ACT eyes Pakuranga

July 14th, 2013 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The HoS reports:

The Party wants National supporters to save it from oblivion at next year’s election, telling them it needs not just one, but two Parliamentary seats.

I think they would be better to target the party vote. At 1.25 they get a second MP.

Now, former Act president Chris Simmons is eying the blue-ribbon electorate of , in East Auckland – but he has a battle on his hands.

National’s Maurice Williamson, the local MP since 1987 and now a minister outside cabinet, had considered standing down to contest the Auckland mayoral election.

But yesterday, he said he was not going anywhere and would not stand aside for anyone.

“I welcome any challengers,” he said. “Rumours that I won’t be standing are completely baseless.”

Entrepreneur Simmons told the Herald on Sunday he hoped to stand again in Pakuranga, despite coming sixth with only 816 votes in 2011. Simmons denied rumours of backroom talks with National to run a soft campaign, allowing Act to take the seat.

News to me. I expect National to retain Pakuranga easily.

Banks agreed National’s backing in Pakuranga would help both parties, but would not say if he was seeking another Epsom-style arrangement.

“I wouldn’t even enter into a conversation about that because I have no knowledge of such things and there’s no anticipation that would be the case.

So ACT isn’t asking and National isn’t offering. A bit of a non-story.

Tags: ,

62 Responses to “ACT eyes Pakuranga”

  1. Redbaiter (7,521 comments) says:

    ACT will need more than Pakuranga.

    If the good citizens of Remuera can bring themselves to vote for that charlatan Banks again I’ll be amazed. His denials on the Dotcom donations finished him for me. I don’t support any politician so loose with the truth.

    IMHO, Banks’ ascension to the leadership of ACT finished it off completely.

    Not that in its later “liberal party” condition it brought much of worth to the political debate anyway.

    Key and his prog faction have made a big mistake in their open contempt for the Conservative Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,299 comments) says:

    ACT under the clown Banks is a shadow of what it was.
    It deserves a political grave more than another constituency.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Keeping Stock (10,085 comments) says:

    Would Chris Simmonds be better to eye up Epsom, given the questionable performance of the Epsom incumbent MP?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (22,713 comments) says:

    KS – yes, I think DPF has it right, Act should concentrate on Epsom and the party vote for the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Colville (2,056 comments) says:

    I assume that the wise voters of Epsom will swallow the large dead rat that is John Banks and vote for him again to give support to National. The Epsomites have the only non racist electorate with ability to cast votes for 2 parties and make it count.

    A far more interesting question is will the Nats support CCCP in Rodney?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,787 comments) says:

    I don’t think the good people of Epsom will vote for John Banks again. National would do well to come to an accommodation with Mr Craig in some other electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    “A far more interesting question is will the Nats support CCCP in Rodney?”

    Fuck that!

    We do not want the National party to become a NZ version of the Tea Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Steve Wrathall (237 comments) says:

    As an ACT member, I think it is a mistake to try and go for 2 electorates. Inevitably when you go for the candidate vote, the party vote in that seat suffers as voters believe they must give at least one to National. This is particularly costly in these central Auckland seats that have been often ACT-vote rich. Going for one seat simplifies the tactical voting message.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. peterwn (3,138 comments) says:

    This seems as likely as the Greens asking Grant Robertson to step aside in Wellington Central to get a Green electorate MP.

    Perhaps the Parnell tearooms should install double glazing and a Maxwell Smart style ‘Cone of Silence’.
    See:
    http://albertadiary.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Cone+of+Silence.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    ^^ I agree Steve.

    My pick since just after the election – and strengthened with the Banks donations problems – is that John Boscawen will take over the Epsom candidacy and lead the party in parliament.

    He was untouched by both the ACT parl upheaval and the Bush leadership mess. I think he would stand a chance of brining one or two friends with him on an improved party vote.

    I wonder if Simmons is suggesting a deal in Pakuranga as he feels he would be unlikely to make a list position that could see him get in, even with an improved showing under Boscawen.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    So ACT wants to be given more than one seat, rather than earn another by getting 1.25% of the vote.

    Rather than being grateful for the one seat they have not earned on merit, they now seek more. And they have the gall to criticise the dependency of beneficiaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    What is it about National and supporting coalition partners that cannot get to the 5% threshold, is it the need to have dependent partners that can easily be controlled (and who thus do not threaten their own party vote much)?

