ACT and Epsom

February 25th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

John Armstrong in NZ Herald reports:

voters are likely to be targeted by a combined scare campaign and charm offensive from as the party ratchets up its efforts to hold the seat.

Act is putting even more emphasis on National’s need for a reliable coalition partner to persuade local voters to allow it to keep its toehold in Parliament despite its basement-level support in nationwide polls..

Act’s new president, John Boscawen told the party’s weekend conference that if Act was not back in 2014 in even bigger numbers, National woulds be dependent on either the Maori Party or NZ First “or worse still, both of them”.

“The people of Epsom have huge power and have used it very wisely.”

Mr Boscawen said that as president he would go out and about with John Banks every week on to the streets of Epsom, into the shops and on to the doorsteps, and constantly remind Epsom voters of how crucial their vote was in securing a further three years of National government.

Many people do not realise this, but if National had won Epsom, then Labour would have gained an additional List MP. This would have meant a hung Parliament.

  • National 59 and United Future 1 = 60
  • Labour 35 + Greens 14 + NZ First 8 + Mana 1 = 58
  • Maori = 3

The Maori Party would have held the balance of power if National had won either Epsom or Ohariu.

Of course that doesn’t mean that will automatically be the same scenario in 2014, but if things are close again, then individual seats may be very important.

The reason Labour would gain an extra seat, is because the currently sit on the 121st quotient. If ACT failed to qualify for allocation, then effectively their quotient goes to the party that was closest to next getting an MP. National has the 120th quotient and Labour the 121st, so Labour would have benefited from ACT’s demise.

Tags: ,

103 Responses to “ACT and Epsom”

  1. Harriet (4,758 comments) says:

    Who cares….anythings better than PG holding the balance of power! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    A CHARM OFFENSIVE from John Banks? Mr Armstrong has a real way with words :lol:

    Vote for us, we’ve had so many new handles and heads, but we’re still the same blunt rounded-off hammer you know and trust… right?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    ACT need to get rid of Banks. He is so tainted now that he may well be the demise of them. There is a place for ACT but they need to rebrand themselves and try to put the past issues behind them. Banks is a liability in this aspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    ACT was brought undone by being infiltrated by brain damaged libertarians and self described liberals (really pseudo-liberals).

    If its got any chance of getting going again, which I doubt, it has to get rid of the idiot Perigo faction, and the pro redefinition of marriage John Banks.

    Anyone who will re-invent themselves to the degree Banks has done is worthless in terms of political principle. Perigo has got so old of late, and has never had any idea on strategy. It was his idiot advice (to Don Brash) that practically destroyed ACT in the last election.

    If they don’t dump the self promoting and insincere chameleon Banks, they’ve got even less credibility than they enjoy now. Their brand is just mush and needs to be firmed up.

    (Although how liberals can ever firm up anything is a question I can’t answer.)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    The most prominent messages from Act in the weekend were not any party attributes but simply how they could prevent the Maori Party from holding the balance of power and how closely dependent Banks is on National.

    Party president John Boscawen mentioned ‘Maori Party’ about 8 times in his conference speech.

    And John Banks, in his speech and in just about every media opportunity, kept portraying himself as an essential limpet on National and kept stressing National’s dependence on him.

    I heard Banks on Radio NZ this morning and he sounded repetitively desperate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    I am pleased you have reinforced this David. That is what I said on Saturday.

    I also said I intend to go out with John Banks every week into Epsom and campaign alongside him and constantly remind Epsom voters how they determined the outcome of the last election.

    In fact we are starting in less than an hour as it happens. At 12 noon today in Remuera.

    And Chinese TV want to join us

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. James Stephenson (2,135 comments) says:

    stressing National’s dependence on him.

    ACT’s reason for existence is to be the ones to blame for “rightwing” policies that John Key wants to implement but won’t if there’s a risk of people not liking him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    Banks on Radio NZ this morning was hilarious.

    MERCEP: “Do you think the tea tapes and Kim Dotcom stuff will make it hard for you to lead ACT to victory?”

    BANKS: “I’m not focusing on the past. I’ve won 12 elections. I’m not focusing on the past. I’ve won 12 elections.”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (868 comments) says:

    John Key was on target for an absolute majority without the need for any support partner until the wretched teapot scandal broke out. It was a simple meeting which turned into a disaster and Winston exploited it. The outcome of 2014 is very simple. If Winston cannot get over the 5% threshold, John Key will get another term. If Winston crosses 5% threshold, game over for John Key as Labour will do anything to get into power. This will mean, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister position for Norman, Foreign Minister position for Winnie and Maori Affairs Minister role for Hone.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Rick Rowling (825 comments) says:

    Yes but a Labour+Green+NZ First+Mana+Maori government is a self-remedying problem.

    Mid to long term it would probably have been better for National – 3 to 4 months in opposition, inevitable government melt-down and re-election, massive permanent damage to several of the coalition partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “I also said I intend to go out with John Banks every week into Epsom and campaign alongside him”

    Well, unless you can pull some kind of rabbit out of a hat you will lose, because Banks sounds more fake and insincere every day. He does not belong in ACT, and in fact because of his constant shape shifting he does not belong anywhere any more.

