ACT decisions

January 31st, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

, 30, who is running only for the Epsom candidacy, has campaigned for , headed its student body and spent years working for conservative think tanks in Canada. 

He was also the most popular with the crowd. 

“If that was a hair growing contest I would be home and hosed,” said Seymour, a tribute to his competitors’ shiny bald heads, to laughter from the crowd. 

And his youth does not mean he is not inexperienced, said Seymour, who spoke of his work with John Banks in formulating the partnership school policy. 

“I am closer to the median age of Epsom, which is 35, than both of these guys, and I am moving closer to it as I speak,” he said, again bringing laughter from the crowd. 

Seymour emphasised ACT’s role in lowering taxes and creating a safer New Zealand. 

I probably should have mentioned Seymour in my post earlier this week. Seymour is one of the brighter people in politics, is an excellent debater and like Whyte has excellent classical liberal credentials. If he does become an MP, he would be an excellent one.

But despite his clever trick with the median age (the relevant stat is the median age of the voting population, not the entire population), my concern is that the relatively conservative Epsom electorate might not be willing to vote for someone just out of his 20s, especially with 25% of the electorate Asian. That is why I said Boscawen was the obvious choice for Epsom.

However I understand that may also now stand for both the Epsom candidacy and for the leadership. That complicates things, and simplifies things.

A few in ACT have liked the idea of Boscawen for Epsom and Whyte for Leader. However they have said that the problem is it leaves the Leader reliant on another MP. Hence a lot of pressure has gone on for Whyte to stand for both.

But one woman, who would not be named, believed Seymour, whose forefather was one of the signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi, filled a demographic ACT lacks.

“I think the young chap would be ideal because he is part Maori. ACT is very short on Maori and women,” she said.   

I didn’t know that about Seymour.

Seymour is a popular figure in the party, and as the story states had the most support at the meeting. He has quite a few backers on the ACT Board.

So it seems there are six possible decision for the Board on Sunday. They are:

  1. Whyte for Leader and Epsom
  2. Boscawen for Leader and Epsom
  3. Whyte for Leader and Boscawen for Epsom
  4. Whyte for Leader and Seymour for Epsom
  5. Boscawen for Leader Seymour for Epsom
  6. Boscawen for Leader and Whyte for Epsom

I regard 5 and 6 as unlikely. Is Boscawen is Leader, I expect he will be the Epsom candidate also.

No 4 is what was being pushed by the Whyte/Seymour fan club. However concern over a split role may lead to No 1 happening if their supporters have the majority on the board.

No 3 I did regard as a credible outcome, but there seems to be concern over splitting the role.

No 2 is the outcome sought by Boscawen and his supporters.

I welcome comments from readers as to which combination they would prefer, and would the decision be enough to make you vote ACT?

Tags: , , ,

50 Responses to “ACT decisions”

  1. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    2) yes
    5) maybe later, i dont normally like people involved in student politics or think tanks most of their life. I will change opinion on him in time if i dont think hes a political zealot his whole life.
    The comment about asians and older men makes me realise more how len got away with his lurid propositions

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    From memory Seymour stood for Auckland Central in 2011 and I gave my electoral vote to him, he seemed like a smart young guy.

    I think ACT needs to break away from the Hide era and although Boscawen is a very good guy and fantastic MP I would most support a Seymour/Whyte ticket. Anything to break the media-influenced mould of ACT being a rich old white guy club.

    I’m also disappointed Whyte came out in the media today flagging drug reform on the basis ACT is an economically liberal party and they should focus on those issues. Surely drug liberalisation appeals more to potential savvy young ACT voters than the hang’em high end of the spectrum, the SST’s influence etc. Economic liberalism and social conservatism are strange bedfellows IMO.

    ACT needs to rebrand to try and appeal to younger voters. If they can’t articulate a clear vision they may as well igve up now and admit it is beyond repair.

    Now if only Cactus gets on board I will really have something to vote for :)

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. freedom101 (496 comments) says:

    You have left off option 7, which is a co-leadership. This works well for the Greens and it’s arguably a much better structure for a minor party. It reduces the emphasis on personalities, devalues ‘leadership’ and helps focus everyone on the issues and policies. Leadership transition is also much less painful and risky.