    Does it reflect a first past the post party seeking to rort an artificial majority in an MMP system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    SPC,

    I’m not really sure, but Helen Clark could give you some insight – Labour protected Anderton for quite some time.

    Goff and King are still around from those times, perhaps they could shed some light on it for you?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (22,713 comments) says:

    SPC, they don’t have to get to 5%, if Act or UF were to get over 2% they would get two MPs for one electorate MP.

    “In 2008, the ACT Party won only 3.6% of the Party vote. But this gave ACT a total of five seats altogether because one of its candidates won the Epsom electorate.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. OneTrack (2,559 comments) says:

    Adolf – “I don’t think the good people of Epsom will vote for John Banks again.”

    Why not – would they really prefer the Greens/Mana/NZ First/Labour hydra instead?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. s.russell (1,558 comments) says:

    It may be that Act is not so confident of holding Epsom. And I know that if I lived there I would be getting pretty tired of the way that electorate has been treated as a plaything by National, as well as finding it extremly hard to stomach John Banks. I would be thinking that it is time some other electorate filled that role.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Anyone with grunt in Act should stand in one of the marginal Labour seats. There’s a few of them around. That way they would kill three birds with one vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (22,713 comments) says:

    “It may be that Act is not so confident of holding Epsom.”

    Good point. If there’s worries about Banks holding Epsom and it’s seen as too hard or too messy to replace him then looking at another seat option makes sense. But it won’t be easy to succeed with.

    What surprises me is that more electorates don’t pick up on the benefits of getting more bang for your vote by creating and Epsom/Ohariu attention seeker.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dime (9,351 comments) says:

    ““A far more interesting question is will the Nats support CCCP in Rodney?”

    Fuck that!

    We do not want the National party to become a NZ version of the Tea Party.”

    umm ill be giving my electorate vote to craig. why wouldnt i? i dont want a greens / labour/ mana/ maori/ dung govt

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Dime

    You do what you like but I am not going to vote for a party that wants to do a deal with a religious fundy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (9,351 comments) says:

    bruv – so you wouldnt vote for national because craig is religious?

    so who will you vote for? the other side? you should know by now the green religion is far more dangerous in this country than some church goer.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. smttc (686 comments) says:

    “A bit of a non-story.”

    Of course it is. But the MSM hate ACT. So they will take any and every opportunity between now and next election to discredit the party and ensure its oblivion. Making out like Nats will sell their souls for government by helping ACT is just part of the strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    smttc,

    I think you are impugning the journalistic integrity of our leading media companies.

    Having said that, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if The Herald didn’t run a piece quoting a Max Coyle from Waikato saying how disappointed he was that that ACT had appeared to have moved away from the values that attracted him to them and how he now felt he had to give his vote to another party…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. NK (1,060 comments) says:

    It’d be interesting to find out how this story came about. Chris Simmons is a great guy and a worthy MP and candidate. But this doesn’t fit with any usual strategy. Under MMP two electorate seats means nothing. The party vote is all that matters. I wonder whether the repeater had to fill up column space and just made stuff up. I’m pretty close to ACT and know of no rumors of backroom deals in Pakuranga. As DPF said, this seems a non-story. ACT would be better off focusing on winning Epsom on its merits (no cups of tea) and getting its party vote up. Anything else is a distraction.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Dime

    “bruv – so you wouldnt vote for national because craig is religious?”

    No, as it happens I will not vote for National for other reasons. I will vote for ACT for no other reason than I am passionate about animal rights and Banksie has shown that he is one man who shares my views on that subject.

    As for Craig’s religious views, that alone would indeed be enough for me not to vote for him, I cannot abide anybody who goes into our house of representatives and allows their stupid stone age beliefs to dictate how they vote and allow those same stone age beliefs to form our laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    NK,

    Trying to get a deal for a second electorate seat would make sense if ACT didn’t think they could raise their party vote enough to get get a second MP.

    Not a happy place to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (9,351 comments) says:

    bruv – i thought banksy was religious too?

    not wanting to start a religious thread but i dont get the hatred kiwis have for religious people. fuck, dimes life would be more affected than anyones and they still dont bug me.

    whats the worst craig can do with one seat?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. KiwiSteve (14 comments) says:

    I’ve heard some pretty shallow throwaway lines about Colin Craig and Christian ‘fundys’, etc, but what about free market fundys, or marxist fundys, or green fundys, etc? Plenty fit that tag. It sounds like some folk have a problem with Christians and Christianity rather than with fundamentalism, per se.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Dime

    Banskie is indeed a bible basher, the difference between him and Craig is that Banks does not let his religion define him of the party he represents.

    As for the worst that Craig can do?….the list is endless. Craig represents all that is wrong with religion based parties (as you rightly point out with the religious Greens)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. NK (1,060 comments) says:

    @bhudson, personally, I’m sick of deals. I want us to campaign on our policies and merits, not on begging for National voters to save us. That’s pathetic. It takes enormous effort to win a seat. It took Rodney 3 attempts to win Epsom. I think the changes of Chris winning Pakuranga are remote at very best.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    @NK,

    For what it’s worth, I think if you swapped John Boscawen for John Banks and campaigned on ACT priorities of pre-2011, you’d likely pick up a few buddies to go with him (maybe 1-2. It would take a bit longer to get back to 5+ MPs.)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. KiwiSteve (14 comments) says:

    BigBruv: stupid stone age beliefs and laws?

    Best throw out the whole notion of judges with wigs, juries of 12, witnesses, swearing of oaths, marriage and divorce, taxes, monogamy (NT), the notion of Truth, and plenty more. All are fundamental to the Judeo-Christian narrative.

    A decent read of the whole Bible and then all of ‘western history’ should put you right, my friend. And, Yes, I know there have been many abominations perpetrated ‘in the name of God’ by bigoted and blind jihadists from another era, but they were not Christians despite what they did in His name. Worth learning the difference. Jesus said “I am the True vine,’ whilst they were the false.

    If you chuck out Christian principles, even if you never live by the so-called religious practices, then you’ll head back to the stone age, not vice versa.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dime (9,351 comments) says:

    bruv – choose A or B

    A) coalition made up of national/ act/ conservative
    B) a top tax rate of 40% + a bunch of other jabs we couldnt dream up in a 100 years

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. NK (1,060 comments) says:

    Agreed bhudson. The other thing is that if we can’t get 1.25% and a second MP we should wind up. It’s not worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    @NK,

    True, but repairs take time. 2014 is probably a little too soon to return to a decent sized caucus. But I think it is a chance to make a start – the cliche that is “rebuilding”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Kiwi Steve

    “Best throw out the whole notion of judges with wigs, juries of 12, witnesses, swearing of oaths, marriage and divorce, taxes, monogamy (NT), the notion of Truth, and plenty more. All are fundamental to the Judeo-Christian narrative.”

    Frankly that is insulting. Justice, a sense of right and wrong, laws, morals and truth were all around long before the supposed arrival (in what even you have to agree was one of the most backward parts of the world) of the con man named Jesus Christ.

    “A decent read of the whole Bible and then all of ‘western history’ should put you right”

    Far from putting anybody “right” it should (if the reader has at least half a brain) make that same reader recoil in horror, if not in horror then fits of laughter. The book is full of blatant lies, told to a stone age people who were stupid and uneducated enough to believe the man posing as the son of a supposed god.

    I note Steve that like all the other religious bigots you seem to be of the opinion that your sky fairy is the true god and that you particular form of sadomasochism is the one true religion, you even trot out the same old line about other religions perpetuating crimes as if to suggest that your “god” is pure. Well Steve, I am glad to say that history shows you to be a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Dime.

    How about option C. Nations, ACT and Sir Winston Peters as minister of foreign affairs and the next Ambassador to the UK or USA?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dime (9,351 comments) says:

    bruv – was an A or B answer :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Dime

    In that case, I would still vote for ACT and let the cards fall where they may.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. KiwiSteve (14 comments) says:

    BigBruv
    I was being objective about history and the impact and substance of Christian principles in what we call civilisation.
    You can pour scorn on me and the Bible and ME countries and fairies and myths all you like, be my guest. But it’s your attitude that betrays a hatred for those who walk by faith that shows up the most: I think the bigotry shoe is on the other foot.

