The ACT Party List

July 13th, 2014 at 2:32 pm by David Farrar

have released their list. The top six are:

  1. Dr Jamie Whyte
  2. Kenneth Wang
  3. Robin Grieve
  4. Beth Houlbrooke
  5. Don Nicolson
  6. Stephen Berry
  7. Dasha Kovalenko

If they get 1.2% of the vote (they got 1.1% last time) and retain Epsom, then Jamie Whyte comes in. At 2.0% they also get Kenneth Wang. They would need 6.0% to get Dasha Kovalenko in, which sadly will not happen.

Tags:

74 Responses to “The ACT Party List”

  1. Pete George (22,733 comments) says:

    The first few on the list of a party like Act should be of considerable interest. The quality and competence of the personnel are more important than most policies.

    Unfortunately media will focus on a few select people across all small parties and will ignore what’s most important in getting a strong and capable Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Southern Raider (1,534 comments) says:

    Who?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. freedom101 (462 comments) says:

    Jamie Whyte would add a lot of intelligent interest to parliament. He would question a lot of what the two main parties have agreed not to disagree about. Even political opponents such as Labour and National can take issues off the agenda if their discussion would be awkward for both of them. There are many examples of this, and Jamie Whyte would breathe fresh air into the debate.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    ACT are making some dangerous assumptions. They’ve put up a 20-something No-Known in this blue ribbon seat. Presuming come Writ Day National’s candidate is not on the ballot, but a fiesty other small party with three times the poll-support as ACT, is (ie the rising Conservatives).

    What happens if they run a far superior candidate, and work it hard. Might Center-Right voters abandon Seymour and switch to another, more credible, C.Right candidate? Strategic voters get more MPs for a coalition of their persuasion voting Consv than voting SeymourACT.

    ACTs future eggs are all in one basket. Most are cracked, and I think Colin Craig might like omelets.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dime (9,356 comments) says:

    I like Jamie Whyte a lot. Enjoying his weekly youtube vids.

    Pretty sure ACT! will get my vote this time round

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (22,733 comments) says:

    At the moment Act have significant advantages over the Conservative Party – a reasonable chance of winning an electorate, a proven record of working well with National, and subsequently National have indicated a preference to work with Act.

    And the Act leader and the party supporters don’t keep bagging National which must help their prospects somewhat.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    I see a parallel in David Leyonhjelm, the DLP member in the Australian Senate. He’s awesome. I think that some of the ACT candidates have that same capability. I’d like to see them back, and therefore unless they seriously screw up between now and then I’ll probably vote for them. I doubt I’m the only person in that situation, and I suspect that National needs a way to have those votes count if they want to get in. That’s the reality. I also accept that something similar may be true for the Conservatives, although I’d never personally vote for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Act will also get my vote.

    All those who are against the idea of the CCCP party being a part of the next government have a bloody simple solution, party vote ACT and there is no need for Colin Craig.

    Two or three ACT MP’s will keep Key in power and have the added benefit of pissing off Bedwetter and the bible bashers, seems like a good deal to me.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (783 comments) says:

    Kenneth Wang can do no wrong. He is in bro!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. JMS (295 comments) says:

    The tea tastes good in Epsom, but not in East Coast Bays.

    Though probably better if they replace the cup-of-tea with another symbol this time.

    Go ACT!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    National has little choice but to deals with both ACT and the Conservatives. On current polling they simply cannot rely on ACT alone.

    A coalition of National-ACT-Conservatives would be good for the party and the country. ACT and the Conservatives have similar approaches to educational choice and charter schools. Having two parties push that would make it a lot harder for National to ignore. On other issues, having a competition of ideas will create a good ferment producing better policy.

    ACT alone, polling aside, would give the liberal wing of National too much power.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gump (1,474 comments) says:

    I really don’t think Act will get re-elected in Epsom this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    “I really don’t think Act will get re-elected in Epsom this year.”