    The obvious choice for the board under this scenario is therefore Whyte or Seymour for co-leadership with Epsom candidate John Boscawen as the other co-leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. James Stephenson (2,153 comments) says:

    I concur with freedom 101. I’ve already decided that my party vote will be back with ACT this time around.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nigel Kearney (984 comments) says:

    I like option 3. A leader/candidate split is ok if the candidate is someone solid and reliable like Boscawen. Co-leadership doesn’t work and the Greens don’t do it anyway. Norman is their leader and everything else is just spin.

    Seymour is not too young but doesn’t have enough experience outside politics. I hope and expect that the sort of people who are potential ACT voters would not care less whether he has Maori ancestry.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Seems odd that the Act member cared about his racial background, thats not the way to pick the best canidate to get me to vote for them.
    I couldnt care if he was a pure royal baby, what idiot would vote for Prince Charles for instance. Up your game Act member

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Than (463 comments) says:

    I think splitting the candidate and leader roles would be a mistake, which narrows it to 1 or 2. And Boscawen has name recognition that makes it more likely he would win the seat, so 2.

    But if Act can stitch up a deal with National early on (giving them time to build some momentum) and runs an decent campaign, bringing both Whyte and Seymour in on the list would be an achievable goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. virtualmark (1,513 comments) says:

    How about another option. Boscawen for Epsom, Whyte or Seymour for another seat (Tamaki? North Shore?).

    To me it seems Whyte and Seymour are both more talented and valuable to have in the House than Simon O’Connor or Maggie Barry. And both Simon & Maggie are likely to get in on the list anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Agree with nickb mostly.

    A Whyte/Seymour ticket would be my first choice. No 4. After that Whyte on his own. No 1.

    At the moment ACT is National’s puppy dog. ACT have to think longer term.

    Cactus would be fastastic.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    I think they should consider co-leadership.

    Radio NZ claims Boscawen makes his mark at meeting.

    Former ACT MP John Boscawen appears to be the front-runner for the party leadership after the one and only meeting featuring the leadership candidates.

    After the meeting, most party members who attended told Radio New Zealand they would like Mr Boscawen to win.

    Boscawen has a good chance of winning Epsom and bringing at least one more MP in on the list. A pity all the contenders are male.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. James Stephenson (2,153 comments) says:

    Co-leadership is a silly idea, but splitting “portfolios” on the other hand? Have a leader and a finance spokesman.

    It seems pretty obvious that all three of them are strong candidates and should be in the public eye, to differentiate ACT from the single personality outfits like Dunne and Mad Colin.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    Boscawen for leader and Epsom candidate.

    Whyte and Seymour to stand in other electorates and campaign for the party vote, which will bring them in on the list.

    Is Don Nicholson still involved?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    I haven’t stayed close to the candidates to have a strong position. I used to vote ACT, I didn’t last election. Getting my vote back requires them to behave like adults through the election campaign, and look like a party ready to be in power. I have a feeling that Boscawen was close to the portions of the ACT Party that used to put out stupid press releases and play the libertarian games.

    I worry a bit about Whyte on that basis – he feels a little like he hasn’t grown up since being in ACT on Campus. But I haven’t paid enough attention to have a strong opinion – key for me is that the team that runs the show demonstrates some discipline and rationality.

    The drug policy might indicate that growing up. I agree most drugs should be decriminalised, and if there were a vote in parliament ACT should ideally vote in favour of that. But it shouldn’t be a formal policy nor something that ACT are seeking – it should be a consequence of ACTs principles and something that would happen only if someone else gets the matter on the order paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tas (623 comments) says:

    They all sound like excellent candidates with respective strengths and weaknesses. Maybe ACT has a future after all.

    I think splitting the leader and Epsom candidate roles is a good idea, as it allows one person to focus on Epsom and one to focus on getting party votes nationwide. I don’t think the public will have a problem with it – think of it like a president/vice president ticket in the US. However, it is predicated on two things:

    (i) The two people must be singing from the same songbook. The cannabis legalisation issue was nearly fatal for ACT in 2011. The two people must have the same policies and general view of the world. They need to get along.

