Expressing an opinion about ACT is risky territory for me but what is the point of a blog if not used to articulate a thought or impression?
The attacks on ACT in the trail of this weekend's conference have been many. They come from the left and the right; from without and within; overtly and less overtly. And perhaps attendees are still sleeping it off, but I see no-one defending or counter-attacking (accept for the Cactus who has been multi-tasking). Perhaps because the party appears split. Split along personality, and to a lesser degree, identity lines. This is very different from the straight forward philosophical division which was survivable. Someone once commented to me that Prebble managed the liberal/conservative tension successfully.
But this current division of loyalties and purpose will quite possibly weaken ACT to the point of no return.
There are now two swinging voters in this house and our perception of what is happening - right or wrong - takes us no closer to a decision that favours ACT.
Part 3, Australia’s Transition to Renewable Energy
19 minutes ago
15 comments:
Well I’m not counter-attacking, nor am I responding to any of it because I am sick of it all. I have had a gutsful of the people who like to fight within the team, rather than remember we are all on the same team.
We should have two immediate focuses: Regulatory Responsibility Bill and TABOR. That is what should drive us, and is what will drive me. I couldn’t give a foxtrot about the puritanical crap because if the puritans had their way ACT would still be in opposition, or worse, be a Think Tank.
Gooner
Gooner is of course correct. Most members were making a sterling effort to get along until that bloody stupid speech by Heather Roy that John Armstrong pinged today quite aptly.
On the topic of Think tanks can I ask why so many ACT members are working in Think Tanks? Yourself included Lindsay with commentary....
More "do'ers" are required in ACT and less theorists.
In any political party there are the same issues. Look at Greens at moment ditto Labour. The only happy bunch are National as per the norm - those with the highest poll rating tend to find love where none exists in bad times.
We should have two immediate focuses: Regulatory Responsibility Bill and TABOR.
Oh FFS. Fix the franchise and the rest will fix itself.
Before that, ACT could at least vote against every single tax cut and every single benefit increase.
If that means we go to a snap election - so be it.
Look at the polls: if we went now, Labour would be wiped out, and we'd clearly have a mandate to fix both the franchise and the economy without f**king about with stupid referenda etc.
Cactus, My thing is spreading ideas. The attention I generate for them is steadily increasing through a number of avenues. "Theorists" are as legitimate as "doers", though I think the distinction is anyway blurred.
And I have, in the past, spent a great deal of time being a doer for ACT (which also suited my welfare goals). But doers are going to be hard to come by if the relationship between the leader and at least two of the MPs continues to be (apparently) at odds.
In all honesty, I haven't seen ACT gaining any traction by joining the National Party in government.
Shennanigans aside, Hide's contribution has been minimal, while his other MPs have struggled for visibility.
Time will tell, but the future doesn't appear promising for the party. I fervently hope I'm wrong.
In all honesty, I haven't seen ACT gaining any traction by joining the National Party in government.
none at all - except the same of voting for tax rises, minimum wage rises, benefit increases, etc etc etc
Shennanigans aside, Hide's contribution has been minimal, while his other MPs have struggled for visibility.
Yep. Making Hide minister in charge of implementing Hellen's Supershitty was a tactically brilliant move by Key - keeping Hide so busy he can't direct his party against National.
Time will tell, but the future doesn't appear promising for the party. I fervently hope I'm wrong.
The times are promising. If the party can finally actually agree on a few very simply, very clear policies I am sure they can easily increase their share of the vote. Things like:
* arm the police
* death penalty
* eliminate WFF
* Tax Free Threshold (over 100K)
* taxpayer franchise
"* death penalty"
sometimes I think, that those who advocate giving the state the right to kill its own, are the only ones deserving of the death penalty.
lol - and the capture "phalis"
hat those who advocate giving the state the right to kill its own,
Actually it's a simple case of economics and personal responsibility. I have no problem with prison - provided that inmates are housed at no cost to the taxpayer. When they cannot even afford that, if they had a single skerrick of personal responsibility they would rid the rest of us of the need to keep them! As it is - many of them don't - so we taxpayers need to ensure they take personal responsibility for their actions, and for being able to look after themselves.
Manolo pretty much sums up ACT's fortunes.
People voted for ACT thinking they would make a difference.
People thought it would be excellent to have Roger Douglas' voice in Parliament, especially on tax matters.
Will those same people feel their vote was worthwhile, and vote again for ACT?
For increased support at the next election, where will ACT look for new voters?
kurt
Will those same people feel their vote was worthwhile, and vote again for ACT?
Absolutely! Because one only has to look at Key to see the other choice!
For increased support at the next election, where will ACT look for new voters?
To the right of course: Boscowen and Garrett on social policy; Roger and Rodney on welfare and taxes. Hopefully Rodney can reign in Roger's more stupid ideas (school vouchers, compulsory savings schemes - various other forms of welfare-by-stealth) and get on with the business of fixing NZ's vast over-reliance on government as quickly as possible.
If National were to stand a credible candidate in Epsom, would many voters nationwide drift from National to Act with their Party vote if they thought ACT could not make the 5% threshold?
kurt
National aren't going to stand a credible candidate in Epsom, they're going to stand Aaron Bhatnagar ;-)
If National were to stand a credible candidate in Epsom, would many voters nationwide drift from National to Act with their Party vote if they thought ACT could not make the 5% threshold?
No way in hell. Not that it matters: if ACT adopts a small set of distinctive policies, and starts separating itself from do-nothing-National, ACT will easily be back with rather more than 5% of the vote!
anonymous at 3.28 and 7.58.
Is that you, Spud?
kurt
Post a Comment