    Possibly. The Brash-Banks fiasco did the party no favors. That said I think Epsom voters are charitable enough to distinguish between Banks and Whyte, and savvy enough to know that having ACT in parliament is good for National, and certainly good if they don’t want a Labour/Green/Imp government.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. nasska (10,611 comments) says:

    Anything & anyone ACT puts up is fine by me…..so long as it keeps the Godgobblers out of our lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Martin Gibson (226 comments) says:

    I have known Jamie Whyte for ten years and really like the guy – bright, funny, brave and humane. He’s a thoroughly decent man and I want to see him in parliament to provide some much-needed intelligence to call bullshit on so much of the accepted leftie wisdom that is sucking the life out of NZ’s incestuous (no pun intended!) political scene.
    ACT will get my vote this election and I hope enough kiwis share my disillusionment and get him over the line. The country will be better for it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. georgebolwing (602 comments) says:

    The CCCP and ACT have little in common.

    ACT, under current leadership, are classical liberals who believe in liberty, rational debate and freedom.

    The CCCP are rat-bag demagogues who have a narrow view of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Provided you want to behalf like a 1950s while male New Zealander, then the CCCP will support your right to do so. Anything else will be illegal.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chthoniid (2,027 comments) says:

    I’ll concede the Banks was the thing that destroyed any lingering affection I had to the ACT party.

    I like the new candidates and the electoral position (classical liberal) they’ve taken this time.
    I’m tempted again.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    “The CCCP and ACT have little in common.”

    The are areas on specific policies where they will have enough in common to work constructively.

    “ACT, under current leadership, are classical liberals who believe in liberty, rational debate and freedom.”

    Liberty and freedom are the same thing, so not sure why you needed to repeat that.

    “Rational debate” is very much in the eye of the beholder. There are several different versions of what constitutes “rational debate” on KB, all of them conflicting. The same for “reason” which on KB almost always means “my subjective opinion.”

    ACT is also not entirely a freedom party. There are many areas where they believe in compulsion.

    “who have a narrow view of what is acceptable and what isn’t.”

    Who defines what is narrow or not?

    ” Provided you want to behalf like a 1950s while male New Zealander, then the CCCP will support your right to do so. Anything else will be illegal.”

    Well that’s not remotely true by a long shot. For a start the CP is a multi-ethnic party, so the “white” thing is bollocks (not to mention that PI’s tend to be socially conservative, as we have seen recently.)

    Nor are any of their policies based on what white males in the 50′s did or did not do.

    So you have just proved your not interested in rational debate. Real rational debate does not have to rely on caricature and dishonesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. nasska (10,611 comments) says:

    Chthoniid commented:

    ” Provided you want to behalf like a 1950s while male New Zealander, then the CCCP will support your right to do so. Anything else will be illegal.”

    You replied:

    “Well that’s not remotely true,”

    Why should we think that Shawn? What possible reason does the CCCP have to exist other than to drag the morals of the country back about six decades?

    Presently we can’t get a cheep or a chirrup out of Crazy Colin about God, morals or religious influence within the party so we are forced to look at their policies & candidates in the 2011 election. The policy was all cuddly family first textbook stuff, the candidates were all recycled Godnutters while economic policy was all over the place like a mad woman’s shit.

    You surely don’t think it will be different this time?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (6,699 comments) says:

    Act is a paid servant of Alan Gibbs.
    Unfortunately until he is totally removed from any influence over the party I will not be voting for them.
    Wingnuts.
    Someone posted “rational”
    They are not whilst they continue to deny the findings of climate science

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. thor42 (900 comments) says:

    @gump – “I really don’t think Act will get re-elected in Epsom this year.”

    I beg to differ….. :)

    Epsom has been Act for quite some time now. The good folks in Epsom are intelligent – they will have seen the success of the Act policies that have been introduced (“three strikes”, charter schools).

    Yep, my money is on Epsom staying with Act.

    Heck, if Labour absolutely collapses in the polls (around 17-18% or so) and if the Nats hover around 60%, a number of Nat voters (who’d like to see a more right-leaning National) will feel that it is safe enough to vote for Act this time around. That could get Act another MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mjw (206 comments) says:

    Just 4 out of 20 of the ACT list are women. That speaks volumes.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Mark (1,356 comments) says:

    ACt is a party that has badly lost its way. For me they are a better option that the conservatives as a long term partner but have not been able to gain any traction in attracting a voter base as the greens have done at around 5-7% which is hugely disappointing. Under Rodney they became gimmicky with the Perk busting persona which overshadowed some good policy ideas but it has deteriorated badly since then. It says a great deal about a lack of realistic policy ideas that appeal to more than just the hard line right. Hopefully this time the strategists at ACT can get their collective heads out of the sand and accept that to become a long term proposition they have to gain a broader appeal and the voting public are not going to move toward the right to accommodate them. If Charter Schools is the best they have got then I don’t hold up much hope. This was a party under Douglas that came up with some sound policy around superannuation and promoted a sound economic vision.

    Perhaps Whyte is the last hope for ACT because if in this election they do a deal with Key and then get one or two into parliament there seems little point for National to continue the life support programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    “Why should we think that Shawn? What possible reason does the CCCP have to exist other than to drag the morals of the country back about six decades?”

    To represent a Conservative position. Well, in their case a more or less Conservative opinion.

    But he actually said “white males in the 1950′s.”

    That’s just not true.

    More importantly, the issue of morals depends on whether you think we have advanced or declined, and it really has nothing to do with the 50′s or the 40′s of the Victorian age, or whatever arbitrary date is used.

    Conservatives believe that good morals are good morals, regardless of where we happen to be on a calender.

    A rational response would have been to critique or debate the moral ground itself, not resort to caricatures about dates and ethnicity.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Manolo (13,315 comments) says:

    Banks was a mole planted by Brash and Labour Lite: that finished ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    Griff said: “Someone posted “rational”
    They are not whilst they continue to deny the findings of climate science”

    Exactly my point. What is defined as rational is generally just personal opinion.

    These debates would become a lot more honest if we banished the word “rational” (not reason itself). Some folks use it as a kind of Papal imprimatur, as though sticking the word in a sentence makes the sentence beyond dispute.

    But get ten people in a room to debate almost any issue, and your likely to get several different interpretations of what is or is not “rational.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. nasska (10,611 comments) says:

    Right Shawn….now lets narrow that down a little further.

    …”To represent a Conservative position. Well, in their case a more or less Conservative opinion.”…..

    But what are they conservative about Shawn if not morals…..it’s certainly not economics as they would mesh comfortably with Labour/Greens on that score. eg asset sales.

    ….”Conservatives believe that good morals are good morals”…..

    Subjective in the extreme & impossible to quantify. Commenting as a conservative, what was the last time the morals of the nation were in sync with what you agree with? (about the nearest decade will do)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    The only ones which will possibly count are the top three…Wang is a very good choice…even though he is barely literate in English…I believe the strategy is for him to appeal solely to the Chinese vote…

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. spanish_tudor (47 comments) says:

    mjw (195 comments) says:

    “Just 4 out of 20 of the ACT list are women. That speaks volumes.”

    It speaks volumes that they don’t give a shit about quotas, affirmative action, man bans, and other such nonsense. And good on them.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    “But what are they conservative about Shawn if not morals”

    In theory yes. I just don’t see what that has to do with being white or with arbitrary dates. That said, the CP is not all that Conservative by my standards or views at least. It’s all pretty squishy and conservative-lite at best. And there is nothing Conservative about binding referendums.

    “Subjective in the extreme & impossible to quantify.”

    Subjective yes, but not extremely so, no more than say, you claiming that AGW is irrational, and Griff claiming it is rational.

    “what was the last time the morals of the nation were in sync with what you agree with?”

    Depends on the specific issue. Just as one example, the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act was passed in 1977. My opinion is that we started on a downhill slope about then. But it is true that the rot had set in before that.

    Generally though I tend to go back to the Victorian age, not as a standard but as the falling point, because despite the myths about that age, Liberalism was in many areas already a major issue. And some would go back further to the French Revolution.

    But I’m less concerned about when things went wrong and more concerned about getting things right for the future.

    “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

    ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. nasska (10,611 comments) says:

    ….”But I’m less concerned about when things went wrong and more concerned about getting things right for the future.”….

    Yet as you state, to retrace the journey & proceed in the correct direction you must define a point where you got off the path.

    This is critical to understanding conservatism be it yours or Colin Craig’s version. If you can’t point out a place in time & say that everything that has happened since is Prog heathenism (or whatever) you are without a reference point or a map.

    The CCCP has to sell the message…..what should it be?

    “Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals.”
    ― Mark Twain

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    Just to be clear, my “support” such as it is for the CP has nothing to do with the CP itself. I’m firm about voting for National. My concern is the electoral math. The polls will almost certainly narrow, and National will need all the help it can get.

    It’s less conservatism vs liberalism and more the terror of a Labour/Green/IMP coalition that has me worried.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    “Yet as you state, to retrace the journey & proceed in the correct direction you must define a point where you got off the path.”

    It was an incremental process. It began with the French revolution, solidified in the 19th century, and went completely off the rails in the 60′s and 70′s. That is why it cannot be pinpointed to any one specific decade.

    “The CCCP has to sell the message…..what should it be?”

    I don’t think that is the message they are selling. Like I said, they are not all that conservative to me, and the message they are selling is not so much Traditionalist Conservatism as it is populism, the idea that the urban liberal elites are out of touch and do not listen to the general public.

    “Tradition may be defined as the extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition.”

    -GK Chesterton

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    Spanish tudor: well said…isn’t it interesting that something can “speak volumes” to one person, and say something quite different to another? Quotas have no place in politics…in fact I am struggling to think of anything in which they DO have a place…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. nasska (10,611 comments) says:

    ….”It was an incremental process. It began with the French revolution, solidified in the 19th century, and went completely off the rails in the 60′s and 70′s. That is why it cannot be pinpointed to any one specific decade.”….

    If it cannot be pinpointed it can scarcely be identified & corrected. You’re destined to be the grumpy old man in the corner who mumbles his disapproval of everything but never comes up with a workable or marketable alternative proposal. :)

    For what it’s worth I see where you’re coming from with the CCCP. Unless, as I suspect is possible, they have an ‘under the counter’ agenda they don’t stand for very much at all other than bitching about what happens now.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. OneTrack (2,564 comments) says:

    DG – “Quotas have no place in politics…in fact I am struggling to think of anything in which they DO have a place…”

    The Labour Party (#manban) and the Green Party (co-leaders).

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    “If it cannot be pinpointed it can scarcely be identified & corrected.”

    Sure it can, because the date is not the issue, it’s the ideology: Liberalism.

    I’m not talking about moderate classical liberalism as such, but the “big-L” Liberalism that demands a total severance of the West from it’s Christian moorings, proclaims the automatic superiority of the present age, demands forward movement at all times and as fast as possible regardless of whether it’s genuine progress or not, and demands that we wipe away all sense of tradition, community and moral grounding in favor of turning the individual and individual desires and wants into an idol.

    If you want a very specific date, try 1792, the year the French revolutionists made the Cult of Reason the religion of France.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nasska (10,611 comments) says:

    ….”demands that we wipe away all sense of tradition, community and moral grounding in favor of turning the individual and individual desires and wants into an idol.”….

    Which is why conservatism & religion are inseparably intertwined. Without an all encompassing belief in a higher being & an acceptance of reward in a future heaven the punters will realise that they only have one suck of the sav that is life & they will want to live it to the full.

    Empty churches mean the death of conservatism.

    Time for you to call it quits & join the rest of us. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. georgebolwing (602 comments) says:

    The conservative (note the small c, not specifically linking this to the CCCP) idea that there is “good” and “bad” behaviour when it comes to adults demonstrates one of the key differences between them and liberals. Classical liberals would say that adults can do whatever they like, provided it doesn’t harm others. So kinky sex in private with a willing partner (of whatever gender) is fine, any sort of sex in public is not (since that would offend — and thus harm — others), neither is any sort of sex with an unwilling partner. Some conservatives would suggest that certain behaviour, even in private between consenting adults, should be illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    “Which is why conservatism & religion are inseparably intertwined.”

    True.

    “Empty churches mean the death of conservatism.”

    Our current local church has over 500 regular members. Globally, Christianity is expanding at it’s fastest rate ever. China will be a majority Christian nation in less than a century.

    Sorry Nasska, we are not going away anytime soon. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. georgebolwing (602 comments) says:

    ShawnLH.

    This thread was about the ACT Party. As far as i known, this “Big-L Liberalism” idea of yours is not ACT’s policy. I’m also not sure it is the policy or philosophy of any political party in New Zealand. Or probably anywhere in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    @ShaunLH: I accept that there are those who’d like what you describe – which as described looks to me like the definition of conservatism. Looking to our Judeo Christian heritage, and try to avoid change to our moral and social structures where possible. It’s not for me though. I don’t personally see why gay people shouldn’t marry. I don’t see why we need “Christian” values imbued in our society. From my point of view, most of the important things that Christianity has to say can also be said by a utilitarian, or by a humanist. Other religions also have similar views on many points. In short, I think there are plenty on the right who aren’t socially/morally conservative, and therefore fit more into the liberal tradition.

    I think (hope) there’s room for both parties, the whole point of MMP was to allow people to have a political party that reflected their views. Those who like social freedom with economic control like Labour, or if more extreme in their views, the Greens. Those who like social freedom and economic freedom get ACT. Those who like economic freedom and social control get CCCP (stupid acronym, just saying), those who like social and economic controls get Winston First I guess. The Maori party is really National with a Maori flavour (much as they might like to hide it), and National is an amalgam of ACT and CCCP that ideally at some time in the future would stop existing. United is for those who can’t make their minds up. Mana and IP are for those who are crazy or don’t pay attention to politics. See, a party for everyone, like we were promised. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. goldnkiwi (985 comments) says:

    David Garrett (6,181 comments) says:

    July 13th, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    Wong is hardly literate in English? No point in that being a bar to residency or citizenship then. A platform for ACT to campaign on then possibly, either openly or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. nasska (10,611 comments) says:

    PaulL

    …”CCCP (stupid acronym, just saying)”…..

    Why would that be? Afterall the NZ Conservatives are no more than one man’s vanity wrapped with his money plus a few hangers-on. Not any different from Hone’s Mana or Winston’s NZ First.

    The test would be to imagine Colin Craig or Winston Peters or Hone Harawira falling under a bus. Would their party survive them?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. goldnkiwi (985 comments) says:

    Sorry Kenneth Wang

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi: common enough mistake…when I say he is “barely literate” that is perhaps something of an exaggeration…But he’s still pretty painful to listen to…worse than Pansy Wonga was…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. gump (1,474 comments) says:

    @thor42

    As a long term resident of the Epsom electorate I couldn’t possibly disagree with you assessment of our intelligence.

    I voted for Banks as my local MP at the last election because it was hoped that a few more Act MPs would get through on Act’s party vote and this would be helpful to National in building a majority in parliament.

    Obviously this didn’t happen and there was no advantage gained from my vote. I don’t think Epsom will make that mistake again – I know that I’ll be giving National both of my ticks this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    DG

    How could anybody be worse than Pansy Wong?

    She was so bad I actually thought she was taking the piss the first time I heard her, a bit like she had decided to stick one up Winston (metaphorically of course) for his naked racism against Asian by speaking in a style that was a parody of the people Winston campaigns against.

    I am not exaggerating when I say that once I realised that was how she always spoke I began to wonder just how on earth she communicates with anybody. I am not against Asian MP’s but she was slightly better than useless given her inability to communicate.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Gump

    “I know that I’ll be giving National both of my ticks this year.”

    And what the hell will that achieve other than a Labour led government? Vote for ACT in Epsom and if you were politically savvy you would also give them your party vote as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Tauhei Notts (1,601 comments) says:

    Gump,
    If I had your sense of logic, I would be reading Frogblog assiduously.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fisiani (943 comments) says:

    ACT will win Epsom and have 1-3 mps. Think longterm and Con will win ECB and have 3-5 mps that is another 8 voting for National. National need to think long term and make Cons viable. If they lose votes they do not lose them left

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    @Gump: well, voting for Banks gave the centre right one extra MP than they’d have had otherwise, even if nobody else from ACT got in. If National had won Epsom then they’d have lost someone off the list. So……let’s hope the rest of Epsom know the electoral system better than you.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. gump (1,474 comments) says:

    @PaulL

    “well, voting for Banks gave the centre right one extra MP than they’d have had otherwise, even if nobody else from ACT got in. If National had won Epsom then they’d have lost someone off the list. So……let’s hope the rest of Epsom know the electoral system better than you.”

    ———————

    Nobody in Epsom knew that there would be an overhang after the election.

    But I appreciate your attempt at post hoc justification. It amuses me.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mjw (206 comments) says:

    Spanish Tudor – so if men are selected, you assume it is unbiased. But if women are selected you assume it is biased? How would you come by those expectations then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Changeiscoming (134 comments) says:

    Nasska said But what are they conservative about Shawn if not morals…..it’s certainly not economics as they would mesh comfortably with Labour/Greens on that score. eg asset sales.

    Nasty you are letting you hatred of Christians get in the way of facts. The Conservatives are totally committed to Fiscal Conservativism not just Social Conservativism. Balancing the books and slowing down the tax and spend polices of National will be a top priority (as it should be for ACT as well)

    Also any party vote not for the Conservatives is a vote for the Greens and Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    @Gump, it doesn’t depend on an overhang. You seem to be suggesting that voting for a local MP from ACT is only worthwhile if they bring in someone else. But in fact, if they only bring themselves in, that’s always 1 more MP for the right than if Epsom hadn’t elected that ACT MP.

    It makes no difference how many electorate or list MPs National has, unless National has an overhang itself (very unlikely – they’d need more electorate MPs than their list vote, with their list vote in the high 40% range they’d need to take around 75% of the electorate seats). So that’s not a relevant consideration.

    So, consider the situation with ACT. There are three possible outcomes:
    – they get an Epsom MP, and their list vote is less than enough for 1 MP. In that case, then the Epsom MP is a seat the right otherwise don’t have (if National won, they’d lose a list MP, so there’d be one less right wing MP)
    – they get an Epsom MP, and their list vote is exactly enough for 1 MP. The list vote would otherwise be wasted (which effectively means it being split between the parties, so the left and right get half an MP each. 50/50 as to whether that turns into a real MP for the right)
    – they get an Epsom MP, and their list vote is enough for more than 1 MP. This means 2 or more MPs for the right, and without winning Epsom those votes are wasted (and effectively reallocated 50/50 between the left and right – so maybe National get 1MP instead of the right getting two).

    In short, Epsom electing an ACT MP is always better for the right than them electing a National MP, unless you think there’s a real chance that ACT would fail to support a National led govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. wrightingright (136 comments) says:

    @gump there was a huge benefit to giving ACT your electorate vote last election, as it meant National got an extra MP to support them that it would not have got otherwise (as if Goldsmith had won then there would have been one less ACT MP in Parliament, but zero more National MPs). It would be foolhardy for Epsom residents like you and I not to vote for ACT again!

    Additionally, ACT was so very very very close to getting enough party votes to gain a second MP…. only 0.1% off! Perhaps if only you and a few others had given your party vote to ACT then ACT would have got two MPs, not just one.

    This would have hugely changed the path of history if you’d party voted ACT. Because then with two MPs, rather than just one on his own, the left would not have tried so hard to knock out Banks (as they’d realise there still is another remaining from ACT). Additionally by having one or more list MPs, ACT would then have had a chance at rejuvenating itself, Don Brash would have came in for a year or two then left, giving space for a newer and younger ACT MP to come and lead the party to the next election. Instead… ACT got stuck with only Banks for the entire term of government! :-/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Jack5 (4,568 comments) says:

    Vot! No Austrians on ze list?

    Misesterious!

    Are they really Banking on these people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Gwilly (156 comments) says:

    As usual the polls will narrow in the weeks leading up to the election, and a significant number of centre-right voters were start to worry about the Left forming a government. As a result ACT will have more than reasonable chance of gaining 4-5% of the Party vote, but its safe to say that Epsom is an absolute shoe in. Would also be nice to see Jamie make the cut, he certainly adds a more intellectual dimension to the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Pete George (22,733 comments) says:

    s a result ACT will have more than reasonable chance of gaining 4-5% of the Party vote, but its safe to say that Epsom is an absolute shoe in.

    It’s not safe to say that “Epsom is an absolute shoe in”, far from it. It will require a lot of hard work and minimal stuff-ups by Act and David Seymour.

    And 4-5% is very optimistic and based on nothing obvious apart from wishful thinking or willful exaggeration. iPredict current has Act at 2.1% which is far more realistic, if the campaign goes very well for Act. They got 1.07% in 2011 so doubling that would be a major achievement.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. mister nui (961 comments) says:

    Oh, Pete George, you are a chopstick.

    You don’t live in Epsom, unlike myself, so your comment is nothing more than uninformed drivel – much like your 20,000 odd previous comments.

    Having met Seymour on a number of occasions and after speaking with many fellow Epsom residents, I do believe Seymour is a shoe-in.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Tarquin North (113 comments) says:

    Thought they would have done better than Beth Houlbrooke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    I knew nothing about CCCP apart from media nonsense and visited the website …. must say they horified me almost as much as the thought of a GIMP parliament. In a Labour stronghold [ the foolishness of tradition ] one of my votes counts the other is worthless … little better than under FPP when my vote was always wasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Jack5 (4,568 comments) says:

    The problem as I see it: why risk having your party vote wasted if it will undoubtedly count if for National?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (22,733 comments) says:

    Having met Seymour on a number of occasions and after speaking with many fellow Epsom residents, I do believe Seymour is a shoe-in

    It’s not unusual for party supporters to see things (or at least claim things) like that. But it doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near a done deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Gwilly (156 comments) says:

    Unless the polls remain as they are now, which is highly unlikely come polling day, there is no way in hell any Epsom voter wants to see a Labour/Greens/NZ First/Mana government. They realise the worth and stability ACT bring to the table. It’s a proven winner. If the margin becomes even tighter, then ACT can only benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. stephieboy (2,146 comments) says:

    Fisiani (932 comments) says:
    July 13th, 2014 at 9:00 pm

    Craig will not win ECB if Mc Cully does not stands aside.! Their polling is relatively poor in the seat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Jack5 (4,568 comments) says:

    Parties aside, Seymour is a former ministerial adviser to Banks. So another political establishment choice of one of its own, like National’s Boy Wonder choice for Southland.

    If I was in Epsom, I would have preferred someone like John Boscawen, an accountant matured by the experience of everyday business life. He went broke in the 1987 sharemarket crash, but came back to become a successful investor.

    Add to MMP, parties increasingly choosing party-establishment insiders for electorate seats, and you have an unlikeable political system, in my view.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    Yes, Seymour is a former political advisor. But he did other stuff before then, and Jamie Whyte is somewhat more experienced still. There was a choice between the old ACT (Boscawen) and a new ACT (Whyte and Seymour). The old ACT wasn’t doing so well, I think it’s worth a punt on the new ACT. I’m sure they’ll have stuff ups, they’re new after all, but it will take a while to flush the sour taste of Brash and Banks out of the system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. deadrightkev (273 comments) says:

    Jamie Whyte is a standout with great potential. He is a fine person in all respects. The party board needs to build his public speaking confidence and support him in every way.

    Jamie would add substantial value to parliament just by his ability to think critically and simply articulate it to the great unwashed. I think he along with Colin Craig would hold National to account on key issues on which they share common ground.

    David Seymour needs a lot more maturity and if he wins Epsom but they don’t get enough party votes to get Jamie Whyte into parliament I think that will be it for Act. National will run rings around him as they did Rodney Hide.

    Kenneth Wang was a brain fart and politically motivated appointment that adds no value to act whatsoever. Whoever on the board made this politically race based decision then put him at number two as the deputy leader is well out of touch. Kenneth is not up to it and will lose more party votes than gain them. If act thinks the Chinese will vote for him because he is Chinese they are tragically mistaken.

    It is obvious that the Act board could only get twenty candidates that vaguely pass the muster. I suspect that twenty would have been a stretch this election with the party’s toxic brand. Has anyone noticed how Act almost always have a completely new set of names every election? It tells a well worn story of attractive policy and notoriously poor governance.

    Just my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pete George (22,733 comments) says:

    I think he along with Colin Craig would hold National to account on key issues on which they share common ground.

    There seems to be little common ground between Act and Conservatives that they could “hold National to account” on.

    It is obvious that the Act board could only get twenty candidates that vaguely pass the muster.

    Twenty list candidates is plenty for a party like Act, it looks about the right number to me. It’s not easy attracting quality candidates for list positions that have no chance of success.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. deadrightkev (273 comments) says:

    Pete, both parties are economically conservative, supporting a lower flat tax or at least major tax reform, private education competition and competitive health reform, one law for all on Maori issues, smaller government, major RMA reform, greater personal responsibility and a reduction in social welfare with stronger stance on law and order.

    That will do for starters.

    Act has been around since 1996 and although I will support Act in some form this election they have dismally failed (as have UF) as a party to build a sustainable movement and managed to retain candidates beyond one campaign. That failure rests squarely with the governance of the party and the apparatchiks that have held sway for far too long. This year the party needs a complete cleanout or face oblivion.

    In my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (22,733 comments) says:

    There’s doubt over Craig’s position on economic matters. He generally opposed the part asset sales.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/colin-craig-says-air-nz-selldown-makes-sense-iffy-about-wider-privatisation-ck-14883

    And…”Auckland developers should use land or lose it – Colin Craig”

    Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says the compulsory acquisition of land would help solve Auckland’s housing problem.

    “I’d be writing a letter to all those developers who have locked up all that land and be saying, ‘Look, you’ve got five years to build houses, otherwise we’ll be buying it off you under the Public Works Act.’

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/compulsory-land-acquisition-answer-auckland-housing-crisis-colin-craig-ck-147739

    Fundamental differences to Act and National.

    What is unknown is how fixed Craig is on his key policies, and especially in binding referenda which would be at odds with National and probably Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Unity (269 comments) says:

    My understanding is that binding referenda and one law for all are two non-negotiable policies of the Conservatives. That’s enough for me to give them my Partry vote. We definitely need a say in our country because the politicians do not listen and non-binding referenda overwhelmingly for something have been totally ignored by this Government who, like Helen Clark, before them, thought they knew what’s best for us.

    I’m fed up with billions of our dollars going on Maori initiatives and fraudulent settlements. It’s degrading for part-Maori and we should have all been treated equally long before now. The settlements are rubber stamped by the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal and the deals are done in Chris Finlayson’s office and not the Courts. The rest of us are not allowed to appeal these fraudulent decisions. It’s all totally wrong and creating an enormous injustice for the rest of us.

    Lastly, the Maori Seats need to go. All the Parties have quite a number of MPs of Maori descent and it is just skewing everything and creating more MPs than we need to run our small country. It’s a nonsense to think that part-Maori need special seats. They should have been long gone but appeasing John Key has kept them against all advice.

    We need the Conservatives as a fresh voice in Government and I also hope ACT get some MPs through as well. Don’t listen to the media on Colin Craig. They have made him out to be a Christian loony who believes ridiculous things. Nothing could be further than the truth. He’s currently going around the country holding meetings. Go along and meet him for yourselves. You will see a decent regular guy who, like many of us, is fed up with what is going on in this country.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.