    (ii) The leader needs to be taken seriously. Brash was viewed as #2 after John Banks – in the minor party leaders’ debate the moderator even referred to Banks as the leader, despite Brash being the one there. There has to be a good chance that both get into parliament and the leader needs to be on National TV more than the Epsom candidate.

    I might vote ACT again if they are true to classical liberalism (Banks isn’t my cup of tea, while Brash was) and I don’t need to worry about my vote going to waste.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. KiwiGreg (3,249 comments) says:

    “especially with 25% of the electorate Asian”

    Because they all vote and think the same “Asian” way, unlike the more diverse white electorate?????

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    ACT will get their giftwrapped seat in Epsom no matter who they select. That person will spend the next 3 years doing exactly as National says (assuming National wins a third term, which now seems more likely than not). There will be no other ACT MPs so the question of who is leader, or on the list, is utterly pointless. Who cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    @Nick R: actually, ACT usually have enough votes to hold more than one seat, last election was the exception. There are quite a few people on the right who would like a party that was a bit more liberal than National, so I think 2% of the vote isn’t unreasonable, that gives 2 MPs.

    As for believing that they do exactly as National says – not sure I’ve seen that. Sure, they’re a minor party and they only have 1 MP, so there’s only so much they can ask for. Unlike the Greens who think that it’s their way or the highway at all times (imagine trying to be in coalition with them!!)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    @PaulL. – if ACT can get a second seat, then they would have pulled off an outstanding comeback. But looking back on the last 3 years it’s hard to see what they still stand for. If you look at National’s other support parties, at least they have taken independent lines fairly often. Dunne most recently on the RMA, the Maori Party on almost everything that isn’t confidence or supply (not that it has helped either of them much in the polls). But ACT seems to be just a donkey vote for the Government in the House. It’s not like they can go into coalition with Labour.

    I get how that is attractive to National. I’m sure they’d like all their support parties to be that compliant. But unless you live in Epsom and get to play the tactical voting game, there just isn’t a reason to vote for them. If I want to support National, I’ll vote National.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    @Nick R: that’s probably because you don’t want to support National. Whereas for me, I’d perhaps like to support National, but I’d like a bit of counterbalance to their big govt tendencies. So ACT would be a natural place for me to vote – still gets me a National-led govt (no change they’ll go support Labour, unlike United, Maori Party, or NZ First), but does force National to actually think about some of their policies. Guys like Seymour or Whyte would bring a lot of analytical capability to the table, so any policies that don’t stack up financially or in terms of outcomes they’d be pointing out and pushing for changes on.

    That’s presuming that they don’t degenerate into ACT on campus, at which point I wouldn’t support them, or end up with someone who doesn’t represent their values like Banks being their key guy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. NK (1,231 comments) says:

    There will be no other ACT MPs so the question of who is leader, or on the list, is utterly pointless. Who cares?

    You obviously care enough to come on here and comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. OTGO (544 comments) says:

    ACT are a ginger group for National. They get my vote on that basis alone. National are just so left wing these days…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    As I understand it, the Epsom meeting was a public meeting.

    It would be dangerous to presume that anyone who made any comment was, is, or would ever be an ACT supporter. It is therefore equally dangerous to presume that any comments made were made with the genuine interests of the ACT Party (and voters) at heart.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    @PaulL – Actually, at the moment I’m more inclined to support National than any other party!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. peterwn (3,243 comments) says:

    OTGO – Take your pick – A right-wing National in opposition or a centre-left National in Government? You cannot have your cake and eat it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    @peterwn: or a centre-left National in govt, supported by a more liberal ACT party. That’d be my pick.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. rg (210 comments) says:

    Funny how no one is talking about the demise of ACT anymore. DF used to put it at 0 seats in his polls and is looking a bit silly at the moment because any one with any political nouse would have known that Banks would not stand again in Epsom and that the seat would go to ACT because of that and because of the tactical voting advantage.

    Go ACT, National has no plan and are becoming such a bunch of left wing control freaks I don’t know how any one can vote for them. Breakfast in schools, extending paid parental leave etc, would any one have thought these possible under a National govt, and now they lower the blood alcohol, ban cellphones, ban this and ban that.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nukuleka (307 comments) says:

    I note that Whyte is a DPF/ Cameron Slater fellow traveler and supports the legalisation of drug use. One of that “I don’t use drugs myself but others should have the right” brigade. Along with that ratbag rabble, the Greens.

