “progressive” are interchangeable.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Practical politics isn’t about picking an ideology and sticking with it regardless of reality.
So, optimum theoretical size?
Optimum size if Act are ever in the position of leading a coalition?
Or optimum size that may be achievable through minority party influence?
Chris suggests Act is realistic about what they should aim for, something that is feasible and pragmatic, rather than pie-in-the-sky ideals.
Vote:“ACT has also adopted an approach which indicates some new thinking about how one advances the agenda as a tiny parliamentary and electoral minority in an MMP Parliament with two duelling conservative parties.”
January 26th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
” Practical politics isn’t about picking an ideology and sticking with it regardless of reality.”
So why all the other 17 questions??
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Blair is correct. It is not the existence of ACT that will stop anything, but the absence of real purpose in National that accelerates the decline. Hence ACT should close shop and its followers should join and become active in National.
Right now it risks being typified as just another fringe group full of narcissists and losers more interested in the sound of their own voice than actually achieving real change.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Theres no conflict between the true and the practicle….objective reality makes it so. ACT needs to embrace its classic Liberal heart and go with it…..not waffle about with a contradictory and failed conserevative strain that puts people off due to its contradictions and inability to work in reality.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
” Theres no conflict between the true and the practicle….objective reality makes it so.”
Jeezzuz..
See?
Exactly what I mean.
(Just what your average NZ panelbeater is going to go for.)
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Redbaiter, the Zimmer Frame general of the centre right wants to ‘man up’ National by ACT members joining it (so long as they don’t talk poncy but rather panelbeater) in a sort of reverse take over. Like Don Brash…. But this time it’s once more with feeling and not so up market.
Of course he neglects the ballast of National’s own history as the anti Labour Party.
He also ignores the reality of the current electoral system.
And who will do the more risky thinking on the centre-right, who can afford to be right about public policy issues ahead of the bulk of public opinion.
Vote:January 26th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“Set company and top personal income tax rate to 28%” – Ivor Watson.
Why does this figure seem to increase every year?
Vote:January 27th, 2010 at 2:54 am
National wouldn’t ever publish anything like this as we’d laugh them out of the building How refreshing to be able to read that at least some people believe in lower taxes instead of the “John knows best” philosophy.
If you don’t vote ACT and want lower taxes then you’re an idiot. I am still waiting for all the stuff the National supporters promised we’d get after John kept WFF, interest free student loans and everything else Labour inflicted upon us…..
Vote:January 27th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
My advice (as a former ACT deputy board member) is to vote for the best local organisers rather than the best philosophical fit. The board doesn’t influence a lot below national level and doesn’t get influenced by members unless the board members do get involved in the local running.
Vote: