Boscawen stands for Epsom and Leader

January 16th, 2014 at 5:31 pm by David Farrar

President has just announced he will seek te leadership and also the nomination for Epsom. John is a tireless worker for , and highly respected. He may be seen as not enough of a break from the past, but will be seen as a very safe pair of hands who doesn’t play games.

Tags: ,

100 Responses to “Boscawen stands for Epsom and Leader”

  1. hj (7,021 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 48 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. allgoodal (14 comments) says:

    Finally, some good news for ACT in Epsom.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Just what the doctor ordered. All the best JB.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    So thanks, but no thanks, to the two newbies who stepped forward from National who obviously shoulder tapped JB after RH turned them down.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    Big surprise…John was one of the most popular guys in the House…no-one disliked him…and he also was very much a man who stood on his principles…But I thought he had conclusively ruled out standing again…

    I wish him all the best in his quest for a Round Two…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. lazza (381 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 34 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    I had wondered if John would do this. While he’s well respected and liked he’s no pushover. I think he’ll do well and is my choice (from the current declared candidates) for the leadership/candidacy.

    The others shouldn’t give up, they are good people who should get high list placings if they’re prepared to get behind John.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “Is he a climate change denier like Rodders?”

    hope so

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Good on him.

    BTW I hope he stands by rather than on his principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    A bit of turnaround but one for the team, he’s the best option Act had. Experience in Parliament and a very good record.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. adaman (41 comments) says:

    Might actually reconsider voting ACT again. He’s definitely one who has always come across as a humble and overall nice person (which is rare for a politician) based on TV coverage of him and what people have said of him, perhaps because he’s an actual person first, and a politician second. But then again I thought the same of David Shearer initially and look how he turned out. Don’t lose yourself in the filth that is politics and all the best for the second coming :)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. radvad (765 comments) says:

    Great news. A very good MP and an extremely personable guy. Hopefully this means the resurrection of ACT.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    lazza: You have very obviously never met the man…He’s not Rodney, but he has plenty of personality and a man of great integrity…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Boscawen is the best chance ACT has if it’s to pull off a rebirth of the phoenix. In total contrast to Banks he has presence south of the Bombay Hills.

    Good luck to him.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    David Garrett (4,567 comments) says:
    January 16th, 2014 at 6:24 pm
    lazza: You have very obviously never met the man…He’s not Rodney, but he has plenty of personality and a man of great integrity…

    His problem may be overcoming the perceptions of those who have not met him
    That said, he would be a good choice and I hope he does well

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    hj (5,301 comments) says:

    January 16th, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    Boscowen is he a climate change denier like Rodders?
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17
    ***

    He is certainly a sensible fellow who believes that real science requires contestable proof- not “consensus” based ion troughing.
    l
    The only fuckwit is hj.
    Go away!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. OneTrack (3,104 comments) says:

    hj – ” Is he a climate change denier like Rodders?”

    How’s that AGW religion going hj? No warming for 17 years. Something better happen soon or the fourth wheel will fall off.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Well that was poor form. He could have said something earlier and saved everyone else the bother. Now you have two guys with their dicks flapping in the wind. Not the greatest strategy for keeping your talent sweet, but ACT was never very good at that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Shazzadude (529 comments) says:

    Boscawen’s the only ACT MP who ended the 2008-2011 term untarnished, short of Rodney he’s the best choice for ACT I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    I thought like many before this news ACT had little chance of survival. John is one the few MPs who was considered honest by very many people. I was appalled hearing Rodney on the radio the other day criticizing Colin Craig for his stance on the smacking issue. He said Colin should just move on. What a bloody flip flop. Many ACT members spent a lot of time collecting signatures. Others like me volunteered a lot of time on what Rodney said was ACT policy.

    If is elected leader he may decide along with the board on other priorities but I doubt if he will do a flip flop on either of the two issues he spent much time on – the anti-smacking law and the ETS.

    He will also be able to work with any of National’s coalition partners.