    As for trotting out lines, I neither said I was a Christian, nor that it was ‘other religions’ perpetrating crimes. It was the so-called Christian denominations throughout history, ie those who give the followers of Jesus a bad name. You just like to lump them all together to make a cosy little target for your spears. But history will shed light on it, if you give it half a chance.

    A long way from the discussion of Colin Craig and his chances :)

    Shalom

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Kiwi Steve

    “You can pour scorn on me and the Bible and ME countries and fairies and myths all you like”

    Why thank you, however I can assure you that when ever I am confronted by a religious zealot who insists on telling lies about their belief I will confront those lies. I seek neither your permission, nor consent to do so.

    “But it’s your attitude that betrays a hatred for those who walk by faith that shows up the most”

    Really?, when was the last time you heard of an atheist (or anti theist) blowing up a bomb in the name of atheism?

    When was the last war started in the name of Atheism?

    When was the last time an atheist terrorist murdered innocent people in the name of atheism?

    No Steve, you have zero right to even attempt to claim the moral high ground. Religion is evil, nothing more and nothing less. Those followers of religion who do not speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of their religion are as guilty as those who committed the atrocities in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. NK (1,060 comments) says:

    I’ve just had it confirmed to me that the HoS was fishing for a story on Friday afternoon and so just started making stuff up. What a disgraceful rag that has turned out to be. How does a “journalist” take his pay home writing fictions? The mind boggles. It really does.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    When was the last war started in the name of Atheism?

    Well there was that wee thing that resulted from the lebensraum problem…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (7,521 comments) says:

    “i dont get the hatred kiwis have for religious people. fuck, dimes life would be more affected than anyones and they still dont bug me.”

    Its Marxist indoctrination in many cases, or in others, just plain mental illness. Bigot Bruv and Narsekissa for two prominent examples display all the symptoms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

    You can’t afford to waste time dealing with such insanity when the the progs/commies/ liberals are the enemy are coming down on us like rain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. KiwiSteve (14 comments) says:

    Big Bruv
    Your discernment seems to lie in the realm of lies, so when and how would you know if someone told you the truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (7,521 comments) says:

    Kiwisteve, there are a few contributors here who will turn any thread into an excuse to express their hatred for and intolerance of Christianity. They’re trolls. My advice is don’t engage unless you’ve got the stomach for dealing with intractable ignorance and monstrous self delusion over an extended period of time.

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

    Redbaiter
    Thanks for the advice. Have just spent 20mins reading your blog just to see who posts in here.
    And, agreed, there are haters and wreckers: this one seems to be a hater. My time is better spent constructively, but I generally give people the benefit of the doubt… at first.
    Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Mark (1,356 comments) says:

    ACT is desperate principally as Brash and then Banks have finished off quickly what Hide was managing to do more slowly. By killing off ACT National has bugger all option but to cuddle up to the Maori Party and Peter Dunne. Dunne is now looking like he may well go they way of Banks and the Maori Party have just taken an uppercut in the latest by-election so National is starting to look a little isolated and despite the ineptitude of Shearer and the potential rabble that could form a government of the left, without any political mates in parliament Nationals hold on power is looking pretty bloody tenuous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (9,414 comments) says:

    Clowns to the left of me
    Jokers to the right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (13,299 comments) says:

    RRM, are you the Queen? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RRM (9,414 comments) says:

    When Dr Brash’s first major statement as an Act man was to light up a joint, I was briefly hopeful that Act would start actually explaining their ideas about libertarianism to a much wider audience, and that he might grow their support massively.

    But then we saw what actually happened.

    RRM is a big fan of Dr Brash – but he should have aimed to be an ideas man in the background, he’s just not front of house material.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Mark (1,356 comments) says:

    @bigBruv I note Steve that like all the other religious bigots you seem to be of the opinion that your sky fairy is the true god and that you particular form of sadomasochism is the one true religion, you even trot out the same old line about other religions perpetuating crimes as if to suggest that your “god” is pure. Well Steve, I am glad to say that history shows you to be a liar.

