There is discussion around the blogs about ACT's list announcement today. No, I am not the mystery number 5 person. I don't play games.
I was offered 14 and turned it down. This is why;
In 2005 I was ranked 9. This was a strong placing given ACT had nine MPs with two retiring. It was a vote of confidence in my abilities and suitability to be ACT MP.
This year, with only two MPs, I was offered a rank of 14. Something has changed and it isn't my performance or philosophy. I've continued to build a profile as a welfare commentator, securing regular interviews and a regular spot on a well-rating Wellington radio show. I've supported ACT positions at select committee level and continued to increase my knowledge of parliamentary process.
In the Hutt South electorate our steady fund-raising has continued to build one of the strongest electorate campaign funds. Whenever asked to deliver material or represent ACT I have obliged. Our electorate support has remained healthy as evidenced by my Petone Working Men's Club launch in July which sold out. I have the continuing endorsement of two high profile New Zealanders - Sir Bob Jones and Michael Bassett.
More could be said but I return to my main point. Whatever ACT wants has changed. What that is, is no longer clear to me, so I wouldn't accept a place on the list.
This is pretty much the guts of what I told Rodney in an e-mail by way of explanation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Good for you.
Well said Lindsay.
After seeing the top few placings which sounded promising, later inspection of the full list revealed some bizarre placings.
There are no former MPs either which is a little worrying.
I would have thought some experience from an old guard would have been useful.
I am sure ther will be much to debate about and I expect behindth scenes there will be much discord and upset.
A shame really as there are many hardworking and talentd individuals in ACT and the party is not putting its best team forward.
It makes you wonder why.
Lindsay, are you planning to continue fighting for ACT in Hutt South?
Thats a pity.
Lindsay, I don't always agree with you, as you well know, but I'm appalled you were not offered a very high list placing. I remember urging you years ago to get citizenship (?) so you could stand for Parliament. You've been incredibly loyal to the party, you would make an excellent MP because you are tough, resolute, committed, let's face it - a woman and ACT needs good women MPs, you do your homework, have a supportive husband (vital) - the list goes on. You have a strong following too, much stronger than probably even you realise - I used to live near Eastbourne, so I know. An MP has to get funding and votes and you could pull both. Something has gone desperately wrong - where's Muriel Newman? Then again, the board shafted her in 2005 so maybe she doesn't want to stand. Perhaps I'm not so surprised, after all, that you are not high up there. You could be, you know, leadership material.
Echoing the above comments, I am disappointed to hear this... and a poor call on the act leaderships part.
I'm appalled to see your loyalty betrayed, Lindsay. You deserve better.
That is truly disappointing. I expected far better from them. Of course the reality is that 9 or 14, neither will get in. But still it does come acorss as needlessly insulting. Was there internal politics here with certain individuals trying to keep you low on the list? I have always had high view of Rodney and this would be the first time I'd would have any doubts if he were involved in that. I hope not.
Sean Tan: what a joke along with the other so-called ACT 'stalwarts' such as Colin whatshisname, John Ormond and that Keown guy. Tan, Colin whatshisname and Keown have been around 2 seconds. Apparently that Keown fellow is on TV in Canterbury saying the unemployed are scum. His bio says he is standing because of crime in his family. Well there is more to standing for ACT than some horrible crime being committed against you. He can't even state ACT policy at all!! How's that going to sell the message? And Tan is a communist Greenie but people tell me he has always believed in ACT policy!!! WTF!!! He likes ACT's Crime policy yet is a friend of Harmeet Sooden!!! ACT has lost the plot totally. I mean fuck, ACT's core constituency won't have a bar of this guy. How the fuck did he end up ahead of you Lindsay or Andrew Jollands or Nick Kierney? Those guys must be spewing, all long serving members and weekend warriors for the cause. I hear some of these people are packing it in after the election because of this farce and I don't blame them then ACT can rely on Harmeet Sooden's mates for votes. Good fucking luck. And John Ormond, he split the party big time years ago and spat the dummy and fucked off. He wasn't on the members ballot I don't think. How the fuck does he end up in the top 10?
I mean this is ridiculous. National have picked their core solid warriors. Fuck - there are no magic bullets for votes. You have to do the work with message, branding and campaigning yet ACT just seem to look for any quick fix or the next 'star'. I see Jim Hopkins is maybe at No 5. He would be okay but again has he ever been a member? Can he state ACT's core beliefs and principles? The true test will be if these bolters are around in 2011 and I bet they aren't and tragically for ACT neither will their loyal troopers as they keep getting shat on, that includes you Lindsay.
What a joke!!! I feel really sorry for you as I do for the other loyal troopers, many of whom worked tirelessly in Epsom in 2005 to ensure ACT was around in 2008 only to find themselves placed behind an unemployed Maori, a communist, a Christchurch jock who doesn't know shit from clay and Ormond who hasn't been around for years.
ACT: the guts to do what's right? Yeah right!!!!
Interesting stuff here.
Lindsay, how can I email you?
Yikes, what worries me is that the approach you advocate is already largely National's policy; I think you were superceded by Collins.
Anon (whoever the hell you are):
Aaron Keown didn't say that and he's learning ACT policy VERY quickly. He picks up things incredibly fast. I assume if Shawn Tan is standing for ACT, he now believes in more than half of ACT policy.
I would have placed you higher Lindsay, I did on the indicitive ballot, it's too bad you weren't higher, I'd love for you to be an MP.
Whatever ACT wants has changed.
The same will never be said of Libertarianz - the Party of Principle. ;-)
Lindsay, I'm disappointed you won't be (high up) on the ACT list, but I think you made the right call. Good on you.
Well, I voted for you. Muriel wasn't on standing (at least I didn't see her to vote for). I think a bit more transparency -- at least to the members -- about the list selection process would go a long way to gaining their confidence in the results. That translates into willingness to put in volunteer effort during the election.
And as for "Mystery Person" in position #5, that seems a very gimmicky sort of stunt.
That's pretty vague, Lindsay. Blair and Will are a little more articulate.
We shouldn't be in the position of ever saying "whatever ACT wants" as if it were an unknown!
It has come to that? Well then let's bloody well find out what this party is for before another sun sets!
I'm very disappointed about this, Lindsay. I enjoyed campaigning alongside you last election. In fact I would have liked to endorse you and would gladly step aside if you want to stand for Libertarianz in Hutt South - how about it? :-)
A great shame Lindsay, your blog is great, and, speaking as a Libertarian, for me you are - you were - the one good thing about ACT. I would love to have seen you in parliament. But as I said in a quite unrelated thread in NotPC's blog yesterday, you have always struck me as Libertarianz, not ACT ... might I suggest ...
I was disappointed not to see you there, Lindsay.
I thought at least ACT would have one freedom lover high up on their list -- one who's really pushed the boat out over the last three years.
But I guess that's not what's wanted, huh?
That's a pity Lindsay, I have always had a high regard for you. Are you still standing in Hutt South?
Regards,
An anonymous ACT member
Lindsay, your loss is definitely ACT's loss. I read your blog on a regular basis and have real admiration for what you do and say.
I can't fathom their rationale here at all.
Lindsay, I've just heard over the radio, ACT are still looking to fill their fifth place on the list???
Anyway, here's my thoughts.
As bad a mistake as it was for them to not place you higher I know you don't have the scorn, vitriol, and raw rudeness to run as Libz. You are just too decent a person to associate with such a nasty crowd.
Oh that's deep anonymous, so you base your voting on some type of nonsense stereotype. I really do have to conclude, sometimes, that there is little to no hope for New Zealand.
Scornful? Of socialism? Definitely.
Rude? To socialists who believe it's their right that I work for them? Oh yes. At times, very.
Vitriolic & nasty? Not guilty.
As yet. ;)
No good deed in electoral politics goes unpunished.
ACT's strategists have been completely, hilariously wrong in their campaigning.
Hopefully there will be a new liberal-ish party starting b4 the 2011 election, so never fear homeless liberals who are sick of ACT and the cliquishness, amateurishness, and vitriol of the permanently aggrieved Libz.
Lindsay, I'm disappointed too. I read you blog regularly and I believe you would be an excellent MP. I also am sorry Muriel Newman is not standing again in a potentially winnable list spot.
People complain that not enough good women put themselves forward to become MPs, then the really good ones get shafted.
Now I don't know who to vote for.
Bluebelle.
Lindsay....this is a crock and very disapointing.I guess evryone can't be near the top of the list but this is a travesty....
Democracy...gotta love it huh Lindsay? - except when you're on the receiving end. Your post is probably the clearest indication of what ACT was thinking when they placed you. How can anyone be taken seriously if they can say 'they don't play games', then make a publicly disloyal statement about the group they purport to represent, but then state they're still going to be an ACT candidate.If your ego is so affronted, rather than singing 'How Great I Art' in public, just quit the party and win the seat all by your obviously competent self! That'll show those know-nothing ACT people. Yep, I figure, as the blog owner, you'll probably delete this and block me...so I've taken the liberty of copying it out to other forums. Isn't liberty and blogging great?
Not exactly sure what vmcrns was trying to prove but I guess not everybody can be sound of mind!
Lindsay - please don't take this as a sign that the members don't appreciate the hard work and dedication you have put in. This is one step backwards for now - and I hope that you will keep the faith and stay on board.
All the best!
Lindsay
I too was really surprised when I saw the list come out and noticed that you were not on it.
I hope the disappointment will be overcome and you will go to strength in Lower Hutt.
With regards to the list, I am glad that Heather retained #2, but feel we shold have maybe had Sir Roger at #5 or #4. I feel that if we only get 3 MPs then our election will not have gone well. Setting Sir Roger lower in the list will have shown that we had set our target higher.
Regards
John
My opinion of ACT has just taken a nose-dive...
Hi, it is Colin whatshisname here. A quick comment for "anonymous." It is a far braver thing to attach your name to your posts.
I was equally surprised not to see Lindsay in a higher position as I happen to hold her in very high esteem. We all get disappointed when those we support meet with obstacles, but that is no justification for attacking others on the list-I after all did not make the decision, the board did. I happen to bring a lot of ability to the ACT party-health, education, agriculture and business-read the bio. I am personally upset for Lindsay but she has the tenacity and profile to survive. By the way "whatshisname" is more correctly pronounced "Doo-ple-see" and spelled du Plessis.
"...ACT doesn't want to put forward a tough on welfare image, to do so would be automatic electoral suicide..."
We get enough of that bullshit out of the other parties.
There are more than 5% of us that want a party that will stick to core principles despite what the great unwashed at the supermarket 'think' they want!
I thought ACT was meant to be opposed to welfare mentality. I could be mistaken.
Still, Libertarianz could always use more good people...
So, Rebel Heart, and by the way, real rebels don't hide behind nom de plumes, you're saying that a political party should be unprincipled, say what it doesn't mean, anything, really, to win an election?
I realise that is how all the parties in Parliament actually do work, and we can now include ACT in that, but is it likely to ever give us any sort of society other than the second hander, user society we now have?
Here's a stunning alternative: let's be principled. The Libz are the only party that can claim that.
Don't be silly Mark Hubbard-how can you call ACT unprincipled. They fielded a highly talented first team. Tough titty if it put some of the old fossil's noses out of joint-it was time for new faces.
O.5% want a party that believes in sticking to principles!
The is indeed no hope if that is true!
You should have been lifted above 9 your previous position and where is Muriel Newman?
ACT made this stupid mistake last time around by demoting Gerry Echoff which cost it dearly in the rural community.
ACT is dead and has been for years.
peterquixote
Although I dismissed the big two parties a long time ago, I got into plenty hot water when I announced I'd be an Act voter this time around.
Ignoring the warnings I stuck with that. I'm starting to realise that nothing beats principle. It may not appeal to the main stream zomies in this country but is what I believe in.
Libertarianz are the only party that hold a clean consistent set of principles. Act makes the right noises but simply fails to tie it together based on fundamental principles. This list wanking as a good example of that.
Dinther-I applaud your stance on principle. Unfortunately the system rewards the Machiavellian, not the principled. Without parliamentary representation it is very difficult to perpetuate our principles within the leadership structure of the country. So I would ask Liberterianz to consider a party vote for ACT. You have the option of a vote for Libertarinz and no parliamentary representation or a party vote for ACT, a party that will still represent you view but has displayed pragmatism in the quest for seats. Now I hear many shouting me down-but those who know me know that I am a principled person. I would not have joined ACT had I believed that the party had drifted away from core values. Let us be united in our quest to advance liberal ideology and not squabble amongst ourselves.
Post a Comment