    Good luck
    John

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    BTW – Does any one know how long Jamie White has been a member of ACT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Tom Barker (143 comments) says:

    Is this the guy who gave a press conference with a chocolate lamington stuck to his head?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    I think this is the brightest bit of news for ACT since before the last election. Boscawen was one of the few ACT MPs I liked. I certainly rate him higher than Colin Craig. But I’m stunned the former has had such a large change of heart, it seemed pretty final when he announced his retirement.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Yes Tom, before being shoulder tapped by National to return to Wellington, he was lamingtoned – picture below.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Lamington-attack-interrupts-Mt-Albert-debate-/tabid/419/articleID/105752/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Could have worse things thrown at you I suppose. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    BTW – Does any one know how long Jamie White has been a member of ACT?

    Do you mean Jamie Whyte?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Is this the guy who gave a press conference with a chocolate lamington stuck to his head?

    No.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    I was appalled hearing Rodney on the radio the other day criticizing Colin Craig for his stance on the smacking issue. He said Colin should just move on. What a bloody flip flop. Many ACT members spent a lot of time collecting signatures. Others like me volunteered a lot of time on what Rodney said was ACT policy.

    That was almost six years ago, Chuck. Time to move forward, and not look back. Like you I collected signatures, but the issue is dead now as far as the public is concerned. It’s very important to look what you can do in politics, not always look in the rear vision mirror and wonder “what if”.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Nick, would you say the same thing if Rodney did a flip flop on say 3 strikes? I have moved on away from ACT. I do not like party leaders like Rodney who say one thing to one group of people and another to another group to get votes and free workers.

    BTW – are you still an ACT member? If you are you are not acting in the best interest of the party trying to get into an argument with me again.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. lolitasbrother (693 comments) says:

    sorry that story wont wash,
    Buscowan does not have it,
    No possibility at all in Epsom,
    NZ Nat will have to do better than this or go to Hawaii kiwi

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Chuck, how can you possibly profess to know what is in the best interests of the party if you are not a member?

    Yes, I am still a member. I have been so since 1997 and intend to stay so.

    I don’t understand your three strikes analogy. It is law now, and Act made it so. With the repeal of s 59, Act voted against it every time but it is law. Act also voted against a myriad of things over many years. Should we re-visit those too?

    Good on the Conservatives for campaigning on this. Who knows, they might succeed.

    But I’m confident Act will be campaigning on more relevant issues for the electorate this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird

    Do you have a copy or a link to ACT’s proposed amendment(s) to S59 in 2007?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Nasska, I don’t think Act had any amendments, it just wanted the status quo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Wonderful news!!!

    Take your two spoonfuls of salts Epsomites and do your bit for the down throw of Silent and the Aussieginga! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. CrazyIvan (90 comments) says:

    This provides a good, genuine choice for ACT members. Boscowen is a man renowned for his integrity and level-headiness, with experience in Parliament, and a reasonable public profile. Jamie Whyte is an interesting option, philosopher with some interesting ideas, but no profile and no experience in NZ politics (which can be a good or bad thing). He brings some intellectual grunt but the question would be how that comes across to voters.

    Perhaps Boscowen as leader and Jamie as deputy for the election, or maybe the co-leader option is a possibility. Winning Epsom and 1.5% should get both of them in. 2+ gets David Seymour in as well, if that’s how the list ranking turns out

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    NK

    I could be wrong but I seem to remember that John B had some amendment that would allow ‘light’ smacking but would have prevented use of implements involved in corporal punishment.

    As such it would be a policy that ticked all the boxes for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    “No Jandals” do you mean nasska? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Use of stocks, buggy whips, alkathene pipe & wooden implements such as a length of 4 x 2 were to be discouraged too JB. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Jug cords? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. noskire (842 comments) says:

    I’m picking there are going to be some clever politics played by the the Conservatives too. There may be some bidding to National come November.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    @Nasska, Yes, that rings bells. But as I keep saying to Chuck, it’s so long ago I’d forgotten and I’ve moved on to fight 2014-2018 issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    It could be a fruitful campaign policy NK. There’s certainly a core of us who have no taste for legalised torture of kids sanctioned under S59 but who have no problem with parents having some powers of discipline over unruly brats.

    Presently there’s no party promoting a middle road.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Colin just flicks the little shits on the fingers nasska!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Strange fruit our Colin. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Go away nasska….Colin a fruit? Well I never! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “Chuck, how can you possibly profess to know what is in the best interests of the party if you are not a member?”

    Nick, I rejoined ACT reasons different than why you joined or most of the libertarians who joined the party. I was at a Family First Conference where Rodney spoke. I asked him from the floor if he supported binding referenda on conscience votes mainly of a moral nature such as smacking or homosexual marriage. He said he was strongly in favour and was roundly applauded. He claims he just later changed his mind. I do not accept that.

    It is the same thing with the smacking issue. I believe he the only reason Rodney pushed the anti-smacking issue was votes not principle.

    I was in ACT because of the smacking issue, the ETS and my believe that Rodney was telling the truth at the Family First Conference. The only thing I think ACT achieved was the 3 Strikes legislation. Rodney made a mess of the super city as most people can now see.

    A lot of ACT people like to call Winston a liar. I have known Winston a long time and he has never lied to me personally.

    I made my post complementary to John and had a little dig at Rodney. If you hope to get on the ACT board again you better to think before you type.

    The is the second argument you have picked with me in the last week. What is there to gain by for ACT by you a former ACT Board member starting arguments with a former ACT member who is a little unhappy with the time he wasted because he was lied to. Rodney can stick up for himself. He has enough brains to say nothing. You learn from him. However, I will not hold my breath lawyer always like to have the last word.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    @nasska. I found it a while back. I will see if I can find it again.

    “Presently there’s no party promoting a middle road.”

    It certainly sound to me like the Conservative Party is. Come closer the election it is likely NZF will. They certainly believe that MPS should not be able to stitch up a deal in the backroom opposed by the vast majority of parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. aquataur (56 comments) says:

    John is one of the most genuine and hard working MPs you will find. I have years of experience dealing with MPs and he is one to treasure. Just hope he is not tarnished with the ACT brand !

    Go well JB – you deserve to represent New Zealanders !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    However, I will not hold my breath lawyer always like to have the last word.

    Then I will prove you wrong by saying nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Crusader (314 comments) says:

    Is he a climate change denier like Rodders?

    Surely there has to be someone with the balls to point out the emperor has no clothes on. Fact is the atmosphere has not warmed for 15 years. Something out there is affecting the climate more powerfully than human beings and we should have the honesty and humility to admit we do not know what it is, rather than running around fretting about carbon footprints like it is some sort of original sin, and we need to buy indulgences like emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    @nasska

    There is the link. If Colin Craig gets into Parliament I would think he would be happy to accept such a compromise.
    This is not just about smacking but who has primacy over the raising of children the parents or the state.
    Parliament also supports providing abortions to underage girls without parents being notified.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2009/0078/latest/DLM2310102.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Last word

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Colin Craig has the last word.
    http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3760/animation8cagemovie.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    So National now has the option of coalition with the nut party or the nuttier party.

    Good work chaps.

    BTW, if someone refers to himself as a “classical liberal” that means the same as “economic ignoramus”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. lazza (381 comments) says:

    Anyone know JB’s record (votes gained) when standing in an electorate seat. Got it? … Yeah so, a snowballs show inEpsom?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. V (720 comments) says:

    The party that used to advertise itself as having new ideas, now just repeats the same old one, “stand a candidate in Epsom.”

    Time to go list only and live/die by a true contest of ideas. The Epsom sideshow completely destroys any hope of getting policy messages across.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Lazza, every new candidate for National and Labour in winnable seats has exactly zero votes from prior elections. It doesn’t stop them from winning.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Jmac (16 comments) says:

    The Whyte for Leader, Seymour for Epsom, ticket represents ACTs best bet for a party that is actually seeking to rise again. Both men are principled and willing to put the hard yards in. Neither are handicapped by any kind of unreasonable Libertarianism.
    It is disappointing that ACT stand to once again embrace the past in the attempt to scrape through again to 2017.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    To those who have passed on their best wishes through this column, thankyou.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    Why on earth is Boscawen standing???

    ACT already has two stellar candidates for them to consider, why would he jump in and confuse the mix? Instead he has been doing stellar work as President of their party which he should be focusing on carrying on doing.

    If God forbid Boscawen becomes leader and Epsom candidate like he wishes, then the media will absolute rip into his party attacking it for being a “rich-old-white-male-pricks” party, composed of hasbeens trying to get back into parliament and onto the gravy train.

    Now I know Boscawen is nothing like that, I’ve met him once or twice, and he is fantastically great guy on a personal level. But that is how the media is going to spin it! This is why it is of top notch importance to keep in mind how the media will portray ACT’s selections, and pick people who will be a new start for ACT.

    Personally I’d recommend ACT does Seymour for Epsom & Whyte for leader. Picking two rather than just one gives ACT a *team*!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Matt (227 comments) says:

    I disagree with you, wrightingright. The more competitive the selections are, the more media coverage they will get. This can only underline to the public that the party is changing and will raise it’s public profile.

    Now maybe Boscawen won’t win. But in beating him to the selection, the final candidate can at least start with some laurels and some experience of a campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Excellent… integrity and intelligence are both sorely lacking in Parliament and John has both in spades. The brand has been so damaged by leadership wrangles and the ill-advised lurch into conservatism and pandering to the SST wing and the only way the public will regain confidence in ACT is if it’s led by a known quantity – and not only that, but someone known for having their ego under control and following through on what they say.

    We’ve got enough show ponies in Parliament; let them prance. Voters want reliability and substance. This is an exciting development – and best of all it could sideline Colin Craig.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Zyxt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    I’m not sure why I’m getting so many down votes for pointing out that Boscawen has had ample opportunity to declare his hand already, that in declaring, he’s essentially sewn up the contest, and in declaring so late, he has hung White and Seymour out to dry. Why is the truth of that so hard for people? If he’d told us at the start he was in the running, it would have saved face for a lot of people. By hanging back he dicked them over, and he will either have to work with them, which will be awkward, or jettison them, which is a waste of good talent.

    He’ll be a fine enough leader, but this is a dick move – it shows no tact at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    A agree BlairM, is a bit of a dick move to do this merely a few days out before ACT’s board decides on this choice.

    Gives their other guys Whyte/Seymour almost no chance to react and counter this, while he Boscawen has had all the time in the world.

    For a guy who normally has acted before with such high character this starts to smell a little underhand… :-/

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

    Not a good move…hes too old…too grey …too conservative. ACT needs a fresh young LIBERAL running it and being the face.

    If he get in then its another 3 years of wasted time till he pops off and ACT has to finally do what it should have from day one…BE THE CLASSIC LIBERAL PARTY IT WAS FOUNDED TO BE!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    If someone refers to himself as a “classical liberal” that means the same as “economic ignoramus”.

    Nope…that would be a Socialist…Socialism and Economics are polar opposites…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Cactus Kate (551 comments) says:

    John is a fabulous guy and great President of the Party however I see no sense at all in his announcement given David Seymour the new face of ACT has obviously been told by powers above to put his name forward for Epsom.

    Now it’s a case of oops, you’ve made the commitment to return from overseas and change your life, you have to beat the old guy first and split the party again. Both Seymour and Whyte face this for their respective positions. Bet both are wondering why they bothered returning.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird never belonged philosophically in the ACT Party ever. Having him tell ACT (and former ACT) members about how ACT or Rodney “should” have believed in, is rather ridiculous. No surprises he jumped into bed with Colin Craig.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Whyte and Seymour would have a monumental task
    a) leading Act
    b) succeeding in Epsom
    c) setting up in Parliament
    d) running a party and an electorate and a Parliamentary office

    They may be the potential future of Act, but they would benefit substantially from being patient and learning from the experience and respect of John Boscawen.

    Boscawen is Act’s best chance of pulling back from a political precipice. If Whyte and Seymour and others use this as an opportunity to build their own experience and credibility they are far more likely to succeed in the short term, albeit at a lesser level than they might have ambitions for, and they are also more likely to succeed in the long term.

    Putting a political novice into a position of saving the party would another huge risk for Act. They first have to survive the next election. They then have to rebuild. I think their best chance of doing this is with Boscawen. Then the younger talent have a much better chance of making a mark.

    Politics can be like cheese, good things often take time. Boscawen is mature, and Act needs that right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    Is this the guy who gave a press conference with a chocolate lamington stuck to his head?

    While that was a stupid prank, this has got to be one of the best quotes ever:

    It was supposed to be a cream pie, but there were none available in the supermarket this morning on the way over.

    That is fantastic. The humble, yet classic, lamington replaces the Hollywood personality cream pie.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    I rejoined ACT reasons different than why you joined or most of the libertarians who joined the party.

    Ewww…. factions. Good old factions. No wonder they’re doing so well in the polls.

    If Colin Craig gets into Parliament I would think he would be happy to accept such a compromise. This is not just about smacking but who has primacy over the raising of children the parents or the state.

    Maybe he should do some research and see if, you’re still smacking kids @ 8, whether you can claim to support effective discipline. Christian nutbars and their crutches. Sigh

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Interesting.

    Nearly everyone at Kiwiblog has a lot of time for either the Conservatives or ACT. Or both. And moreso, are very supportive of either parties leaders.

    National’s back bench party listers could be starting to worry – with a whole 9 months to go. 2 X 5% is a lot of seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “Chuck Bird never belonged philosophically in the ACT Party ever. Having him tell ACT (and former ACT) members about how ACT or Rodney “should” have believed in, is rather ridiculous.”

    LMK. I am sure ACT will be better with someone like you who is either dishonest or plain stupid. Rodney was free to believe what ever he liked. Do you think it acceptable for a party leader to lie about his position on an important issue to get members free labour? If Rodney had not lied to me I would not have rejoined ACT.

    When I resigned from ACT John Boscawen phoned me at home and thanked me for the work I did for ACT and for him personally. He listened to why I left and did not argue me but wished me well. If anyone can pull ACT together it will be John but he will not be helped by members like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “……you’re still smacking kids @ 8, whether you can claim to support effective discipline. Christian nutbars and their crutches. Sigh….’

    Listen up idiot.

    So when was the last time that anything ‘Christian’ was used as an excuse in Court – or recorded in statistics as ‘being of concern’?

    We know that divorce, single parenting, drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, domestic violence ect is deemed as ‘being of concern’ in statistics, and some are at times also used as ‘mitigating’ factors in court defences.

    But none of those are Christian things!

    So do tell us istricky……..who exactly is it that is fucken useless at parenting – those who follow Christian ideals – or those who don’t? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    One of the most quoted cases regarding the smacking law change was the North Otago woman who beat her son with a cane and a riding whip. There was a strong ‘Christian’ element to the case. From an interview with the woman:

    My son had a medical condition as a young child which prevented him from receiving the normal smacks on the bottom a naughty toddler would receive from a loving parent.

    On the way home from the school I talked to my son about his behaviour and told him it was not acceptable and that I expected him to behave properly and respectfully at school. I told my son that I loved him and that because of his very bad behaviour I had to discipline him. I bent him over the table and gave him six whacks on his trousered bottom with a small bamboo cane.

    I felt I needed to discipline my son for this severe behaviour and looked for the cane, but could not find it. I saw the riding crop close by and thought that will give him a short sharp sting and then administered discipline with that

    Why didn’t you use your hand?
    I had spent some time praying about my sons behaviour and read through Scripture and felt as a result of that that I had a responsibility to pull my son back into line quickly and effectively before he got into more serious trouble, in a manner which dealt with it on the spot instead of a punishment which dragged on and even showed a lack of forgiveness. I felt his behaviour called for something more than a smack on the bottom.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0606/S00053/testimony-of-mother-re-timaru-horse-whip-case.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Can we please not turn this thread into *another* debate on smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    There was a strong ‘Christian’ element to the case.