    So BB in your world all people with religious beliefs are bigots and atheists are not bigots. Yet it seems that atheists tend to be far more zealous in their belief system than those people who identify themselves with christianity. They decry that someone can believe in something that cannot be proven yet steadfastly choose to believe something doesn’t exist when that equally cannot be proven. It is somewhat Schrodinger-ish it would seem and your certainty of gods non existence is no less absurd than those who remain certain of gods existence. On the bright side if they are right at least where you will end up will be populated by far more interesting people

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (6,307 comments) says:

    John Boscawen is not going to stand for parliament again….more’s the pity.

    RRM: Brash is a phenomenon isn’t he? He manages to take over a party he’s not even a member of…no mean feat…then runs the worst and most inept election campaign in living memory, managing along the way to alienate the “law and order” wing of ACT, and cause them to give their votes to Conservative…someone should write a thesis on it…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    ^^ Yeah, more’s the pity.

    A good thing I didn’t have cash riding on it then. Difficult to see who, other than Boscawen, could revive their fortunes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Dave Mann (1,168 comments) says:

    I think they would be better to target the party vote. At 1.25 they get a second MP.

    At 1.25 *WHAT*? What do you mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Dave Mann (1,168 comments) says:

    Even though I have been an ACT voter in the past, I think ACT is finished. However good their policies might have been in the past, their ‘brand’ has been terminally tainted, not only by the idiotic Teacup/Banks/Brash fuckup, but also by the fact of their adherence to yesterday’s politician, Douglas, who was and still is ultimately an unlikeable personality (to the public at least).

    Ultimately, political success is about people and personalities and the voters’ perception of ACT is one of a bumbling, infighting bunch of self-serving greedies who don’t have anything to offer. While this might not be totally accurate, its not going to be an easy task to turn this around. Their best bet would be to just dissolve and call it a day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    National keeps ACT as a pet project, because there will not be a threat on the right while ACT continues, yet ACT is too damaged to gather votes from them.

    The Conservative Party is just a replay of the Christian movement of the 1990′s and only re-launched because of the wealth of one man. They will coalesce around the man and woman marriage issue because of the way this was presented as a (conservative) cultural tradition of civilisation … so as to broaden the church activist vote with older people (taking some voters off NZ First).

    Those right wingers who think this party is for them are delusional – it opposes asset sales and wants to increase super payments by having a tax free threshold to the minimum wage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Redbaiter (7,521 comments) says:

    Criticism of the Conservative party is ably countered by an excellent post on the Bogpaper blog defending the UK Independence Party against its many attackers in the UK Conservatives and Labour.

    “the UKIP’s value is as an agent of change. It doesn’t matter if they lack what it takes to form a government. What matters is that they give a platform to ideas that challenge the sclerotic liberal orthodoxy around which the major parties and their media cheerleaders are huddled. To my mind, anything that breaks this ideological death-grip is worth supporting.”

    http://bogpaper.com/2013/05/15/russell-taylor-in-praise-of-defying-the-status-quo/

    If you yearn for relief from totalitarian socialism then we must break the ideological death grip the left have on our culture and just as importantly, on the political narrative. That is the Conservative Party’s true worth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    As I said … but quite harmless to National and Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Mark (1,356 comments) says:

    David Garrett (4,021) Says:
    July 15th, 2013 at 10:09 am
    John Boscawen is not going to stand for parliament again….more’s the pity.

    RRM: Brash is a phenomenon isn’t he? He manages to take over a party he’s not even a member of…no mean feat…then runs the worst and most inept election campaign in living memory, managing along the way to alienate the “law and order” wing of ACT, and cause them to give their votes to Conservative…someone should write a thesis on it…

    His action of dragging National to the right was the first stage of the demise of Act then he simply finished the job with the takeover from Rodney Hide. A political genius, if you were more cynical you may think it was deliberate

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Steve Wrathall (237 comments) says:

    ACT was only 46 votes per seat short of a 2nd MP in 2011 – very achievable if voters believe we will win Epsom.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    We do not want the National party to become a NZ version of the Tea Party.

    That’s just a bizarre statement in reference to both the CCCP and the Tea Party. For starters, if National did actually become a NZ version of the Tea Party, that would be marvelous. But the CCCP is nothing like the Tea Party. Its economic policies are big government and autarkic. There’s nothing remotely right wing about them. Colin Craig doesn’t even go to church FFS. The whole thing is a con job.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.