    He should consider putting his name down as a candidate for the Greens where he would clearly feel a great deal more comfortable.

    Why is it that such drug-use enthusiasts have so little regard or concern for the well-being of the young people of our country?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    @Nukuleka: sorry, drug legalisation or not doesn’t decide my vote, and I wouldn’t pick which party someone stands in based on that one policy. I can’t see any way that Whyte would fit in with the Greens.

    As for concern for the well-being of the young people in this country, really simple answer. The current policy is an abject failure, and nothing that we did in changes to drug laws could possibly be worse than the current situation – a situation in which, for many kids, it’s easier to get pot than to get cigarettes. That’s just dumb, at the least we could regulate pot like cigarettes, at least we’d then do as well as cigarettes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OTGO (544 comments) says:

    @ peterwn – If I was to have my cake and eat it too then ACT would be led into power by Genghis Khan as leader with a clear majority but good old Genghie would form an absolute majority with John Key for a bit of left wing balance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. NK (1,231 comments) says:

    Why is it that such drug-use enthusiasts have so little regard or concern for the well-being of the young people of our country?

    So if making it illegal prevents harm to drug users, we’d have no drug use because the illegality would mean no one would use drugs. Is that your argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    The *ONLY* choice for ACT as a *Party* (and that is what NZ and National needs, an ACT *Party* to support them, not just one lonely electorate MP) is for Jamie Whyte & David Seymour to be selected for Leader and Epsom.

    Otherwise ACT is doomed if they combine the two roles, because ACT will turn into an empty shell of a party around an electorate MP trying to hold on, just like United Future / Mana / Jim Anderton’s Progressives have been, and the Maori Party might well end up turning into.

    Boscawen means *at best* a boring bland future for ACT as ACT keeps on struggling on like it has in the past.

    Jamie/Whyte will bring fire back to the party and revitalise it, make people proud to say they’re an ACT supporter! And not ashamed to vote ACT, like it is something they try to hide.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tauhei Notts (1,692 comments) says:

    Number Five is my choice.
    I am not prepared to elaborate on the reasons for that choice, at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Than (463 comments) says:

    Splitting the candidate and leader roles would be a mistake.

    The first priority for ACT is winning Epsom; if it doesn’t it’s gone. But a close second is to present a coherent vision. It needs to look organised, united, and on-message. Having separate “leader” (genuine question; what does the leader role entail exactly?) and Epsom candidate positions only creates a risk of two ACT representatives saying different things. The headline-hungry media would grab any small difference of opinion to try and create a story.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    So if making it illegal prevents harm to drug users, we’d have no drug use because the illegality would mean no one would use drugs. Is that your argument?

    So we should abolish the blood alcohol limit because some people ignore it and therefore it is pointless? Is that your argument?

    My example was a reduction. Yours is absurdity.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    While I have advocated splitting the leadership from the holder of the seat in the past, leading up to an election is a different ballgame. It is madness to have your leader not running for the seat you have the best chance of winning. The Leader has to be the Epsom nominee.

    I think David Seymour is a great man and a talented speaker and politician. But it’s not his time yet. The easiest sell is John Boscawen. It’s a no-brainer as far as I am concerned. Boscawen is an Epsom man, he lives there – it is his domain and Epsom voters are his people. When you play the final, you put in your best player, and Boscawen is ACT’s best player. I don’t even know why it is a debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    If the aim is to “save the furniture” then ACT should go all out for Epsom. If Boscawen is the guy for that, then sure.

    But if the aim is to take ACT back to their roots and get a 3-4% list vote, then I’m not at all convinced that’s the answer. If that is the aim (and yes, that’s a risky proposition), then you need someone working the ground every day in Epsom, and someone running the list campaign. I’m not sure if that’s Whyte/Seymour, or Whyte/Boscawen. My concern is that Whyte/Boscawen is an unstable combination, ACT have been there before with people who thought they should have been leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    PaulL,

    If the aim is a return to previous levels of support as the building block for a bigger future, then I suggest people look back to the perceived foundations of ACT at that time.