    What the Bible says about Children

    Children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed.

    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. — Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. — Exodus 21:15

    He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 21:17

    Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles.
    The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. — Proverbs 30:17

    Like Abraham, parents should be willing to kill their children for God.
    And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and … offer him there for a burnt offering…. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. — Genesis 22:2,10

    God killed all the firstborn children in an entire country.

    The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon…. And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. — Exodus 12:29-30

    Sometimes God kills children for misbehaving.

    And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. — 2 Kings 2:23-24

    Someday God will force parents eat their own children.

    And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. — Leviticus 26:29
    And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. — Deuteronomy 28:53
    And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. — Jeremiah 19:9

    And then there’s this statement, which could only be found in the Bible:
    Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. — Psalm 137:9

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    Chuck started it NK – put him over your knee!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    One of the most quoted cases regarding the smacking law change was the North Otago woman who beat her son with a cane and a riding whip. There was a strong ‘Christian’ element to the case.

    Was that really that relevant to the outcome? Or was it that the Court ruled that the use of the riding crop fell within the bounds of reasonable force under the law at that time?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    This sounds like it’s probably a good move for Act, to get someone who’s stayed the distance with them to be the face. One of Act’s main problems (IMHO) is that although the party name stays the same, it’s a different bunch of clowns every time around.

    (Their other problem is that they preach only to their own choir, and have been hopelessly ineffective at reaching out to convince the wider public of the merits of their ideas.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. J Bloggs (241 comments) says:

    I’m not sure why I’m getting so many down votes for pointing out that Boscawen has had ample opportunity to declare his hand already, that in declaring, he’s essentially sewn up the contest, and in declaring so late, he has hung White and Seymour out to dry. Why is the truth of that so hard for people? If he’d told us at the start he was in the running, it would have saved face for a lot of people. By hanging back he dicked them over, and he will either have to work with them, which will be awkward, or jettison them, which is a waste of good talent.

    He’ll be a fine enough leader, but this is a dick move – it shows no tact at all.

    Messrs Whyte & Seymour – Welcome to the world of Politics. Here endeth the lesson.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. lazza (381 comments) says:

    I have a real problem with this thread. Has it been “stacked” … or is that blitzed? by those who are really! touchy about perfectly justifiable concerns about JB’s “marketability”!

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

    And the point about the “Dick Move” JB buggering up Seymour’s/Whyte’s candidacies tends to add to Boscowan’s problematic candidacy … Eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    I cannot help but wonder if John Boscawen carries residual bad karma and factional baggage from the civil war period in ACT’s recent past, and whether it would be better for all concerned that there should be a clean slate in terms of leadership team composition. Whyte and Seymour might be preferable for that reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Monty (978 comments) says:

    It would be pretty easy for Act to win Epsom now. And given that he is a genuinely nice and smart guy I would not be surprised to see him bring 2 more in with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Steve Wrathall (284 comments) says:

    Having a vigourous contest is good for the party. Whoever wins Epsom &/or the leadership should be committed to keeping the party BROAD socially.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Sadly Steve that is no longer possible. The idealistic libertarians have forced nearly all the conservatives out the party. When Prebble was in charge and Muriel Newman was and MP there were liberal and conservative MPs and members. The libertarians like the loony left think they have all the answers to some utopian society and are unwilling to compromise. That is clear from the comments on this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Chuck: And the neoconservatives and populist fringe who fought the libertarian/classical liberal ACT faction do? Nope. They alienated classical liberal voters from ACT, propelling them toward National. Newman repeatedly wasted time when she was supposed to be engaging in welfare ‘reform’ advocacy pandering to the male backlash lobby. Many classical liberal ACT members became thoroughly tired of her antics.