    Epsom may want to return an anti-Labour coalition but they won’t vote for a chameleon who changes his political colour according to his surroundings.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    A similar thing would have happened if Labour hadn’t re-taken Te Tai Tonga from the Maori Party: National + United Future + ACT would have been 61 MPs in a 122 MP Parliament, and not able to pass legislation without the Maori Party (although they could have stopped a Labour + Green + NZF + Maori + Mana from passing anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    With ACT offering little by Epsom, really a National seat, and little if anything in terms of additional List MPs from their P.Vote I would think it time for National to reassert its ownership and stop lending the membership of Epsom to ACT and see where the cards fall 2014. The big Q. for National is, do they want to keep ACT around long term as a possible future ally (ie Epsom on intravenous) or look elsewhere. It’s time to turn off the machine. Who are ACT voters gonna vote for other than National anyway. Allow the pigeons to fly home,

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Matt (226 comments) says:

    To survive, Act need to be relevant. Taking votes from the right of National is not relevant and does not help get Act policies adopted by government. Act has spent it’s history campaigning on economic issues but mostly ignoring social issues. This has been entirely wrongheaded. The best way to get the right into power is to take votes off the left, and the most powerful weapon that Act has to get those votes is it’s social liberalism.

    I think that Act should re-position itself to be a party which drags National into making social reforms and encourages them to make brave economic reforms, but also potentially could involve itself with Labour in the future (this must be a realistic option to give leverage with the Nats) with the intention of progressing social reform but preventing economic reforms made by National governments from being reversed.

    The first step would be to find a new leader…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “The best way to get the right into power is to take votes off the left, and the most powerful weapon that Act has to get those votes is it’s social liberalism.”

    That’s right ACT- go with the social liberalism.

    That’s the thing that has always done the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers so well in the past.

    FFS….!!!

    A party that for its political blindness in listening to morons like Matt, deserves to die.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. nasska (11,092 comments) says:

    If ACT are determined to hang on to Banks then they should look for a new name for the party. “North of Bombay” or “Only Epsom” spring to mind for as long as the smarmy, lying plonker is the face of ACT votes will be few & far between from the rest of NZ.

    The pity is that straight up people such as John Boscawen & David Garrett bury their heads in the sand & stand by Banks as his toxic personality completely stuffs the brand they have worked to create.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    The only thing wrong with ACT is that they always fail totally at selling their message at election time.

    WE WILL GET TOUGH ON CRIME!! billboards so that half the public thinks they’re a yucky white conservative party of haters who just want to see more maoris in jail.

    Brash getting so tied up in knots people don’t know whether they agree or disagree with him.

    Sneering Catherine Rich on the radio whinging about how stupid everybody who disagrees with her is.

    Etc…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    I presume you meant Catherine Isaacs.

    Act obvioulsy wanted a leadership in team and Banks just as an Epsom holder, now they have to try and deal with him as sole MP and party leader. It will be difficiult to extracate themselves .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    ACT’s main problem, like UF, is its brand is not distinct enough to justify a party, unlike Greens or Maori. “More National than National” is not strong enough to justify a party vote. ACT have only survived, like NZF, as a Reaction party in the first seven MMP elections. Now that things have settled a bit, small parties have to justify their raison detre more to the public, by actually representing something they can vote for, not just strategic coalition schinanigans.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @John Boscawen 11:24 am

    When Rodney Hide was rolled as ACT Leader it was because he no longer had the number in ACT’s caucus. Now that the ACT Caucus has only one member, the Leader, how can a leadership change occur other than through the resignation of the incumbent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    iMP – you’re right. Act tried to Brashly differentiate itself but ironically ended up with one virtual National MP in parliament.

    UF still suffer from no distinct brand to differentiate itself, especially since ruling out backing Labour – and there’s no solution in sight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Viking2 (11,340 comments) says:

    nasska (5,733) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    If ACT are determined to hang on to Banks then they should look for a new name for the party. “North of Bombay” or “Only Epsom” spring to mind for as long as the smarmy, lying plonker is the face of ACT votes will be few & far between from the rest of NZ.

    The pity is that straight up people such as John Boscawen & David Garrett bury their heads in the sand & stand by Banks as his toxic personality completely stuffs the brand they have worked to create.
    ———————-
    Unfortunately John B this is correct.
    Act should find a really good other candidate and place him in another electorate. there are a few that could be won by Act.
    Anywhere there is a weak National MP and there are a few of those.

    Act fell because it failed in its communication to the electorate. Its communication money was constantly wasted and never focused on its message to people A message about its real policies. Bob Jones showed exactly how to do that years ago.

    To many focus groups and wasted advertizing spend. Didn’t hit the average persons mind and cause them to reconsider the opportunity to achieve things that the others just will never do.

    Act always had and still have some really good policy. Its just never been properly communicated. Five things is all they need. Stay focused and get great candidates and the argument will be all over.
    Really simple stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bringbackdemocracy (419 comments) says:

    At the last election if the Conservatives had won an electorate seat they would have had three MPs, and National, Labour and the Greens would each have had one less.
    The Conservatives provide a better coalition option for National as they can take votes of NZ First, Labour’s socially conservative Pasifika supporters as well as National.
    Act only take votes from National. Taking $20.00 from your right pocket and putting it in your left doesn’t increase your wealth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Viking2 (11,340 comments) says:

    Pete George (16,409) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    iMP – you’re right. Act tried to Brashly differentiate itself but ironically ended up with one virtual National MP in parliament.

