It is now February 2008. In 6-9 months I'll have to step into a polling booth and put a tick by a party. And right now there isn't a tick I can make that gives me any hope that New Zealand will be a better place for my kids. Do you think I am alone? I don't.
The message I am getting repeatedly is no party is putting an alternative view. The one party that believes in choice isn't offering it. When pushed they might express a viewpoint at variance with Labour or National but they aren't shouting it from the rooftops. It was once about the media ignoring releases but now the releases aren't even generated.
Let's cut to the chase. ACT's leader needs to hold Epsom. If ACT expresses 'unpopular' views which appeal to 10 or 20 percent of voters, that's great across New Zealand - but it's not enough in Epsom. So ACT are in a bind.
But if they carry on being irrelevant to most of New Zealand but acceptable to Epsom, and return with 1 or 2 MPs again, they will face the same problem all over again.
Rodney said attacking never got ACT anywhere. Their vote collapsed in 2005. I believe the vote collapsed because Don Brash led National. Now people are sticking with National because there isn't any other party offering them a convincing alternative.
ACT needs to attack. God knows there is no shortage of targets. Not attacking for the sake of it. Attacking because something is wrong, or inefficient, unfair or a waste of space.
Attack Working For Families, the student loan fiasco, the Buy NZ Made campaign, the Maori seats, Paid Parental Leave, lifestyle welfare, the school 'donation' scheme, the Families Commission, the Children's Commissioner, Women's Affairs.
Stick fast to your founding principles and start doing some rabble rousing. Start fighting to get back the support that went to National.
Because a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights isn't going to do it. And the Regulatory Responsibility Bill isn't going to do it. As laudable and valuable as they are, these policy bottom-lines are too complex for sound bites and one-line reporting. If you haven't got the interest in a few seconds that's it.
I understand the bottom-line policy strategy. That's important too but those bottom-lines need to be very simple. Less is more. ACT has always appealed to the intellect but it needs to appeal to emotions too.
I want ACT to survive, passionately. I voted for Rodney Hide to lead the party and have never regretted it. But I don't want to see another three years like the last. I have a shirt somewhere that says, "ACT - The Real Opposition". I paid some ridiculous amount of money for it at a fund-raising auction because I believed the message.
That is what ACT now needs to show the public again. Consistent, loud, reasoned and civil opposition. That is ACT's job. To restrain government.
Who’s More Stasi: Britain or Germany?
1 hour ago
19 comments:
What is wrong with the buy NZ made campaign?
And what do you thing needs to be done to paid parental leave? (can you give me the link if youve already blogged about this?)
Hannah
1/ Trading is efficient and good for the economy. If we do not buy those products which can be made or grown more efficiently elsewhere overseas countries will not buy our produce.
2/ Paid Parental Leave is paid for by someone else. If you want to protect your income during the period after giving birth save for it.
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com
/2007/09/nz-herald-editorial-
misguided-advocacy.html
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com
/2006/05/buy-kiwi-made-is-another-
immoral.html
m"Paid Parental Leave is paid for by someone else. If you want to protect your income during the period after giving birth save for it."
but its paid for by me too.. yeah if there were tax relief for all then that would be easier.. and I totally see virginbloggers point on that other post.
Im torn on who to vote too.
The problem with the "Buy NZ made" campaign is that it's funded using money that is confiscated off New Zealanders. I find it mildly insulting to have my money taken from me by the IRD (under threat of force no less) and then have it spent telling me how I should spend what's left.
In my opinion the government has no business telling me what I should spend my money on - and it sure has no business using *my* money to do it!
In my opinion the fundamental message ACT should be basing their policies on is simple: freedom and liberty.
The problem with ACT (and the Libertarianz for that matter) is that they do not push this particular message out there. The majority of people don't think of governmental policy in terms of how it effects their own freedoms. This change in mindset is essential to a freer, more liberty bases society.
Simply put "buy NZ" is stupid. First, if the NZ product is your best buy you would make it anyway. So there would be no need to push the idea of buying it -- you'd buy it because it makes sense. So that only means pushing to "buy NZ" when you have other purchases out there that make more economic sense.
What "buy NZ" is saying is that you should spend extra money to fund a product that isn't as good as the one you would normally prefer to buy. So all you manage to do is encourage substandard NZ products not quality ones. You hurt yourself in the process by spending more than you would have on the other product.
That means you have less money to spend in general and less to spend on the quality products that NZ does have and which don't need these campaigns. All you are doing is encouraing piss-poor products, making NZ less competitive, making yoruself poorer and rewarding people for being second best.
For mine, there are any number of issues I'm keen to take a swing at as part of Act on Campus.
However, we're holding ourselves back because we're waiting for our briefing on the new campaign laws. No doubt we'll know this month- and great violence to evil shall resume.
As for the buy Kiwi made campaign, I've confiscated all the signage from my workplace and thrown it in the recycle bin!
You better get a look at that, LM
For many years, the UK Labour party thrived in spite of the notorious 4th clause of it's constitution. Clause 4 allowed party activists to campaign for pragmatic/electable policies without feeling that their 'pure' objectives were compromised as everyone who joined the party understood that they were joining a movement with clause 4 as it's ultimate goal. (Times have changed and clause 4 is gone, but as a young party UK Labour could not have thrived without it.)