    Formed by Derek Quigley and Roger Douglas. Then with Richard Prebble as leader.

    That was the nucleus of ACT that attracted so much support

    Now look at the contenders and, setting aside personal political, moral or ideological standpoints, ask which is most like the founders that drew such strong support into the party orbit? Boscawen or Whyte?

    The rest is just personal ideological preference.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. deadrightkev (441 comments) says:

    BlairM

    During the disastrous 2005-2014 period for Act the party had the chance to turn things around with new people, new ideas and grow an organisation. John Boscawen has been prominent throughout the 2008 to 2014 period and look where the party has ended up.

    I hope they go for Whyte because he at least seems to walk the talk. Who knows I might even vote for them again.

    When does a group of apparently intelligent people realise they must completely dismantle the car and rebuild it from the ground up for it to be viable long-term? Even if they do elect Boscawen as leader and MP for Epsom it wont help the party. It will simply prolong the agony for members.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. NK (1,231 comments) says:

    So we should abolish the blood alcohol limit because some people ignore it and therefore it is pointless? Is that your argument?

    My example was a reduction. Yours is absurdity.

    No, that is not my point at all. Causing harm to yourself should not be illegal. Causing harm to others definitely should be. It is quite possible to regulate drug laws in an attempt to minimize harm to young people caused by others. We do it now with alcohol through age limit restrictions. But getting drunk as a 19yr old (through your own hand) is not illegal, yet getting stoned is. They’re incompatible. Both cause harm to the body, yet one is socially acceptable and is not unlawful (if you argue that our laws mirror social norms) and one is socially unacceptable. The inconsistencies are clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    *John Boscawen has been prominent throughout the 2008 to 2014 period and look where the party has ended up. *

    Correlation is not causation. John is actually a safe pair of hands. He has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money in the party, so more than anyone he has a vested interest in its survival.

    Speaking from my personal experience with working with him, he is – most of the time – a stable and thoughtful campaigner. He is the adult in the room, as you would expect from someone who has invested so heavily in the party. ACT’s decline has largely been in spite of his efforts, not because of them, although there have been some exceptions.

    It is true that he is not as ideologically pure as some in ACT would like. But any party will have that problem. In the past I was involved in ACT because I believe in lower taxes, less government, welfare reform, property rights and choice in health and education. John for the most part stands for those things, and that’s good enough for me, and should be for anyone else who supports ACT.

    As far as “dismantling the car” goes, that’s all very well. I have talked about a “long march” in the past myself, and I think it will take a long time because so many on the Right would rather be generals in a losing army than foot soldiers in a winning one. But if you lose your representation in Parliament the fight becomes exponentially that much steeper. Even if you do have a dicey candidate (which John is not – he is more than adequate for the task), it is easier to join up to fight the immediate election, then worry about reform later, than it is to select someone more “pure”, lose, then face the steep climb of getting back in in three years – with the country meanwhile left without any Right wing voice in Parliament AT ALL. Thinking practically it makes more sense – following Buckley’s rule of supporting “the most electable conservative”, to back John, because that’s what he is when translated to NZ terms.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. The Silent Majority (88 comments) says:

    David Seymour is hugely talented, but still a wee bit naive in some areas and has no private sector experience which works against him. I believe that Epsom voters like their MP to be a person of some standing, with credibility and a proven track record. As an Epsom voter I would feel that the ACT party are taking us for granted if they put up David Seymour as the candidate. I have canvassed many of my Epsom friends on this matter and they all said they would not give David their electorate vote, but they would to John Boscawen (not exactly a scientific poll, I know!). David needs to get some parliamentary experience next term first. ACT should put him at number one or two on the list. And Boscawen needs to be the Epsom candidate.

    Also, in the bear pit that is parliament, ACT need at least one MP with parliamentary experience. Again, that person needs to be John Boscawen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Causing harm to yourself should not be illegal. Causing harm to others definitely should be.

    Only in some theoretical book on individual rights does drug use (or drunk driving) cause harm to an individual only.

    Aside from placing others in danger if working under the influence – think, perhaps, logging. Certainly, I know from family, the trucking business. Outside of direct harm through the likes of machinery misuse do you not think for a moment that harm does not accrue to families if a parent is maimed or killed through their own use, or as a result of the use of another?