    UF still suffer from no distinct brand to differentiate itself, especially since ruling out backing Labour – and there’s no solution in sight.
    ————————-
    Of course not Pete.

    So why would anyone in Ohariu vote for Dunne?
    Won’t support Labour. National don’t really care for his seat sitting.
    Chuvael is off to a greater calling, so that opens up the contest real nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    UF still suffer from no distinct brand to differentiate itself, especially since ruling out backing Labour..

    If the unthinkable happens, are you, P.G., prepared to put money on Dunne, the chameleon, not forming a coalition with socialist Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    A party who declares its sole reason for existence is to help National’s block win an extra seat in parliament, is one admitting it is without any purpose.

    Some years ago someone in ACT said that they must never be reliant on winning an electorate seat to win representation in parliament, they should always aspire to win more than 5% of the vote.

    Now his party needs to RIP.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    Manolo – too soon to call, it’s still uncertain if Dunne will stand again. He said he will make a decision early next year.

    they should always aspire to win more than 5% of the vote.

    Brash aspired to win much more than 5% last election. Since Banks took over it has become preservation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Peter (1,687 comments) says:

    Banks is the problem, not the solution.

    ACT needs a cleanout. And a new name.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    The principles of the ACT Party have a place in this country’s political discourse. Banks should get out and let someone who represents them lead it. There are plenty of young Kiwis coming through who are both socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It must be intensely frustrating for them to see a party that would and should represent their views, but doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    @bringbackdemocracy

    If the Conservative Party wants to attract more votes the party has to practice what it preaches and allow a little direct democracy within the party.

    Who else speaks for the party besides Colin Craig?

    It has some very good policy but also very poorly articulated policy which by definition must not be good.

    If Colin is not capable of arguing his policy effectively on a forum such a Kiwiblog how well will he be able to argue his case in coalition talks or in Parliament?

    I of course cannot not speak for DPF but I dount if he would give Colin demerits and ban him for stating his honestly held beliefs on homosexuality on KB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Matt (226 comments) says:

    Red, I note that Act’s slogan is “The Liberal Party” not “The Conservative Party”, nor “The Dinosaur Party” nor even “The Reactionary Party”. Yes it’s goal is primarily economic liberalism. But this is entirely consistent with social liberalism and this is what can be made to appeal to people who usually vote for Labour or the Greens.

    Winning voters over who usually vote for National anyway is a waste of time both for the right as a whole, because it doesn’t make it more likely that the right will govern, but also for Act specifically because they have no leverage to get National to implement its policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dime (9,793 comments) says:

    i just hope Dunne gets to stay a minister for whoever wins and his income doesnt change. i also hope Air NZ transition to airbus faster so dunne doesnt have to fly in a 737 again. that wasnt cool.

    we need a new right wing party to target a safe national seat. maggie barrys or someone.

    im surprised labour havent asked one of their highly likable MP’s to go as an independent in a safe seat. just to even it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Red, I note that Act’s slogan is “The Liberal Party” not “The Conservative Party”

    Matt that was not always the case. Before that change ACT had 8 or 9 MPs and there we MPs with a liberal and conservative views on social issues. That change which was not debated or voted on seen a considerable reduction in ACT MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Matt (226 comments) says:

    Chuck it does rather succinctly describe Act’s founding principles, regardless of when it was introduced

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Matt, I believe in dealing with reality and how things are and not ideology. I was encouraged to join ACT on two occasions. Many of the MPs expressed conservative views or at least supported referenda on conscience issues – notably Rodney Hide. I have since found out Rodney would say anything to get support.

    You idea that people who join a party should study a the party’s founding principle and constitution is totally unrealistic. Where in the founding principles os Labour or National would it advocate thier social policies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Matt (226 comments) says:

    Point taken, but my argument was that the reality of the party should change and that the changes that I suggested were not inconsistent with the party’s principles.

    Those who wish there to be a party to the right of National on every issue in parliament should leave Act and join Colin Craig

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “Yes it’s goal is primarily economic liberalism. But this is entirely consistent with social liberalism”

    A statement that suggests a fair amount of typically liberal self delusion in respect of the massive economic costs associated with social liberalism. ACTS quandary has always been whether to promote economic responsibility or social irresponsibility. It shouldn’t have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    A statement that suggests a fair amount of typically liberal self delusion in respect of the massive economic costs associated with social liberalism.

    Plenty of social liberalism is just about getting the state to be hands-off: drug laws, gay marriage…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    At the core of social liberalism is the idea that the patriarchal family unit is a dinosaur, and that idea is simultaneously at the root of our entire cultural meltdown.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    At the core of social liberalism is the idea that the patriarchal family unit is a dinosaur, and that idea is simultaneously at the root of our entire cultural meltdown.

    The core of ACT-style social liberalism is that it’s none of the State’s business how people organise themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    I don’t want the state interfering in my life.

    Unless they want to remind my wife that I’m supposed to be the one wearing the pants in our house. That’s ok…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “The core of ACT-style social liberalism is that it’s none of the State’s business how people organise themselves.”

    Good, I can’t wait for John Banks to announce that ACT is stopping Working For Families, incrementally tapering off Single Mother benefits, introducing a poll tax as the one and only tax and abolishing all government departments that deal with social issues.

    (remind you of anything?)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    “The core of ACT-style social liberalism is that it’s none of the State’s business how people organise themselves.”