    And religious social conservatives aren’t utopians?! The difference is, their fantasies involve a mythological golden age past which never really existed. And like other utopians, their philosophies diverge from reality (although to be fair, objectivist libertarians can also be batshit crazy…)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Monty – it certainly raises the prospects of that, and probably more than any other option on the table.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. MH (757 comments) says:

    It is expected every Epsom Salzer will do their duty to their country, take the dosage as prescribed and vote as they have been told. If this man or any person puts themselves up to represent us then they had better do right by us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Steve Wrathall (284 comments) says:

    The notion that ACT should not be broad socially, flies in the face of the fact that both social liberals and supporters of the traditional family unit can buy into the project of shrinking the size of the state. As an ACT member I supported gay marriage, but also the right to physically discipline children. On drug liberalisation I’m of mixed views.
    If any of the Epsom/leadership candidates believe that ACT should move away from being broad socially, then they should state this publicly now. With some smarts and discipline all 3 of them can be got into parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    CG, you may be right in your comments. However, do you agree that Rodney was quite wrong to tell me and a large audience that he supported binding referenda on conscience issues particularly of a moral nature to get votes and even members by misleading them at the very least?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    As I oppose all BCIRs and CIR on principle, I’d have to say, yes. I may have a great deal of respect for Rodney as a person of considerable integrity and genuine classical liberalism, but on the issue of referenda on “moral” issues, he was dead wrong. Mind you, binding referenda are even controversial amongst some social conservatives these days. For every relsoccon who wants another pro-belting referendum, there are anti-pot and anti-euthanasia social conservatives dead set against the idea of such referenda or their introduction in New Zealand for the same reason. As I’ve said before, I support representative and deliberative democracy. A written constitution is a better idea than binding referenda.

    And remember, I also opposed the Labour/Green asset sales CIR.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    CG. thanks for your answer. However, I think you have missed my point. It is hard of course to proof that Rodney did not just change his mind. I do not believe he did. I could proof he said what he did as I have it on audio. I cannot post a MP4 file to KB or I would.

    My issue is that he said what would get votes. If he had of answered honestly I would not have rejoined ACT.

    Can you accept why I am pissed off?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Chuck

    Thanks for the link. John B’s proposed amendment was sensible & is well worth another shot as we can rest assured that S59 & its effect on reasonable parents is not going away soon. Key points were:

    …” the use of force is unreasonable if—

    “(a) it causes the child to suffer injury that is more than transitory and trifling or materially contributes thereto; or

    “(b) it is inflicted by any weapon, tool, or other implement; or

    “(c) it is inflicted by any means that is cruel or degrading.”

    Anything is better than a return to the days of child torture envisaged by Colin Craig’s & his band of hardline, religious headcases. A compromise is required & ACT’s 2009 proposal steers a middle road which would probably be acceptable to middle NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    @nasska, I am not a member of the Conservative Party nor communicated with Colin Craig for some time but I would be very surprised if he would not go along with the above. It could be a win for both parties. His position from what I have seen is that the current situation must change. It would be inappropriate for him to put up something like the above and say this is my bottom line. The fine detail should be sorted out at coalition discussions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. lazza (381 comments) says:

    Geez youz fellas.

    If Boscowan is the best on offer, then ACT is now “Officially!” … totally dead and buried/f*cked.

    But then, we knew that anyhoo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird, if those kind of derogatory words and ad hominem attacks on libertarian thought was the norm for conservatives when they were in the ACT party then no wonder people in ACT are glad to see such conservative elements gone!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. lazza (381 comments) says:

    NK Says ” Lazza, every new candidate for National and Labour in winnable seats has exactly zero votes from prior elections”.

    DOHH! It is bleedingly obvious that … “every NEW candidate has zero votes in prior elections”.

    Two things … the above statement (of the obvious) is what?… tautalogical? … Anyhoo it is complete nonsense.

    Second … Boscowan is NOT a new candidate as he stood (on the list) and got elected. Call that “new” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    I think Seymour and Whyte look far more promising as leadership candidates, precisely because they’re untainted by the trauma and suicidal factionalism of past interneccine ACT conflicts. Boscawen may have been a loyal deputy to Hide, which is commendable, but I think a healthy turnover of personnel at periodic intervals is good for a political party. Incumbency fatigue is a risk that faces all political parties, of whatever hue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote