Kiwiblog

I’m looking forward to this debate, and not just because I am one of the guest judges.

You can signify attendance on Facebook, or just turn up.

Stuff reports:

Former Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson has been confirmed as ACT’s new candidate for the Clutha Southland electorate.

ACT leader Don Brash said Nicolson is highly respected by farmers, as well as in business and political circles.

Nicolson, a climate change sceptic, said he identified with ACT’s “core principles”

“I’m very pleased to be standing for the party,” he said.

Nicolson will stand against finance minister Bill English in the Clutha Southland electorate and will also be the party’s farming spokesman.

Don is well regarded in rural circles, and should help ACT gain some support in rural areas. I suspect he will be one of their top five candidates.

The challenge for ACT could be which female candidates make their top five or six. Brash, Banks, Boscawen and Nicolson will all be in the top six I presume. Heather is retiring. It is unknown what Calvert’s list ranking will be.

NZPA report:

Prime Minister John Key should not accept “racist” Act Party ads and has questions to answer, the Green Party says.

ACT has sparked controversy running an ad featuring the Maori sovereignty flag headlined “Fed up with pandering to Maori Radicals?” It lists what ACT saw as National Party concessions to Maori. These ranged from the foreshore legislation to the spelling of Whanganui.

Green co-leader Russel Norman said Mr Key accepted ACT as a support partner.

“They’re his coalition partner, does he support the racist campaign they are running?” he told NZPA.

What stupidity from Norman. These are ads that ACT are running against National. Of course the PM doesn’t agree with them.  Only a moron would think he does. The ads are attacking him personally.

But ACT are allowed to campaign against National, just as Greens campaign against Labour. It is called being different parties.

David Fisher at the Hos reports:

The marketing guru behind the Iwi/Kiwi billboards and the new Act Party adverts has attacked “white cowards” for not standing up against the “Maorification” of the country.

Act Party creative director John Ansell said Maori were taking advantage of New Zealand’s fear of appearing racist and he wanted the Act Party to speak out.

I agree with John that one should be able to say you think the Maori seats are a bad idea, and not be called racist. But likewise one should be able to say all teachers should know basic te reo, and also not be called racist.

He said: “These guys (Maori) have gone from the stone age to the space age in 150 years and haven’t said thanks. That’s the nature of the thing. In Maori world, if one tribe conquers another you eat the guys eyeballs. The Brits were pretty civilised by that standard.”

And Germany 70 years ago was trying to exterminate entire races. Not quite sure the relevance.

But last night, Brash distanced himself from Ansell’s “extreme statements”.

“I don’t want to associate myself with those kind of views at all,” he said.

Asked if Ansell would continue as an employee, Brash said a decision on that would be made today and “may already have been made”.

Sounds like it has been made indeed.

Brash and Ansell were supposed to be sharing a stage in Palmerston North yesterday but the creative director pulled out citing problems with the party.

Ansell said “white cowards” were scared to “tell the truth about this Maori issue”.

“If you don’t agree with the Maori radical perspective you’re branded a racist.”

Again, that is wrong, but so is calling people racist for saying teachers should have to learn te reo. Personally I think emotive terms such as racist should generally be reserved for those who clearly are – such as the National Front.

Ansell said Boscawen had interfered with the creative direction of the adverts because “John wants to be popular” and the polarising line was likely to attract the label “racist”.

“When push comes to shove I can’t do my job the way I want to do it. If you’ve got a creative director then the creative director should direct the creative. Not the fundraiser. Not the deputy. I’ve asked them to work out who decides these things.”

My experience with political parties are that politicians are very loath to surrender creative control of the campaign to staff, as it is the party’s brand and the politician’s brands that get associated with the advertisements – not the staff’s.

Ansell said Act should be polarising debate with 20 per cent of the public having the potential to vote for the party.

“It’s a men’s party. I can’t get them to agree to that but it’s a party for men and women who think like men.

I’d be fascinated to hear why ACT is not a party for women who think like women.

MaoriRadicals

So what do people think of the advertisement? I would have thought ACT would be focusing more on Labour’s proposed capital gains tax, but eaach to their own.

Audrey Young reports:

Cathy Odgers, the author of the acerbic website Cactus Kate, is expected to be approved today as an Act candidate – one of the reasons sitting MP Heather Roy is likely to today announce she will stand down at this year’s election.

Heather has since announced her retirement. It is a shame that the internal politics of the last year played out the way it did. I’m someone who admired both Rodney and Heather, and think they both made good contributions to Parliament.

Cathy’s impending demotion to Parliament has appalled and excited many on the left. First we have Bomber.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me be 1000% clear, Cathy Odgers is a hateful person who is the very last human being one would ever wish to enter politics.

I understand that Cactus is delighted with this endorsement by Bomber, and is considering turning it into billboards around Auckland.

At the Dim-Post, the commenters are salivating with excitement over her blog posts. I don’t think they realise that every journalist in NZ has probably already read them all.

But at Kiwipolitico, Lew endorses Kate’s candidacy:

It is in this vein that I endorse the rumoured candidacy of Cathy Odgers, aka Cactus Kate, for the ACT party in the forthcoming general election. If true, Odgers will be doing Aotearoa a genuine service, showing us all what ACT really stands for. …

But this endorsement isn’t all about foreshadowed electoral schadenfreude. Odgers, for all that I disagree with nearly every aspect of her politics, is intelligent, articulate and possessed of a sharp and analytical wit. By reputation she is driven, hard-working and will not tolerate time-wasters or time-servers. If her boasts about the expat lifestyle and her drinking habits are to be believed, she will be taking a considerable cut in pay and increase in workload if elected to parliament, so we might reasonably assume her intentions are genuine. In other words, aside from her politics — which is admittedly a very big aside — she’s just the sort of person we need more of in Parliament. It may be that the rigours of public office mellow her, or it may be that her prickly public persona hides one more rounded and reasoned. They often do.

I can’t wait until Cactus is interviewed on Campbell Live.

If Cactus does become an MP, I have the perfect job for her. Make her Minister of Revenue, with her job being to close down all the loopholes. Ultimate poacher turned gamekeeper

Plus the Hon Cactus Kate MP has a certain ring to it.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

The ACT Party says moves by Labour to delay the passing of its volunteer student membership bill is costing taxpayers more than $453,000 every hour Parliament sits.

The member’s Bill sponsored by ACT MP Heather Roy ends compulsory student association membership, and passed its second reading last December.

Labour opposes the Bill and has stopped Parliament reaching the next stage of debate on it by putting up spurious amendments to other non-controversial legislation.

Roy said the delay tactics, known as filibustering, denied backbench MPs the right to have their issues debated and cost taxpayers the same amount an hour as Hone Harawira’s Te Tai Tokerau by-election.

”Hone Harawira has been rightly condemned for costing the taxpayer half a million dollars by forcing the Te Tai Tokerau by-election, yet Labour’s filibustering is costing taxpayers the equivalent of one such by-election every hour.

The staggering thing is that Labour have not just fillibustered this once or twice – they have filbustered it all year, so desperate are they to protect their future caucus intakes. As someone said, there is no limit to what a mother will do to protect her young.

Heather said:

“I’m not opposed to any party delaying a Bill they strongly disagree with but Labour MPs are delaying Bills they already support.  If Labour continue to debate each of the Royal Society Bill’s 23 clauses – which they openly support – in their entirety this could take 23 hours of the House’s time and cost taxpayers over $10 million.  It is this sort of churlish behaviour that demeans our nation’s Parliament.

This is a key difference. I will absolutely defend the right of a party to filibuster a bill they strongly oppose. Such filibusters normally last a few days. But here Labour is filbustering every single local, private and members bill there is, in a year long filibuster. This is I think literally without precedent in New Zealand. They are for example going to spend two dozen hours of time, on a totally non controversial bill about the Royal Society of NZ.

Trevor Mallard has blogged that the marginal cost is zero, as they are not forcing any extra costs onto Parliament. This misses the point as it ignores the fact that during all this time, Parliament is not passing laws as it is meant to be – it is having Labour MPs stand up and talk screeds of nonsense for hours on end.  An analogy would be having staff members in a retailer refuse to actually sell any goods, yet claim they are not costing any money as they haven’t imposed extra costs on the shop.

I have pinged the Government on their use of urgency this year – something which pissed off quite a few people within National. But filibustering is the flip side of urgency. If an Opposition continues with mindless sustained filbustering, then they can expect no-one to take them seriously if they complain about use of urgency in the future. If you turn yourself into a roadblock, don’t be surpised when a bulldozer is used.

Labour is also being incredibly selfish. Backbench Mps get only one day a fortnight to have their bills heard. Dozens of MPs from the Greens, Maori and National parties have members bills they would like to have debated. Labour has decided that no other members bill can be allowed to pass this year, just so they can try and allow their future MPs to keep forcing students to fund their political activism.

So next time a Labour MP complains about urgency, the response should be to buy themselves a mirror so they can find someone to blame.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Former National MP Bob “the Builder” Clarkson is to defect to the ACT party.

Mr Clarkson said he was disillusioned with the new foreshore and seabed legislation, which restores access to the courts to seek recognition of customary title.

Bob Clarkson will always have my gratitude for winning Tauranga off Winston. His maiden speech also remains a classic.

If Bob is happier in ACT, good on him.

Stuff reports:

Newly appointed parliamentary leader of the ACT Party, John Boscawen, has found himself a new press secretary. Lindsay Perigo, a founding member and inaugural leader of the Libertarianz political party, was introduced late last week to the press gallery as Mr Boscawen’s new media man. Mr Perigo has been noted for his colourful language – he famously denounced TVNZ as “brain dead” when he quit the state broadcaster in 1993, and has variously referred to “infanto-Nazis”, “Bolshevik bulls..t” and “bludge-scum”. His latest media role was at TV channel Stratos.

I must say that I never thought Lindsay would end up as a press secretary for ACT. No doubt his decision is linked to the change of leadership – he has a very high regard for Don Brash.

His language is indeed colourful. I’m wondering whether iPredict should do a market on which press gallery member is first to be called a moron by Lindsay

Lindsay blogs about his decision at SOLO:

Perigo! followers will also have noted the empathy between Don Brash and me, even though I’m a 1000% libertarian and he’s about a 65% one. In our present crisis, 65% will do me. Quite simply, I believe his becoming Act leader has brought a glimmer of hope to New Zealand’s economic and political landscape, which otherwise was unfailingly bleak. I believe that, in these parlous, debt-ridden, Political Correctness-infested circumstances, everyone—including members of Libertarianz—concerned about stopping the rot and initiating a meaningful restart toward freedom and prosperity, should get in behind—on a suck-it-and-see basis, letting Don know that if he doesn’t really try to deliver, or becomes captive to those notorious forces within Act alien to freedom and prosperity, then we’ll all be out of there before you can say “Epsom.” I say this as someone who has fought the conservatives and compulsionists within Act tooth and nail since its inception and delivered Libz, as leader, its highest party vote (by a factor of 600%) since its inception.

Lindsay is indeed 1000% libertarian. I’m glad he doesn’t now regard anything less than 100% as a mortal crime

His comment on Epsom is interesting. It could be a barb at Rodney, or a barb at John Banks. I honestly am unsure.

John Banks has been confirmed by ACT as their candidate in Epsom. On the latest public poll, ACT would have two MPs if John wins Epsom – hmself and Don Brash. However they have six months topick up further support.

The focus will be now go on whom National will select.

Over at Stuff, I comment on the latest Roy Morgan poll. It is the first scientific poll done since the change of leadership for ACT, and ACT poll only 2%. I comment:

This poll reflects my previously stated view that the way the coup against Rodney Hide played out alienated many potential Act voters.

If ACT remains below 5%, then Epsom will become vital for ACT’s survival.

Derek Cheng reports in the NZ Herald:

The Act Party is expected to open nominations for the crucial seat of Epsom today and former Auckland Mayor John Banks is “quietly confident” he has the inside running.

Mr Banks made it clear last night that he wanted to follow a proper process.

“I’m not looking for any easy ride to the line. If a high-quality candidate steps up to the plate, someone of outstanding ability, then I’m happy to step aside and support that person.”

Mr Banks has already had a huge endorsement from the party’s new leader, Don Brash.

If ACT get to even one third of the 15% they claim they can now get, then Epsom doesn’t matter to them. However if they fail to get 5%, then it is crucial to their survival.  There are many interesting questions to be resolved.

1. Will Banks win the nomination uncontested?
2. Whom will National stand as their candidate. If it is local electorate chair Aaron Bhatnagar, then there could be a fascinating Bhatnagar v Banks contest.
3. Who will Labour stand in Epsom?
4. Will Labour supporters be urged to vote for their candidate or to vote strategically for Bhatnagar (or whomever is the National candidate)?
5. Will National aim to win the seat back, on the basis of ACT claiming it will get 15%?
6. Who will win if it is a full-on contest?
7. If ACT do not get 5%, but Banks wins Epsom, will that make Banks more powerful than the Leader?
8. If there is a National-led Government, one can only presume that Banks would be one of the ACT MPs made a Minister, considering his experience. So Boscawen and Roy might miss out.

Epsom is going to remain one of those must follow races.

Don Brash has just announced that John Boscawen will be ACT’s parliamentary leader. This is a rapid promotion for a first term MP. Presumably he remains Deputy Leader and will stay on in that role after the election, if re-elected.

Congratulations to John for his promotion.

UPDATE: Rodney Hide is remaining Local Government Minister, on the grounds he is steering important legislation through Parliament. I suspect the real reason is that if Rodney was forced onto the backbench, then he would have no incentive to play nice. Rodney has confirmed he will retire at the election.

Boscawen is surrendering his portfolios. Not sure if they will be picked up by a current Minister or a new Minister. And Hilary Calvert has become the party whip. So Heather is the only one missing out. So what salary changes are there:

• Rodney remains on $209,100
• John Boscawen goes from $209,100 to $155,780 (the party leader rate)
• Hilary Calvert goes from $134,800 to $148,500
• Sir Roger and Heather remain on $134,800

The other speculation doing the circles is that rather than decide which two ACT MPs continue as Ministers, Don may have ACT surrender their portfolios, which would give ACT greater room to criticise the Government (but still maintaining a confidence and supply agreement).

Thw downsides for ACT in doing so is that two of their MPs will take a huge pay cut. Also they will lose a dozen staff or so. In return they get around $130,000 extra Leader’s Office funding.

In political terms they will lose the ability to manage government policy in their assigned portfoio areas, and the publicity they get from that.

However they would gain a greater ability to differentitate themselves from the Government, and be seen as a party focused on principle, not power.

Again this is speculation, and I doubt anyone knows for sure what Don will decide (and it will be his decision, not a caucus decision).

Just heard some speculation that Don Brash may appoint Sir Roger Douglas as his parliamentary leader. I have no idea if it is accurate speculation or not, but let’s look at what logic may lie below it.

If John Boscawen remains Deputy Leader, then Heather Roy may feel resentment that her support of Don hasn’t gained her old job back.

If Don appoints Heather, then Rodney and his supporters may feel this is a slap in the face and go feral.

Appointing Sir Roger could avoid both those scenarios. Plus it reinforces the Brash focus on reducing spending. Finally it also means a seamless transition as presumably Sir Roger will retire at the election, so he leads the parliamentary wing up until the election, and Brash afterwards (if they get re-elected).

As I said, I don’t know how accurate the speculation is – but it doesn’t seem totally implausible.

Some big decisions for Don Brash and ACT this week. They include:

1. Who will be Deputy Leader – Boscawen or Roy
2. Who will be Parliamentary Leader – Boscawen, Roy or Hide?
3. Will ACT seek to retain two Ministerial roles?
4. If yes, which two MPs will be Ministers?
5. And what portfolios will they seek and get?
6. Who amongst the ACT parliamentary staff will keep their jobs, and who might return there?
7. Will Don move to install a new President and/or Board over time (he has said the President is an issue for another day)

Interesting times ahead.

Claire Trevett and Audrey Young report:

Don Brash wants to be finance minister, and claims the Act Party could gain 15 per cent of the vote in this year’s election under his leadership.

“I’d love to be finance minister,” he said last night.

“When I went into Parliament in 2002, that is what I was hoping to be. I wasn’t planning to be National leader. I was planning to be finance minister in a Bill English-led National government.”

Finance Minister is unlike any other portfolio, as it is so central to the Government, and affects every other portfolio. I would think a party would have to poll at least 15% to be able to make a serious bid for that role.

If ACT make it back into Parliament, the role I’d love to see Don Brash take is education, and have him introduce performance pay for teachers, bulk funding for all schools, abolish school zoning and introduce full parental choice of schools. I think such reforms are vital to improving our country’s future prospects.

He indicated he would ask Mr Key to give Mr Hide’s portfolios to another MP, citing as a precedent Mr Hide’s decision to strip Heather Roy of her portfolios because of her coup attempt.

I can’t imagine he is going to ask Hilary Calvert to become a Minister, so this looks like he is seeking Heather Roy to be reinstated as a Minister.

Last night, Mr Key distanced himself from the “extreme” views of Act and said Dr Brash had “virtually no chance” of becoming finance minister or deputy prime minister after the next election.

The Prime Minister said Act was “not likely to be a party of such size that would be commensurate with those portfolios”.

He said Act had always had extreme policies compared with National’s moderate approach and “my view is that nothing has changed here”.

I doubt anyone can point to an economic issue on which Rodney and Don disagree. So the PM is right that ACT’s policies and views are not changing. What has changed is that ACT may now be able to attract greater support.

Don has said he thinks he can attract 15%. John Ansell has gone even further and claims ACT can get 40% and Don will become PM. Either way, this suggests that ACT will not be expecting National to “take it easy” in Epsom. If they poll over 5% they don’t need Epsom (even though it is always useful to have it as backstop). So my guess is that National will campaign actively for both votes in Epsom.

So the first target for ACT led by Don is to make 5% – otherwise they may not be there at all.  But if they get just 5% or 6 MPs, then they will represent 10% of the Government, so their influence would be roughly 10%.

If however Don can lift ACT to 10% then they have 12 MPs, and would roughly be 20% of the Government. So they would have significantly more influence.

Again, the next couple of sets of public polls will be interesting.

Rodney Hide resigned as Leader of ACT at midday. Don Brash will be elected Leader at the next Caucus meeting.

I’d like to pay tribute to Rodney at this point in time. It is primarily due to Rodney that ACT survived in 2005 and 2008. Over his 15 years in Parliament Rodney has had a greater and more benficial impact on Parliament than most MPs.

I’m glad he is so happily married to Louise, and has become a Dad again. That will remind him of what is truly important in life – far more so than politics.

It looks like Rodney will remain an ACT MP and Minister until the election.

The immediate issues for ACT are:

1. Does John Boscawen remain Deputy Leader, or does that revert back to Heather Roy.
2. Does John Banks stand in Epsom for ACT.
3. List Ranking

While I have said previously that I’m not sure how good a fit John Banks is to ACT, there is considerable logic to having a candidate in the seat who will clearly win it for ACT. If they look guaranteed to win the seat, then they can campaign that voting for ACT is not a wasted vote, and that the more people who vote for them the more influence they will have on policy.

It is possible a Brash led ACT will also make it harder for Winston Peters to get traction (which is of course a good thing). Winston planned to campaign hard on the foreshore & seabed issue, but a Brash led ACT may be more effective in appealing to the coastal coaltion supporters.

Where NZ First, and Labour and Greens, will attack is on economic policy – especially wages, asset sales and superannuation. Goff is already suggesting that it was a cunning National plot to have Don roll Rodney (which is hysterically untrue).

The reality is that Don and Rodney are near identical minds on economic policy. What will determine their influence on Government is not so much who the leader is, but how many seats they win. At 10 seats you roughly expect twice the influence of 5 seats.

So as I said earlier, the next few polls will be interesting.

UPDATE: An excellent blog post from Cactus Kate on ACT.

Stuff reports:

Don Brash believes he has the numbers to roll Rodney Hide and become the new ACT leader as soon as today after furiously lobbying MPs.

The fates of Brash and Hide rest with the party’s newest MP, Hilary Calvert, who pledged her support for Hide at the weekend – but spent yesterday afternoon in a meeting at Brash’s Auckland apartment with Hide opponent Sir Roger Douglas.

Calvert did not return calls and refused to comment as she left. But after the meeting, Brash said he was “cautiously optimistic” of securing the ACT leadership, suggesting he believes he has her support.

He told National Radio that if she switched votes it would be “logical” for Hide to resign as early as today.

Brash also made it clear he saw no place for Hide in any party he led, suggesting it would be his advice to Hide “to go, quite frankly”

Most of the speculation has been on whether Boscawen would back Brash, not Calvert.The Herald reports:

On Sunday, she said that she backed Mr Hide and would vote for him over Dr Brash, and on Tuesday she repeated that position.

But yesterday, when the Herald asked if her position was still the same after her meeting with Dr Brash, she said: “I’m not prepared to make any comment.”

There’s been a fair amount of disinformation flying around, so we’ll see how things play out today.

However if the media are correct, then Don has won and will become Leader. I still stand by my comments about the nature of the coup. It is about winning the war, not the battle. And my concern is that Don has damaged his brand which was almost being above politics.

If Don does become leader, all eyes will be on teh next set of public polls. I have no doubt ACT will go up in the polls. The two key questions are how much, and from whom will they pull their extra support. I’d also caution not to take the first set of polls as gospel – there is a honeymoon effect. The second set of polls are likely to be more indicative.

Anyway let’s wait to see if the media have it right, and if Don has won. If he has, I’ll blog some ideas for key policies he can campaign on – apart from closing the gap with Australia.

I have been somewhat surprised at how amateurish the attempted ACT coup has been. In fact, I’d go further and say it somewhat resembles a cluster fuck. I’ll explain where I think mistakes were made, and what I would have done differently.

But first I should make clear that I am in fact highly supportive of the aims or “ends” of Don Brash. I just don’t think the means have been well chosen.

• I most definitely want a coalition partner for National that is economically more reformist than National, and can attract enough support to survive the tidal ebbs and flows of politics.
• I have been worried for some time that National’s long-term prospects (post Key) could be somewhat bleak as if ACT (and United once Dunne retires) disappears there are no partners for National. Over time I expect the Maori Party will go with Labour more often than it does with National.
• I would like National to be more economically reformist. I doubt I disagree with Don Brash on many significant economic issues. However I do believe you have to take the electorate with you – otherwise you get thrown out and all your reforms get reversed. It is only by getting re-elected for multiple terms can your reforms become too entrenched to reverse

So in principle I’m supportive of what Don is trying to achieve – a more popular and hopefully permanent coalition partner for National, that will lead to more economic reform (which will help close the gap with Australia).

But I think the campaign to try and bludgeon ACT into handing over the leadership to Don has been clumsy, not thought through, and has in fact significantly damaged Don’s brand, and hence the brand of any new party he sets up. My criticisms are:

1. Demanding the sole leadership, not even co-leadership, while not even a member of the party. This makes it look like you see the party as purely a vehicle for your ambitions.
2. Openly threatening to destroy the party if they do not make you sole leader. This not only pisses off ACT party members, but also damages your standing with voters.
3. Negotiating through the media. Never a good strategy.
4. Not leaving room for a dignified compromise. By publicly demanding that the leadership be handed over to you, or you will destroy the party you place the board and caucus in a position where if they then agree they get left with no dignity. In politics you should always be thinking about how to make something look like a win-win (even if it isn’t).
5. Only commissioned polling data after you launch your public bid for the job. This should have been commissioned weeks ago.

So what would I have done if I was advising Don

1. Negotiate privately with ACT to see if there is a suitable role.
2. If no agreement can be reached, then start the work on forming your own party. Do not publicly demand ACT hand over the leadership or you will destroy them.
3. Announce you are creating a new party.
4. When media asked why not join ACT, then reveal you tried to, but no agreement could be reached. Then explain that you are doing a new party because you think at best ACT will only be able to win up to five seats again and that you want to win at least 10 seats, so you’ll have more influence on economic policy.
5. If they ask about the ACT leadership, reply that there is no vacancy there. If they ask whether you considered challenging Rodney, reply that you and Rodney have been friends for over 15 years, and you would never challenge him. Also make clear that you will not stand in Epsom.
6. Announce you will be standing in Tamaki but your aim is to win 5%. However if Tamaki voters want him as their local MP he would be happy to do so.
7. Differentiate the new party from ACT by saying the party will be primarily focused on just two areas – economic reform and choice in education. Say that you hope ACT and your party will both be in Parliament to help drive better policies, but that you believe you can attract the most support based on the doubling of National’s vote in 2005.

By demanding ACT hand the leadership over to him or be destroyed, Don has pissed off the very activists that his new party would want to attract. He’s made it a Rodney v Don issue, rather than an issue of how to get better economic reform.

Don’s tactics in 2011 are very similar to his 2003 coup. Coups are normally done behind closed doors and with no media statements. But the key difference is that in 2003 Don was already in caucus. It is different when you are not even a member of the party you seek to lead.

As I said at the beginning, I support what Don is trying to achieve. And I agree with most of what Don says economically. But I don’t think the way he has gone about it has put him in a good light, and hence actually lessens his chances of being able to achieve his goals.

Unless something dramatically changes, it looks like he will not be leading ACT, and he will presumably set up his new party. This is more complicated than one might think. You need a set of rules. You need an initial board. You need rules on who selects candidates, who elects the board, who elects the leader etc. You need principles and policies. You need offices and staff. You need members and activists – and you need money. The last should not be a problem from the sounds of it.

Tracy Watkins reports:

Don Brash says ACT leader Rodney Hide offered to stand aside for him in the blue-ribbon Epsom seat during a secret meeting over the party leadership.

The revelation comes as the fight for ACT’s leadership turns increasingly personal, with Dr Brash putting aside his 15-year friendship with Mr Hide to challenge for the leadership.

Dr Brash spent the weekend phoning ACT MPs and lobbying for their support, with Dunedin-based MP Hilary Calvert and deputy leader John Boscawen holding the deciding votes in the five-person caucus.

His pitch is likely to include a promise that funders will turn the tap back on if he is leader. …

If his leadership bid is rejected, Dr Brash intends launching a new Right-wing party and says he has the backers and funding to do this.

He rejected suggestions that that would split the Right-wing vote: “If I’m successful, it won’t split the vote on the Right; it will collapse the ACT vote.”

Make me your leader or I will destroy you. I never knew Don came from Chicago!

Derek Cheng reports:

Former National Party leader Don Brash will seek the backing of the Act board on Saturday for an attempt to oust the leader of the party – which he has yet to even join.

It is understood he will form a new party if his bid for the Act leadership fails.

If I was a member of the ACT Board, I would be asking why are all these National Party members trying to take over ACT.

Don Brash and John Banks are both members of National. The rumoured financial backer is not a member of ACT as far as I know.

It is understood he will form a new party if his bid for the Act leadership fails.

Not exactly a deep devotion to ACT then. I won’t join your party unless you agree in advance to make me leader, and if you don’t I wiill set up my own party.

Can you imagine if ACT get 3% but loses Epsom and a Brash led party gets 4%. That 7% wasted vote helping Phil Goff and Winston Peters form a Government.

Tracy Watkins in the Dom Post reports:

Former National leader Don Brash is making a bid for a political comeback as ACT party leader – if it will have him.

Dr Brash confirmed yesterday that if he was offered the ACT leadership he would take it, after previously rejecting behind-the-scenes efforts to woo him back to Parliament either as ACT leader Rodney Hide’s deputy or as co-leader.

Dr Brash said he would not contemplate returning to Parliament under either of those scenarios but would if offered the leadership.

I do hope for Don’s sake, that he is not offered it. I don’t think he’ll find it a pleasant experience, and I don’t think he’ll achieve what he wants to achieve. My thoughts are:

1. Don will not become a Minister, regardless of how ACT polls. John Key declined to offer Don a significant role straight after he replaced him as leader, so I can’t see that he will be of a different mind now. All Don will achieve is a different platform to complain spending is too high (which incidentially I agree with him on). But he won’t actually get to change that.
2. ACT’s internal politics are toxic at the best of times. If Don replaced Rodney as Leader, he’ll inherit all the infighting and bitching. If he thinks the party will unite behind him, he doesn’t realise ACT is very different to National where there is greater discipline and loyalty.
3. Don leading ACT will force John Key more to the centre. in fact Key will come under pressure to rule out more and more policies in advance, as the left will have greater ability to scare-monger on them.
4. Don will be seen as a temporary leader due to his age. No one will thinks he would be leading the party into the 2014 election as he would be 77 by the end of that term. 
5. Don is such a convenient target for the left, that his assuming the leadership will be a significant help to Labour. Problems of morale, activists, union support and even money will be partially solved if he offers himself up as their target. You’ll have Matt McCarten and Chris Trotter both praising Phil Goff as the only man who can save NZ from the spending cuts seen in Ireland and the UK.

The article also says:

There is also speculation that former Auckland mayor John Banks would be keen to stand in Epsom if approached by ACT, suggesting he could be on a Brash ticket. The two men have business ties and speak regularly. Polls have shown that Mr Banks would win Epsom if he stood.

First of all, polls have not shown any such thing.

Secondly I consider John Banks a friend, as I do Don Brash. I certainly think John could still make a contribution to national politics. However I am not sure his brand is that compatible with ACT.

ACT at its heart is a classical liberal party – economically and socially liberal. They have not always kept to that, but many of their key activists are classical liberals. I don’t think John would describe himself as a classical liberal.

There is in fact a nice spot in the political spectrum for a party, which John Banks would be a potential leader of. That is a traditional conservative party – like the Nationals in Australia. Think of it as a party for talkback callers. Now at present NZ first sort of occupies that spot on the spectrum but Winston is of course toxic. But once he is properly buried, then there could well be a role for a conservative party, as well as a classical liberal party.

If I was on the board of ACT, I would not be panicked into anything. They should focus on lifting the party vote and winning Epsom. If going into the election that are polling at 2% or more, then that should give Epsom voters enough of an incentive to vote tactically to ensure John Key remains Prime Minister.

UPDATE: John Banks has said he is definitely not standing.

No great surprise that Sir Roger is standing down at the election. Apart form his age, it is obvious he is not that happy in ACT’s caucus.

Sir Roger has a great legacy as NZ’s second greatest finance minister. In his second spell in Parliament, there is less of a legacy but personally I’ll always be grateful he sucessfully sherpherded the VSM Bill through Parliament while Heather was a Minister.

First of all, we have the Labour candidate conceding the by-election a month before the vote. Brian Rudman writes:

But a week later he pops up in a local newspaper across town to assure his supporters in Mt Roskill that his adventures in Botany are just a temporary folly and would not affect his role as a member of Puketapapa Local Board.

He told Central Leader readers that “Botany is a strong National seat that I’m not going to be able to win as a Labour candidate. It’s not going to be something that pulls me away from Mt Roskill.”

Reassuring for Roskillites, perhaps, but if I were a voter in Botany I’d be thinking, “If that guy has already decided he’s a loser, with nothing by way of policy in his back pocket that he thinks will change my mind, then why should I waste my vote and prove him wrong?”

I am surprised Michael’s concession of the by-election has not attracted as much publicity, as when Melissa Lee did much the same for Mt Albert. Arguably Wood’s actions are worse – Botany has a smaller majority than Mt Albert for one. But more importantly Lee’s statement was made under pressure on live radio. Wood has conceded defeat in a written column.

Of course it is highly unlikely Labour will win Botany – I don’t expect them to do so. But a major party candidate should never ever say they will not win – it is a kick in the guts for their volunteers. Experienced politicians (and Wood has stood twice before) know that you downplay expectations, but never outright concede until the vote is counted.

All in all it is a bad look for Labour that their candidate is more concerned about reassuring the residents of Mt Roskill that he won’t be gone for long, rather than giving Botany voters a reason to vote for him.

Also weird if this description from the ACT candidate: (H/T: Not PC)

Business lecturer Lyn Murphy has won the party’s candidate nomination and she intends to win. …

Politically, she puts herself to the left of Mr Ross and to the right of Labour’s Michael Wood.

“I am the person for the central voter,” she says.

Has ACT transformed into United Future? Is Lyn Murphy saying that Ross stands for less spending and lower taxes than her? If not, on what basis does she say he is to the right of her?

So we have a Labour candidate who has already conceded defeat, and an ACT candidate who effectively has said ACT supporters should vote for Jami-Lee. Maybe the New Citizens Party will do quite well after all!