I have very mixed feelings about ACT because I can't distinguish between the pragmatism of policies and it's core values. I have spoken to ACT MP's who were clearly no less confused.
As far as I can tell, ACT think: that socialised healthcare is a good thing; that the state should use force to incarcerate children in institutions of the state's choice for the purpose of indoctrination (and if those children don't cooperate then they should be drugged until they do); that being pro private sector means bestowing the favours of the state to allow some businesses to make handsome profits; etc. i.e. Act's values differ from mine.
Potential ACT voters are too smart to hear works like 'liberty' and 'choice' without asking what is meant. In the absence of an unequivocal statement of ACT's core values, how can anyone think that their values coincide with ACT's? Without true believers passionately promoting ACT's 'pragmatic' policies how can ACT thrive?
Dave Christian
Dave, ACT would say they are opposed to the state monopolising health and education and any move towards greater private sector involvement is desirable. But that doesn't mean they are going to reject any state involvement. And I am unaware of any businesses they want privilege bestowed upon.
Lindsay, my experience in business is that profit margins are consistently much higher when contracting to the public sector than when doing business in the private sector.
Whenever the state interposes itself into the market to take money from people to spend 'on their behalf', the recipients of that money, be they in the public or private sectors are most certainly privileged.
Moving state patronage from some people in the public sector to some people in the private sector is not 'freedom of choice'.
Dave
I agree that contracting out services is not the same as leaving the private sector to provide them in the first place. Is it an improvement though? It allows for some competition.
That is the crux of the argument libertarians always have. Is improvement better than the status quo? Or, because it's not the real McCoy, we stick with the worst of all worlds?
I should add (for context) there didn't seem to be any room for gradualism in the Libertarianz and so I joined ACT. Whereas I was at what might be termed the soft end of the Libz I am at the hard end of ACT. Excuse the terminology. But even in the area I care most about, welfare, I am not advocating wholesale abolition of the welfare state. It crept up on us and, if the situation can be turned around, it will diminish in the same piecemeal fashion.
I should add (for context) there didn't seem to be any room for gradualism in the Libertarianz and so I joined ACT.
Couldn't agree more. while I consider myself a Libertarian, I think implementing libertarian policies in the timeframe the Libertarianz recommend would be very bad for society. Socialism needs to be removed carefully and consideredly - but don't get me wrong: it must be removed.
I am also a gradualist! But what bothers me is that ACT declines to distinguish the means from the ends.
For example, may in ACT seem to view education vouchers as a goal rather than a (rather small) step towards a goal. Several years ago, Rodney wrote an excellent piece about the customer responsiveness, innovation and efficiency of food manufacture and distribution in comparison with the moribund state of education. He did not suggest that the government should own and manage the majority of food manufacturing & distribution businesses. He did not suggest that all remaining private food businesses should be highly regulated so that they would have few points of difference from state owned businesses. He did not suggest that everyone should be taxed to pay for food and handed back vouchers - according to the state's determination of their need - to exchange for the food the state thought good for them, or that the state should force people to use the vouchers even if they didn't want to. Yet, ACT policy says that this is the perfect scenario for education!
Without a clear vision statement, ACT doesn't stand for anything but a hodgepodge of policies. I expect something more from folks who want my vote let alone my active support.
Dave
Interest free Student Loans, and now early payment incentives, are nothing more than a bribe to the middle-class - a bribe paid for with their own money.
Right now, I'm equally torn as who to vote for - a choice between Labour-Lite and meek ACT is hardly a choice worth making.
Attack Working For Families, the student loan fiasco, the Buy NZ Made campaign, the Maori seats, Paid Parental Leave, lifestyle welfare, the school 'donation' scheme, the Families Commission, the Children's Commissioner, Women's Affairs.
Then there's the shift in wealth due to asset inflation which has made some rich and those without (not on the property ladder in a difficult position). That's the elephant in the room.
RE the comments on the Buy NZ Made Campaign.
1) Buy NZ Made is not government funded but is a privately owned membership based organisation.
2) Buy Kiwi Made is the Government run initiative promoting New Zealand Made.
It is interesting that the remarks about this are so negative when obviously the commentators dont really understand what it is all about.
Manufacturers in New Zealand can sometimes get a bit of a raw deal yet they employ a huge number of staff. The Buy NZ Made campaign is about promoting these business that also include services and retailers.
Prior to The Buy Kiwi Made Campaign starting, A survey was taken by NZ consumers and the results showed that the majority did not believe we actually made anything much in NZ anymore.
The facts are we have 20,000 manufacturers in NZ
The majority of our manufacturers are small (1-15 staff) and the campaign helps provide opportunities for them to market their products and services. It also helps consumers find some pretty unique NZ goods.
Both campaigns are about helping business survive by informing the public about their products.
NZ made products in general are of good quality, many people probably have bought NZ Made without even realising it as not all manufacturers promote this.
The "Buy Kiwi Made" initiative (which as you say is run by the government) is paid for by using money confiscated from taxpayers. I don't believe there is a moral justification in using tax money in this manner. As you've pointed out, there is already a privately run organisation with largely the same goals - so why does the government use money it confiscates from taxpayers to fund a campaign that a) already has a private equivalant and b) isn't (in my opinion) core business for the government?
Post a Comment