A rebrand for ACT

February 23rd, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

is to shrug off Rodney Hide’s canary yellow jacket with a bold new look to be unveiled at next weekend’s party conference.

New leader Jamie Whyte has opted to tone down the party’s signature colour to a more “muted” shade of yellow.

As in previous years, law and order lobby Sensible Sentencing Trust will be represented, with spokeswoman Ruth Money delivering a speech on “policies that work”. Whyte said that he backs tough deterrents but law and order is now not one of the party’s policy priorities.

Looks like they are rebranding both in terms of colour, but also in terms of policy focus.

Tags:

57 Responses to “A rebrand for ACT”

  1. Jack5 (4,217 comments) says:

    Well that’s bold rebranding – a lighter shade of yellow.

    Mr Black and Whyte looks like he will set the political world on fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nukuleka (77 comments) says:

    ‘but law and order is now not one of the party’s policy priorities.’

    Of course not with Jamie Whyte at the helm. Watch out for the decriminalization and/ or legalization of a variety of drugs to become ACT Part policy. Notwithstanding society’s damaging love affair with tobacco and alcohol, Jamie wants our kids to have ready access to further drugs of choice all in the name of freedom and personal choice. And bugger the social and personal consequences.

    And before anyone claims that such liberalizing of drug laws will take clout away from gangs et al, may I point out that once prostitution was legalised in order to give greater protection to prostitutes and to stop gangs having an undue involvement in the business, we see from the Mallory Manning case that this in fact encouraged the gangs to get further involved as they muscled in for their slice of the now legal prostitution racket.

    Watch the Conservatives begin to gain from ACT’s more liberal ‘rebranding’.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. iMP (2,150 comments) says:

    too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Longknives (4,044 comments) says:

    “CANARY YELLOW??”

    ” That’s Australian Green and Gold my friend…..”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jack5 (4,217 comments) says:

    Still, it’s better than the Telecom balls up – Spark!

    Telecom’s telling people it reflects the new telecommunications age as well as its changing role.

    Spark? That brings to mind the crystal sets of a century ago. Nothing at all related to the light-beam telecommunications of optical fibre, and whoever saw a spark coming out of a WiFi modem or a smart phone?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Left Right and Centre (2,390 comments) says:

    Well, that’s their colour muted….

    …so now it matches their muted poll rating

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. freedom101 (439 comments) says:

    Nukuleka – disingenuous. You must know that Jamie Whyte has clearly said on a number of occasions that ACT will not be making drug legalisation party policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nukuleka (77 comments) says:

    freedom101:

    Worth a go, though!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    And before anyone claims that such liberalizing of drug laws will take clout away from gangs et al, may I point out that once prostitution was legalised in order to give greater protection to prostitutes and to stop gangs having an undue involvement in the business, we see from the Mallory Manning case that this in fact encouraged the gangs to get further involved as they muscled in for their slice of the now legal prostitution racket.

    Individual human beings are susceptible to gang pressure. In NZ anyway, companies that get into the supply of legalised drugs will not be or if the gangs try it on, they will get as far as they currently do in NZ, with protection rackets, which is nowhere.

    That’s the big difference, and how else are you going to control it? You can’t stop the supply, we’ve been trying that globally for decades and it hasn’t made the slightest difference, has it. So what are you going to do? More of the same, except harder this time? Definition of insanity springs to mind.

    Sorry if legalising offends anyone’s sensibilities, but if so then offer another suggestion that’s going to have some real effect in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Did they run it past the Closed Brethren

    and are they going to get some anti greens anti labour

    pamphlets from Tasmania

    How about a yellow belly

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wat dabney (3,439 comments) says:

    Notwithstanding society’s damaging love affair with tobacco and alcohol

    Apparently taking away people’s freedoms is not damaging to “society” though.

    The usual leftist case: if enough liberty is suppressed we’ll have the perfect society.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Reid,

    It’s a sad indictment on our society when we adopt giving up as a value.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jack5 (4,217 comments) says:

    Who has taken over ACT?

    From some of the posts you would think it was the narco’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Dave Mann (1,126 comments) says:

    @Jack5: No, not lighter yellow – more MUTED, you fool. Obviously a lighter yellow wouldn’t attract the voters anywhere near as well as a more MUTED yellow. Don’t you know anything about politics? Muted yellow will have ACT zooming in an uncontrollable flood in the election, whereas lighter yellow would not have anywhere near the same effect. Try to keep up, mate, FFS :D

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wat dabney (3,439 comments) says:

    It’s a sad indictment on our society when we adopt giving up as a value.

    Advocates of prohibition should not weigh the costs and benefits?

    What is the logical conclusion of such zealotry, if not a prison state?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    I read somewhere this morning that Richard Prebble is taking on the role of campaign manager.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. stephieboy (1,120 comments) says:

    ACT has always struck me as a party liberal on a lot social issues like Gay and Women’s rights but am skeptical about the rebranding.Let’s wait and see .
    I think Jamie Whyte has an unenviable task ahead of him.One will be heading off the looming threat and menace of cc and his party.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wat dabney (3,439 comments) says:

    ACT has always struck me as a party liberal on a lot social issues like Gay and Women’s rights

    These are just specific examples of a general principle though, which is that everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness.

    It could be that every member of ACT is a misogynistic homophobe, but they recognise that it is not their business (or anyone else’s business) to discriminate; and certainly not for the state to legislate.

    Contrast that with leftists, who are just as subject to human bigotries and prejudices as everyone else, but who do see if as their job to deploy the coercive state to impose their views on everyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Urban_Redneck (39 comments) says:

    ACT is to shrug off Rodney Hide’s canary yellow jacket with a bold new look to be unveiled at next weekend’s party conference.

    Now that the Libertarianz have finally thrown in the towel, there is sure to be a spare telephone box available for which ACT can hold their conference.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    ACT will hold the seat of Epsom. While the fine folk of that constituency might not like the idea they understand MMP better than anybody else.

    They will do as Key tells them, hold their nose, vote ACT and watch Key lead a third term government.

    Yes act have been a joke this time around, yes ACT do have a leader and a candidate that nobody has heard of, yes ACT have not earned the right to be a part of the next government but none of that matters.
    What does matter is that the people of Epsom do not want Cuntliffe and Wussel Norman sitting on the government benches.

    For that reason and that reason alone it makes the stupid notion of Key doing a deal with the bat shit crazy CCCP unnecessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (12,622 comments) says:

    Good luck, Mr Whyte!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    Nothing like bold political moves that will capture the Zeitgeist.

    Slightly darker yellow.

    Brilliance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thor42 (770 comments) says:

    Good on them!

    It must be said that there are two policies that are working well that are ACT policies – the “three strikes” law and charter schools. If both policies continue to work well then New Zealand should forever be thankful for ACT’s well thought-out, fiscally-responsible and common-sense policies (and ACT’s determination to pursue them in what is a hugely left-wing-biased environment).

    NZ politics would be *hugely* the poorer without ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. David Garrett (5,120 comments) says:

    “law and order is now not one of the party’s policy priorities”….There goes the significant number of ACT supporters who DO believe in hard line law and order policies off to the Conservatives…

    Very bad move…I have it on good authority that the one thing focus groups consistently link ACT with – in a positive way – is three strikes in particular, and law and order in general….

    Watch them take the credit as 3S starts to lock up truly evil bastards for 15-20 years on a third strike…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Crusader (225 comments) says:

    ACT could change their colour to red. Nothing copyrighted there. And hope labour voters make a mistake on the voting paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ChardonnayGuy (1,023 comments) says:

    Please, can we have an evidence-based debate about drug policy here, not populist folderol? Can someone please demonstrate that Dutch, Swiss and Portugese drug policies have had adverse health and social outcomes, preferably quantifiable, because that’s not what the substantive, empirical data I’ve seen indicates?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. doggone7 (487 comments) says:

    Does redesigning or rebranding an anus necessarily change the stuff that comes out?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    Crusader

    Good idea, although I would go one step further. Create a new logo that looks as close as possible to the KFC logo and ACT would sweep South Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Please, can we have an evidence-based debate about drug policy here, not populist folderol?….”

    Legalising drugs is nothing more than a councel of despair. The government doesn’t suggest that we have to put up with pollution or other negative health matters – but with drugs – they are expected to put their hands in the air and give up? What a joke you are Shoddygayguy!!!!!!!

    There are huge amounts of health problems spread by so called adult drug users in NZ – child depression – child learning disabilities – youth suicide – and the parents of users also suffer from depression, finance worries, ect. And that’s before we even look at the users themselves spreading hepititus and sexual diseases.

    All GP’s will tell you Shoddygayguy that legalising drugs does not STOP ADDICTION and the NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS IT HAS ON CHILDREN AND OTHERS.

    Grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ChardonnayGuy (1,023 comments) says:

    Spoken like a true populist Queenslandtard from Australia’s hickiest most corrupt state, Hurriut. Grow up yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. NK (916 comments) says:

    Harriet- there are thousands of drugs that are legal now that cause innumerable number of health problems.

    ChardonnayGuy is right – grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy #

    You know there are far more victims than just the users themselves. The law should crack down on drugs and the media & entertainment world ect should stop promoting the idea that drug usage is o.k.

    It’s not o.k. to promote drugs as there are countless victims and the expense to families, employers, neighbours and society at large is to high. Health professionals have far better things to do than councel increasing numbers of drug addicts in a legalised state. It’s selfish when the cost of regular healthcare is so high.

    You did say you had diabetise. Well I’m only trying to help see that you get better, more & cheaper healthcare. :cool:

    Seriously ChardonnayGuy, I do hope your health is getting better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. stephieboy (1,120 comments) says:

    Harriet , lets for once try legalizing weed as in Colorado for a change.OK it won’t make drug addiction go away but nor has the liberal supply of alcohol dhen the same with alcohol addiction.
    The main point let’s get marijuana into the shops and out of the hands of organized crime .Interesting they are the ones also who want the status quo.!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Harriet- there are thousands of drugs that are legal now that cause innumerable number of health problems……..ChardonnayGuy is right – grow up…..”

    So why on earth would you want more of them?

    The government cracks down on smokers, pollution, alcohol, occupational safety and health, obesity ect in the knowledge that these things are bad – and you idiots want to add a few more things!

    Delusional! What drugs are you on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. NK (916 comments) says:

    Harriet – you advocate spending more taxpayers money on “cracking down on drugs”. You do know how unsuccessful that has been in the USA don’t you? In fact, no only has it been unsuccessful, it has had perverse policy effects. The US Government has spent trillions on their “War on Drugs” and it has spectacularly failed. And you want to follow that trend. Good luck to you.

    Oh yeah, and this:

    The government cracks down on smokers, pollution, alcohol, occupational safety and health, obesity ect in the knowledge that these things are bad – and you idiots want to add a few more things!

    I wouldn’t “crack down” on any of these if I was in charge. Live and let live is my motto. What I would do is refuse taxpayer health dollars going to victims of such stupidity. Then we’ll see how incentives work.

    What drugs are you on?

    None, except for the odd glass of beer or wine. But I don’t go around like your type preaching from the rafters telling others how they must live their lives.

    How do you sleep at night worrying about so many people’s choices?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..lets for once try legalizing weed as in Colorado for a change…”

    the truth about pot is this.

    No one in the 60′s suffered mental illness from smoking pot. The asylums never had pot heads in them. They were instead naked hippies like PM Clarke, Premier Beattie and other anti-war tossers.

    Nowdays pot is grown by hydroponics or under lights and is aided in it’s growth by a variety of chemicals. Young people suffer from mental illness because of that.

    But before mental illness comes lethargy, lazyness, latefulness, work issues, unemployment, financal ruin, depression, despair.

    Natural grown pot maybe o.k but – I can’t see how the law is going to police hydro and light grown pot in NZ’s colder climate!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    NK

    I don’t loose a wink of sleep worrying about other peoples choices. Like you what I do worry about is legalising drugs and then being forced to fund the rehab of the losers who decide of their own free will that they will become addicted.

    They simply cannot have it both ways, either we legalise all drugs and tell the entire nation that should you decide to partake of these drugs that the gutter awaits (and that is where you will stay because no tax payer funding will go toward your rehab) or we don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. NK (916 comments) says:

    Harriet said:

    Nowdays pot is grown by hydroponics or under lights and is aided in it’s growth by a variety of chemicals. Young people suffer from mental illness because of that.

    But before mental illness comes lethargy, lazyness, latefulness, work issues, unemployment, financal ruin, depression, despair.

    Natural grown pot maybe o.k but – I can’t see how the law is going to police hydro and light grown pot in NZ’s colder climate!!!!!!

    Why should causing yourself harm be a criminal offence? Moreover, why should you go to jail for becoming “lazy, unemployed or late for work”!

    If causing yourself harm should be illegal, why isn’t attempted suicide punishable by 20 years in prison?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……The US Government has spent trillions on their “War on Drugs” and it has spectacularly failed. And you want to follow that trend. Good luck to you….”

    What a strawman! We are two islands 2500km below Australia with a population of 4 million. There is no market for drugs.

    You can’t get that rich in NZ selling drugs. And most people come to the attention of the police long long before that. In other words – NZ would spend a lot less per capita on policing drugs than the ‘borderless’ US would!

    “…What I would do is refuse taxpayer health dollars going to victims of such stupidity….”

    So drug addicts shouldn’t have any money spent on them at all….fair enough……but what about their children & parents?

    See now how drug addiction is just a councel of dispair?

    You sure you guys arn’t on them? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. NK (916 comments) says:

    It’s irrelevant how much we would spend viz a viz the USA. The issue is that prohibition, with punitive state sanctions, has failed. Yet you want more of it.

    If there is no market for drugs, legalise them!!! No one would buy them using your logic, because there’s no market for them! Duh!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Why should causing yourself harm be a criminal offence? Moreover, why should you go to jail for becoming “lazy, unemployed or late for work”!

    If causing yourself harm should be illegal, why isn’t attempted suicide punishable by 20 years in prison?….”

    So you shouldn’t penalise people who take drugs or excess sugar by taxing them?

    How about cigs? Leaded petrol?

    Both of these things effect the health of others……..just like drugs effect the health of addicts children.

    Again, leagalising drugs is nothing more than a counel of despair!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. NK (916 comments) says:

    So you shouldn’t penalise people who take drugs or excess sugar by taxing them?

    No. I’m not saying that. In fact the economic equilibriums via the price mechanism are much more effective. But a tax is not the same as a criminal offence. Using your logic, tell me why attempted suicide isn’t punishable by 20 years in prison?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……The issue is that prohibition, with punitive state sanctions, has failed. Yet you want more of it….”

    LOL……leaded petrol, duelling and infanticide are all prohibited with punitive sanctions. They haven’t failed.

    Do drug addicts care about their children – like someone who duals cares about their children?

    I can’t see much of a differance myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Using your logic, tell me why attempted suicide isn’t punishable by 20 years in prison?…”

    So the State doesn’t have them doing it in ‘their time’. And there is all the more reason for these act risk people killing themselves in jail. Instead, the state is pro-active with the healthcare of suicide attempties.

    Addicts should recieve the same treatment – by removing all negative influences from their lives – but when drugs are legalised this is nigh on impossable – just ask an alcoholic if they go to the trouble of brewing their own!

    Again, leagalising drugs is nothing more than a counel of despair!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    The fact is this: The government has to balance the rights of individuals and the good of society.

    The vast and varied negative efffects of drugs has a negative effect on wider society, while the drug addicted individual will recieve nothing more than a councel of despair, where his problems can only get worse including his health if drugs are readily available.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. NK (916 comments) says:

    Again, leagalising drugs is nothing more than a counel of despair!

    You can’t spell. And your grammar is terrible. I know who’s on drugs! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..You can’t spell. And your grammar is terrible. I know who’s on drugs!…”

    Nope ———-it’s still Sunday morning here in QLD ———— fucken HUGE hangover. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. NK (916 comments) says:

    Alcohol is a legalised/regulated drug!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Daigotsu (445 comments) says:

    Who the fuck looks at ACT – a sad shadow of what was once a titanic political and intellectual force – and says “I know what’s wrong… it’s the colour on our posters!”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. NK (916 comments) says:

    Good point Daigotsu. But if you’re re-branding, you re-brand. And that means colour and logo. I’ve seen the new ones, or a sample at least, and they’re little different from the past and only the keen eye would really notice, or even give a shit!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. DJP6-25 (1,229 comments) says:

    If Prebs still has his old campaigning skills, the color and logo will be unimportant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    I’m a fan of ACT’s law and order policies – and yes they are popular, but they were never what ACT was about or why ACT was formed. So happy that they are retaining the policies, but glad they will not be a primary focus either.

    It will be good for ACT to have a new logo and lose some of the trappings of their ten years in the wilderness.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Is it too late to change it to the

    ACT like a F wit party?

    ok that was a bit harsh maybe

    ACT like a D head

    See how they go maybe they can do the Next

    Neeew Zeeland flag as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    What do they stand for again ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Does anyone see the issue with calling a political party ……? ACT

    How about Ronald Reagan

    http://youtu.be/XUleWlsRedc

    Bedtime for BONZO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ChardonnayGuy (1,023 comments) says:

    Hmmm. Ruth Money, not Garth McVicar as SST rep? Wonder what that’s all about…???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. ChardonnayGuy (1,023 comments) says:

    Anyway, the real question is how many overdoses, HIV infections from dirty contaminated needles, addicted infants exposed in utero, and contingent infections from *illegal* injected drugs result from current emphases on criminal justice policy at the cost of sensible, evidence-based harm minimisation and risk reduction. And how many exist in contexts like Switzerland, Portugal and the Netherlands…?

    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.