    Good, I can’t wait for John Banks to announce that ACT is stopping Working For Families, incrementally tapering off Single Mother benefits, introducing a poll tax as the one and only tax and abolishing all government departments that deal with social issues.

    (remind you of anything?)

    Reminds me of what ACT is supposed to be?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “The core of ACT-style social liberalism is that it’s none of the State’s business how people organise themselves.”

    And with their emphasize on social liberalism has seen the drop from over 7% of the vote to 0.1%.

    If Murial Newman had of remained not two on the party list the party would likely have more than one MP.

    I guess hoping for a party to be run reasonably democratically is unrealistic. That appears to apply to ACT and the Conservative Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    ” Reminds me of what ACT is supposed to be?”

    That is what a true Conservative party would do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (4,758 comments) says:

    John Banks is as fucked in the head as Dame Sian Elias!

    A person’s sex is an observation at birth – it is not an arbitary decision made by a mid wive or doctor.

    No one has ever in the history of mankind had a sex change.

    Having your dick cut of and made into a pussy is not changing your sex – no matter what Banks and Elias may think – it isn’t!

    And that is the reason that people have left Act and will vote for the Conservative Party – because they prefer to hear the truth always.

    Those who speak the truth will get the votes.

    Only adults are Conservatives because only adults can handle the truth! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    No one has ever in the history of mankind had a sex change.

    Having your dick cut of and made into a pussy is not changing your sex – no matter what Banks and Elias may think – it isn’t!

    You’re tuned to kiwiblog, folks! :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Harriet (4,758 comments) says:

    RRM -like Banks and Elias- is another who suffers from dis-ordered thinking!

    Pretending to be the opposite sex does not then mean you are the opposite sex! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. David Garrett (6,929 comments) says:

    How in the name of the deity did we morph from “ACT and Epsom” to the psychology and physiology of sex changes!

    “ACT the liberal party” WAS an ACT slogan some years ago…dropped because it confused people without at least some knowledge of political philosophy … small “l” liberal now being a dirty word for many.

    Can they come back? Who knows….I hope so. I know there is some conjecture – most of it positive – that Hide will make a comeback, and if he did, I believe that could only be good. But I don’t think he will. Mind you, he is a wily bastard who only lets you know what he wants you to know…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “How in the name of the deity did we morph from “ACT and Epsom” to the psychology and physiology of sex changes!”

    Good question Dave, and if you can answer it you’re a long way towards working out why ACT is where it is today compared to when it had 8 MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Good question Dave, and if you can answer it you’re a long way towards working out why ACT is where it is today compared to when it had 8 MPs.”

    Correction – 9 MPs

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. eszett (2,391 comments) says:

    “How in the name of the deity did we morph from “ACT and Epsom” to the psychology and physiology of sex changes!”

    Good question Dave, and if you can answer it you’re a long way towards working out why ACT is where it is today compared to when it had 8 MPs.

    Harriet is responsible for ACT’s demise?
    Now there’s an interesting hypothesis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (5,443) Says: …The core of ACT-style social liberalism is that it’s none of the State’s business how people organise themselves.

    Ummm E-P-S-O-M…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. nasska (11,092 comments) says:

    eszett

    It’s said that when the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. In Harriet’s case it seems that the only cogent thought he/she entertains is an aversion to sex other than for procreation.

    My guess is that given that constriction every thread seems a logical place for antigay comments. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. pq (728 comments) says:

    all this talk is irrelevant, ACT has no electorate at all , it is a non participant in 2014, talk to to Richard Prebble beside the fireplace

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    The choice is simple in 2014.

    1. National+NZF (+Maori) OR
    2. National+ Conservative (+Maori)

    1. Winston in his 70s OR
    2. Colin Craig in his 40s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Harriet (4,758 comments) says:

    And that folks is the moral of the Act Party demise story – if you tell lies – adults will no longer vote for you. :cool:

    Now what Act voters would ever think that 2 guys in a relationship is equal to a man and a women in a relationship? :cool:

    Same-sex relationships do not promote the best interests or meet the real needs of the persons involved. The push for social recognition may be motivated by the erroneous belief that their relationship problems are caused by external forces rather than the inherent lack of true complementarity.

    1)Pseudo husband or wife – The man imitating the role of the wife senses it is unmanly to be dependent on another man. The woman imitating the role of husband often still wants to mother.

    2) Parent/child – The younger male partner by accepting the child role sacrifices his right to become a full adult. The woman accepting the child role becomes permanently dependent. The relationship is inherently incestuous.

    3) Clones/fusion – Persons in some same-sex relationships try to eradicate all differences. Individuality is not tolerated

    4) Loneliness caused by absence of the other sex or fear of the other sex caused by abuse – The persons involved sacrifice their natural heterosexuality. These relationships are inherently unstable and the person may, when the opportunity occurs, return to a heterosexual relationship.

    Children

    Children acquired by same-sex couples a subject to problems inherent in their status. In addition, same-sex couples are more likely to be at risk for a number of problems which directly impact their ability to parent.

    1) Intrinsic Factors – Every child acquired by a same sex couple has by definition been separated from one or both of his biological parents, through death, desertion, single parenthood, foster care, adoption, artificial insemination donor, or surrogate motherhood.
    Even in the best of circumstances such separation is perceived by the child as a loss. A same-sex couple is never the best of circumstances. It is by definition second best because it lacks a parent of both sexes. Worse still this particular tragedy is not accidental, but the result of the conscious, planned action of the persons on whom the child is dependent. These children are purposefully and permanently made fatherless or motherless. Adopted children ask: Why? What will these children ask? In addition, same-sex families with children function like a cult. The child’s loss is denied. The children are made to feel that their legitimate desire for a parent of both sexes is a betrayal of their family’s sacrifice in the face of a hostile, non-accepting, homophobic culture.

    2) Risk Factors — Persons with SSA are far more likely than married men and women to suffer from psychological disorders, sexual addiction and paraphilias, suicidal ideation and attempts, unstable relationships, health problems, and to have been victims of abuse or violence. These problems rarely occur singly. Many persons with SSA suffer from a combination of disorders. In addition each same-sex relationship contains two persons who are at high risk, doubling the potential for a sub-optimum outcome. One has to ask: Are social workers intentionally ignoring problems when placing children with same-sex couples who have serious problems.

    The Conservatives will get the adult vote! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Viking2 (11,340 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,269) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Can they come back? Who knows….I hope so. I know there is some conjecture – most of it positive – that Hide will make a comeback, and if he did, I believe that could only be good. But I don’t think he will. Mind you, he is a wily bastard who only lets you know what he wants you to know…

    DG. You too.
    Barristers are trained at that and criminals and others deposit fat amounts of cash into said Barristers banks accounts to do just that.

    Will you be revived as well?

    Seems like its mode of the day after Labours tragic efforts.
    Annette King circa 1980
    Trev. ditto

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Viking2 (11,340 comments) says:

    anyway the Tui this week is exemplory.

    Only heard it second hand so may not have it correct.

    Message for Bishop Tamaki.

    Opening at the Vatican

    Bishop your time has come.

    yeh right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. unpcnzcougar (52 comments) says:

    If ACT are serious about making a come back, then they will replace Banks in Epsom. Put in a younger, perhaps female candidate who his capable of putting together a sentence. Think Crusher but younger! Banks can go stand in another seat. Otherwise they will continue into oblivion as they are seen as the party of old white rich men – completely irrelevant to most voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. nasska (11,092 comments) says:

    unpcnzcougar

    A younger version of Judith Collins was on the point of standing for ACT in 2011 in the persona of Cathy Odgers. It didn’t come to pass for reasons I’m not privy to but my guess is she saw what she was in for. Our scummy left wing media are determined to kill ACT & anyone associated with it so any potential candidate is going to have their personal life scrutinised minutely. Additionally anything they say will be misquoted & reported out of context.

    The MSM in NZ are destroying democracy with their bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    Why would Act need a Collin’s clone? While they might need ‘fresh’ faces, they most definetely need a fresh message. They’re more conscious of their ‘baggage’ than what they should be. Positiveness, falling on fresh ears would help get away from what they want to leave behind. Nobody can go forward whilst also at the same time going ‘back.’ At the moment Act don’t seem ‘ruthless’ enough to even determine their own image. You can’t be a bob each way when the chips are down, it’s win or lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    ACTs problems aren’t that it became Liberal or had a Libertarian base…those were its reason for being in the first place. It was that it betrayed that by including Conservative statists and power seekers who cared not for principle….the rot set in and oozed out like pus in full view of an electorate that was repelled and never got close to understanding what the party stood for….because it itself had forgotten. The mass postive reaction by the public to Brash’s musings on cannabis decriminalization were electric and showed what ACT had missed out on with its blinded refusal to show its socially liberal side….contrary to the lies of Redbaiter et el.

    The real liberals had already left ACT in disgust long back…..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    ‘The mass postive reaction by the public to Brash’s musings on cannabis decriminalization were electric and showed what ACT had missed out on with its blinded refusal to show its socially liberal side…’

    It was a breath of fresh air in a dour political landscape.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “those were its reason for being in the first place.”

    What bullshit- It was The Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, and it had 9 MPs on the basis of that name, and none of those original MPs was any kind of publicly advocating libertarian. Not that you are either, you’re one of those clueless posturing fake liberals that destroyed ACT, in reality a doctrinal authoritarian with your bitching and moaning about a political philosophy you preach but can’t practice. And now you ponce about Kiwiblog showing ignorance of history and demonstrating what a disgusting coward and hypocrite you are. Its no wonder ACT died if such a squalid tiny minded POS as you typified its more recent membership.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nick K (1,211 comments) says:

    The mass postive reaction by the public to Brash’s musings on cannabis decriminalization were electric and showed what ACT had missed out on with its blinded refusal to show its socially liberal side…

    Political parties exist to get MPs elected. That comes first. Implementing their policies comes next. I can assure you if ACT had campaigned on decriminalising cannabis Phil Goff would be Prime Minister now, and the Greens would be in the middle of bankrupting this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    Nick K

    Get real, the most it would have done is widened thinking on how the country spends money. Policy doesn’t become law, it becomes reason for debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. wat dabney (3,755 comments) says:

    It’s John Key’s job to bankrupt the country dammit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. publicwatchdog (2,508 comments) says:

    “I also said I intend to go out with John Banks every week into Epsom and campaign alongside him and constantly remind Epsom voters how they determined the outcome of the last election.”

    Hi John Bowscawan!

    I’ll ask you on Kiwiblog the same question I asked you yesterday, outside the ACT Party gathering at 20 Gladstone Rd, Parnell:

    “Do ‘rejuvenated’ ACT still believe in ONE LAW FOR ALL?

    YES or NO?

    If YES do ACT support the private prosecutions against John Banks and Don Brash?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10867333

    YES or NO?

    PS: If you’re going out in the wilds of Epsom to support John Banks – I guess we’ll cross paths! :)

    You’ll be supporting dodgy John, and I’ll continue to ask, why does ACT’s ONE LAW FOR ALL – not apply to current and former ACT Party Leaders (ex-National Party) – John Banks and Don Brash?)

    Unless, of course, ACT’s policy on ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ has now officially been dropped.

    I’ll ask again.

    Has it?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nick K (1,211 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ

    The reaction in Epsom to the “musings” was extremely serious. I am not debating the policy, because I agree with it. What I’m saying is that it wasn’t a vote-winner for John Banks in Epsom, and at that stage of the election 5% was a forlorn hope.

    That’s why it had to be dismissed. I agree that’s sad. But it’s the reality I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. wat dabney (3,755 comments) says:

    Maybe Banks can ask Penny at the same time why she’s leeching off her poor neighbours and not paying any rates?

    She’s the ultimate socialist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “I can assure you if ACT had campaigned on decriminalising cannabis Phil Goff would be Prime Minister now”

    You are probably correct on that Nick. If the libertarian nut cases had not persuaded Brash to muse on cannabis decriminalization they would have had 2 or maybe 3 MPs.

    However, if the ACT Board at the time when Rodney was in charge had not dumped Muriel in favour of Heather Roy as she was a libertarian ACT would not be where it is today.

    Libertarians in a lot of ways are similar to fundamentalist Christians in there fanaticism. They have stuffed ACT but want to blame everyone but themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    But that isn’t the long game Nick K. It wasn’t so much about losing Epsom then, but about building a picture for the future. I doubt I ever could be convinced that Banks shafting his own leader in the heat of the battle was progressive.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (15,899 comments) says:

    I’ll buy Pete George a Donald Trump toupee if he moves to Johnsonville and Dunny retires! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nick K (1,211 comments) says:

    There was no long game vision at that stage. Four weeks out from an election is not the right time to be building one. All that mattered at that stage was getting John Banks over the line, and dragging some MPs with him. Politics is the art of the possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    If politics is war why go to battle with a shark that eats its own gut. Let it die by itself as JB seems to have shown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “Libertarians in a lot of ways are similar to fundamentalist Christians in there fanaticism.”

    Unfair to Christian fundamentalists- here’s an example of “The Scorned’s” liberal behaviour from a Kiwiblog thread of a few days ago-

    The Scorned (437) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 10:28 pm
    Redbaiter takes it in the butt pipe..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “All that mattered at that stage was getting John Banks over the line”

    Condemned by his own words.

    Just think about how desperately depraved that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    I don’t agree Nick K. In the last 4 weeks or 4 days before an election is when people are listening, thinking about their vote. Really, it is the time to strike. Yet, of course, it is always the long game, the building blocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. graham (2,326 comments) says:

    I came to a somewhat sobering conclusion last week.

    When reading any of Penny’s writings, or observing her actions, we must remember one very important thing:

    She does not believe what she says. You cannot believe that she is sincere.

    For Penny, the prime motivation is definitively NOT to get her message out there. Think about it. If this was really her intention, would she act in such a way as to bring ridicule, scorn and pity upon herself? After all, ask anybody about Penny Bright and they may well say “Who?” But remind them of the shameful and embarrassing spectacle observed in Aotea Square when a certain lady was observed howling, squawking, abusing, and ultimately being taken away as much for her own protection as anything else, and you will see the spark of recognition, followed by scorn or possibly pity, enter their eyes. Mention that she was the lady who stood for public election, and then willfully vandalised the billboards of her opponent, and they will understand who you are talking about.

    Would someone who is supposedly such an experienced activist, who claims to be so politically aware, deliberately act in such a way as to guarantee that any message she might have will inevitably be overshadowed by her bizarre antics – if she truly cared about getting the message out there? I really don’t think so.

    The prime motivation for Penny, obviously, is to gain attention. That’s all. I’m no medical person, but surely this is a classic case of narcissism. Using other people without considering the cost of doing so; pretending to be more important than they really are; claiming to be an expert in various areas; and if you go through Hotchkiss’ seven deadly sins of narcissism (http://www.news-medical.net/health/Seven-Deadly-Sins-of-Narcissism.aspx), Penny ticks virtually every box.

    Penny is not to be sneered at or insulted. The sobering, somewhat sad conclusion I reached last week is that Penny is to be pitied, for the lengths she will go to in order to effectively plead, “Look at me! Look at me!”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Nick K (1,211 comments) says:

    Yes, they are Nostalgia-NZ. And as I explained earlier, the voters in Epsom were listening and they were thinking very hard about telling Banks & ACT to go take a jump if decriminalisng cannabis was part of the party’s policy. That’s why Banks had to dismiss it, unfortunately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    We’ll have to disagree on that Nick K.
    Banks had no reason to attack Brash that was in the benefit of The Act Party, as all of us have since seen. No discipline was at work, no order of control – a team never fights against itself publicly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nick K (1,211 comments) says:

    No discipline was at work, no order of control – a team never fights against itself publicly.

    That much we agree on!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Viking2 (11,340 comments) says:

    Nick K (434) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    Yes, they are Nostalgia-NZ. And as I explained earlier, the voters in Epsom were listening and they were thinking very hard about telling Banks & ACT to go take a jump if decriminalisng cannabis was part of the party’s policy. That’s why Banks had to dismiss it, unfortunately.

    What a lot of god dam rubbish.
    You are telling us that the Remmer’s set doesn’t partake in the use of cannabis? Really, and you think they actually want to be considered criminals for smoking a herb that’s been around for about a million years.

    You born again Christian dickheads of the Banks ilk are brain fucking dead. The truth is that Banks couldn’t stomach actually allowing that thought to progess thru his wee head. He is not about personal freedom, never has been (unless its himself of course), and personal freedom is and has been what ACT has been all along.
    That’s why Banks should just fuck off and join his mates at the conservative party. That’s where he rightly belongs, but he wouldn’t be able to get along there either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Nick K (1,211 comments) says:

    I am far from a “born again Christian dickhead”.

    You are wrong about Banks to a degree. He is a political pragmatist. He figured out after campaigning in Epsom for a day or two after Don’s musings, that 51% of the voters didn’t like what Don said. He went with the 51% to win the seat. It’s called politics.

    People like you who sit here on a website and write swear words under a pseudonym don’t understand it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    ACT, and any other party that the MSM decides is to the right of Trotsky face an uphill battle.

    We’ve had decades of creeping socialism, and with it an increasing proportion of NZers who’s expectation of government is that it is there to provide cradle-to-grave everything. Against that backdrop, messages on the importance of small government, enterprise, effort, and personal risk-reward simply fall on deaf ears.

    They key to overcoming this is a ultra clear message, good leadership and a good team. Sadly for NZ, ACT haven’t been up to it, so the march towards becoming irrelevant socialist backwater continues unabated.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “I am far from a “born again Christian dickhead”. ”

    I agree entirely. You’re actually much more of a secular progressive dickhead. Because all ACT ever had to say was that we will cut debt and government spending, and explain how they were going to do that and the job would have been done and the message would have been clear.

    Instead we got “the Liberal party” and a lot of internalising over what ACT really stood for and that was what muddied the message and led to the party’s descent into factionalised disagreements, lack of purpose and unity, and eventual demise.

    All that really needed to happen was that the Libertarians who had infiltrated should have been told to piss off back to their own party.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Redbaiter lies it up again

    What bullshit- It was The Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, and it had 9 MPs on the basis of that name, and none of those original MPs was any kind of publicly advocating libertarian. Not that you are either, you’re one of those clueless posturing fake liberals that destroyed ACT, in reality a doctrinal authoritarian with your bitching and moaning about a political philosophy you preach but can’t practice. And now you ponce about Kiwiblog showing ignorance of history and demonstrating what a disgusting coward and hypocrite you are. Its no wonder ACT died if such a squalid tiny minded POS as you typified its more recent membership.

    ACT’s founding was on classical Liberal/Libertarian principles…its founding document (which was shamefully removed from the ACT website and hidden by the power-Cons before the last election,before Perigo found it and reinstated it) was written by Libertarianz founder Ian Fraser, who had left in disgust when it became apparent what backsliding neo-statist BS was going to be expoused by the party. Perigo was there at the start too…and left for the same reason…so quit the shit Baiter….facts are facts.

    And it seems that buttpipe quip really rankled you huh…? Truth hurt you does it freedom hater…? Picks and chooses what libertys he agrees with and what he will deny others……Hollowman.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Griff (7,233 comments) says:

    The conservonutters was the death of act
    honestly if any one thought putting banks to win Epsom was not going to turn off the social and economic liberals who were acts loyal followers they were smoking better weed than me.
    After the blatant manipulation of foisting the ex nat Brash, Banks was a step too far.
    Lost cause dead and gone
    It will take defeat or a series of defeats to splinter national before we get a true conservative/ liberal divide on the right.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Redbaiter (8,252 comments) says:

    “And it seems that buttpipe quip really rankled you huh…?”

    You’re a typical progressive, with a mind completely out of sync with reality. The thing about the butt pipe smear was that it is a prominent example of what unscrupulous amoral cowards and authoritarians the self-professed liberals who support ACT and the Libertarians are.

    You don’t even know me, but you want to destroy me because of what I say. It is so typical of you fake liberals. Anyone bringing a POV to the debate that disagrees with your own is not confronted with logic or reason, but attacked personally as a means of discrediting their message.

    Its also proof of what I have always said, and that is that self professed “liberals” are frequently really progressives in disguise. Liars and frauds who advocate tolerance but who are actually intolerant. Amoral cowards who advocate reverence for principle but have none themselves. In other words, just the same old repugnant left wing totalitarians who have been crippling political debate in the west for the last five decades.

    You stink of the disease of progressivism, and you have killed ACT, you can’t get any traction as Libertarians and you will never be anything but an insignificant bunch of hate filled amoral and cowardly zealots.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Griff (7,233 comments) says:

    “insignificant bunch of hate filled amoral and cowardly zealots.”
    But weddy that’s you and your merry band of sycophants described
    The prime piece of evidence is your blog.
    Were is your party weddy?
    Its not national they are way to socialist to even be considered right wing.
    Was it christian heritage? Is it CCCP or is there a massive ground swell of support for a nz tea party?
    Act may have been screwed by the conservatives they screw everything else they have touched politically.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Redbaiter…..if anyone is intolerant its you. The vile hate you spew towards others makes my buttpipe quip pale into insignificance….and I was kidding….you mean what you say.

    Half the time I agree with your more reasoned posts…..but the other half of the time ….mmmmmm

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. BlairM (2,314 comments) says:

    As usual, a thread on ACT descends into arguments about political labels, which is precisely why ordinary folk who don’t know what the fuck those labels mean shrug their shoulders and vote for someone else.

    There’s a lot of silly twats out there who were never prepared to roll up their sleeves and help out anyway, now being armchair critics. But politics is not some university lecture theatre where you can debate ideologies and your place on a cartesian grid and still get votes. It’s about winning and getting practical policies implemented.

    The facts are that John Banks is the Leader of ACT. He won Epsom and he is implementing Charter Schools. That makes him the most successful ACT Leader ever, since he is the first leader to have a core ACT policy implemented.

    Why you would dump your most successful leader ever, a former Mayor of Auckland who, yes, has won ten elections, is beyond me. It makes no sense, and I am sure it makes no sense to even the Board of ACT.

    You win elections on hope and fear, and John Boscawen, to his credit, understands this. You also win by having strong and unambiguous policy that casts a vision. Hopefully ACT will do that as well. As long as they remember they are only trying to get 10% of the population, not 51%, they will be okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Nick K (1,211 comments) says:

    Well said Blair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Hey, RB why don’t you asked the scorned if he is still angry because he misses his boyfriend, Jim Peron, former libertarian bookshop owner and supported of NAMIBIA who was not allowed back in New Zealand?

    There is no way I could be involved with a party where senior officials continued to support such a person as Peron because he is a libertarian despite other well known libertarians distancing themselves from him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. BlairM (2,314 comments) says:

    I’m a strong supporter of NAMIBIA… lovely part of Africa I’ve heard….

    Also a supporter of NAMBLA – the North American Marlon Brando Look-alikes Association. All power to them.

    As for Peron, my view was then, and still is now, that whatever views he held in the early 1980s, he either doesn’t hold those views now, or does not propagate them. Running a libertarian bookstore and being in a childless gay relationship? well I can’t imagine any lifestyle choice that would be less likely to bring someone into contact with children, so he was certainly no predator of any type. That the NZ government refused to renew his visa is a great shame – it was essentially for political views that there was no proof he even held. No purpose was served in hounding him out, other than removing someone who was a strong activist for less government and greater freedom in New Zealand. The whole thing was a witchhunt Chuck, and I think it’s a shame that people like yourself and the Flanagans continue to pile onto him without good reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Blair, I believe in most cases people should not have their past particularly in their teens or early and mid twenties held against them. I think what happened to David Garrett was politically motivated and appalling considering the seriousness of the offense and the time of the offense.

    It is a shame that some ACT members who are sympathetic to Peron were not sympathetic to David. I got into an argument with one high profile ACT candidate who put down David but is a supporter of Peron. I am sure he got his back at me.

    Hove you read Unbound? I have and while he has not been convicted of any crime against boys here or elsewhere I think he would be an danger to adolescent boys.

    If someone as an adult views child porn or publishes what was in Unbound I do not change their desire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. pq (728 comments) says:

    I have come to the conclusion that it will take a lot more than Epsom to return a NZ Nat Government.
    In my opinion John Boscowan leads the ACT party, now and I think Epsom will just vote National and hope.
    If I were John Key I would write off ACT , and put in a strong Nat candidate at Epsom.It would be true and not contrived
    It finishes the idea of contrived MMP voting, and horrid media comment .
    Rodney Hide was fantastic but we lost him.
    It is the NZ First seats Nat must win back.
    Today NZFirst are talking about devaluing the $NZ dollar. Just what their constituents don’t need. This is a major issue
    Tomorrow is another day

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird has an interest in Homesexuals and Pedofillia that makes me think he needs watching as he protesteth too much…sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    I am not the one who is sick. It is your boyfriend Jim.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Chuck…why are you hiding here in NZ…? What dark past are you hiding from…? Fess up Father Bird

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    I came out here from Canada in 1966 as a young man because there was full employment and a high standard of living as well working a winter in the oil fields where it was 40 degrees below zero frequently.

    I have children and grandchildren here. No one is perfect but I have to worry that anyone will find out I was a paedophile. If you want to start making or strongly inferring things like you post of February 26th, 2013 at 1:20 pm use your full real name James.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. ChardonnayGuy (1,197 comments) says:

    ACT was harpooned by its lamentable tendency to allow neanderthal populists and authoritarian statist social conservatives into what should have been a classical liberal coalition partner for National.* Thanks to the cumulative nincompoopery of Richard Prebble, Owen Jennings, Stephen Franks, Muriel Newman, David Garrett and their fellow travellers, the party drove away many of its classical liberal supporters because they despaired of the populist antics of incumbent politicians and pursuit of extremist fringe causes like that of the Christian Right, the male backlash micro-movement, Treaty rejectionists and assorted other oddballs. It’s great that Banks is behaving himself, but he’s also tainted with possible questionable business dealings. If ACT wants to survive, replace him with Catherine Isaacs during the course of 2013/2014.

    *At least, that’s what my liberal Nat/ex-ACT afternoon cafe friends tell me, and I trust their judgement, even if we disagree on most matters of economic policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.