    If someone has a habit and that causes deprivation to those under their care or dependent on them, that counts as harm. The Classical Liberals made that very clear – I’d draw your attention to JS Mill, for one, on that.

    It is very easy to try to box usage and effects into the singular, personal experience. Life isn’t like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. NK (1,231 comments) says:

    Fair comment bhudson. Mill’s “Harm Principle” had its flaws for sure, but I think it’s strengths outweigh them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    Even if they do elect Boscawen as leader and MP for Epsom it wont help the party. It will simply prolong the agony for members.

    Exactly deadrightkev, Boscawen might *maybe* have a small edge in increasing the odds ACT will get at least one seat this election (maybe… I think this point is debatable, and actually I believe Seymour/Whyte serve as the best hope for the highest chances of getting at least one MP this election) it is not a future that can be attractive to any ACT member as it will just mean more of ACT “alive” but on life support (likely to turn into an empty husk of a party around one electorate MP, like Dunne, Hone, and Anderton have all been).

    While a Whyte/Seymour ACT promises a future in which people can proudly say once again they’re an ACT supporter!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    Given that ACT is now basically a sock puppet of National, it will presumably make leader and Epsom candidate whomever Joyce told it to (ie, Boscawen), unless there’s some kind of members’ revolt among the remaining members. One MP will do for National’s purposes, and it doesn’t care if that “prolongs the agony for members.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. deadrightkev (441 comments) says:

    BlairM

    I know what you mean about John Boscawen. I too have worked very closely with him and know his character. I am not anti Boscawen, far from it, he is upstanding and energetic. But we both know he will support John Key to maintain “stability” when past, current and potential members want “influence and change” from Act. Boscawen will undoubtedly justify accepting a ministerial portfolio, saying he should be inside the tent which will further disconnect the party from influence.

    The party hierarchy and the media have created a toxic brand with no growth potential outside the past and present. Their comes a time when common sense must prevail regarding rebranding and rebuilding for the future. Most people I know have left the party because they just couldn’t understand the fundamentals of building a united organisation. Who knows, maybe Whyte understands the basics and will do just that. I wouldn’t be on Jamie getting the nod because it may not be a board decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Warren Murray (307 comments) says:

    Who would have thought that such a small party was so blessed with talent? Such a contrast from three years ago when its ‘winning strategy’ involved a takeover by a bunch of old men who not only had passed their ‘use by dates’ but have all but destroyed its chances of survival.

    John Boscowan is a great guy, dedicated and has a niche strategy that might work, but it also feels like a replay of 2011. It would be even better if Act could get above 5%, but that would probably be at National’s expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. CharlieBrown (1,003 comments) says:

    I’ve always voted for ACT but this election I was considering not voting at all. I’m tired of Act just being a subsidiary of National. John Key’s National government are just a continuation of Helens socialist government with just a slightly blue tinge to some of their policies.

    If ACT select leaders with talent that will argue against the left wing and conservative policies of National (they don’t have to vote against it but at least have a liberal view raised to voice concerns) and have clear and concise liberal policies to raise attention to all the damage 15 years of socialism has caused NZ then they will get my vote again… I might even join up as a member.

    If they don’t, then I will be voting for Labour. The idea that Key will put himself b4 the country and go into government with Winston First and guaranteeing a subsequent 3 term green/labour government is too much for me to stomach.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ChardonnayGuy (1,199 comments) says:

    Er, if Winston plays down to his usual substandard, CB, why not a four-term Labour/Green government? While I think Boscawen would be well suited for an organisational role, Whyte and Seymour have obvious talents which would be wasted if at least one of them wasn’t selected as ACT candidate. At least they’d be a good classical liberal alternative to the CCCP then.

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

    Not sure how up to date this list is but here are the people you may thank for Seymour as Epsom candidate:

    Board Members:

    Auckland South: John Thompson

    Waikato Bay of Plenty: Bonnie Leonard

    Wellington: Sashi Meanger

    Upper South: Gareth Veale

    Deputy Board Members:

    Auckland North: Robin Grieve

    Scenic South: Colin Nicols

    …In other news, I won’t bother voting at the next election.

    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.