Whale has this extraordinary claim on his blog.
The fundamentalist Maxim Institute have been pointed to as behind this selection jack up, as the first stage for the takeover of the National Party by fundies. Brent is apparently one of 37 candidates they have primed around the country to take over caucus between now and 2017.
The Maxim Institute seems to have abundant money and was very politically active organising debates around the country prior to the last election. I have regarded them generally as a transparent outfit which produces quite a bit of good, balanced, politically centre-right stuff. Their Real Issues weekly e-mail is usually worth a read. CEO Greg Fleming is a man I like and respect notwithstanding there are issues we would disagree on because I am not a conservative or Christian.
Fundamentalists? A caucus takeover?? Seems fanciful. But its a free country. People are free to organise and free to oppose. Any input or views people have on this matter would be welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Be VERY concerned about this development!
You only have to read Nicky Hager's "The Hollow Men" - it is alleged there that Maxim and National were cooperating regarding the timing of forums and policy.
As article says, I think National Party itself will be very wary.
The National Party are very weary of selection jack-ups, this is why this attempt is leaking like a sieve.
The membership will punish anyone tarnished by the jack-up attempt by not voting for them, even if the last opponent is a blithering idiot.
The notion that Maxim Institute is a malevolent force acting behind the scenes to hijack the National Party is a truly bizarre proposition.
For a start they are transparent about who they are, and what they stand for, and secondly they are no more capable of manipulating the democratic candidate selection process than any other lobby group.
In a liberal democracy, should we not welcome increased participation in party politics by individuals that hold a diverse range of views, or is it only people 'like me' that are welcome?
If you hold different views, sign up members to support your own candidate. That is how participatory democracy works.
Brendan, have you read "The Hollow Men" at all? Surely you can see how the Maxim Institute were working as an extension of National's campaign, even if they did not say as much.
For the last election, did you attend their pre-election forum? Did you not hear them at the forum give hints that it is best not to vote for a small party, lest they fail to reach 5 %?
The Maxim Institute in these matters resembled the Exclusive Brethren. They did not come right out and say they were backing National. Instead, they concealed their ambitions by holding those forums which fooled some into thinking they were neutral. Meanwhile they played out their Education strategy.
And if you can't remember the Logan case then you missed that great track record of lack of transparency.
The Maxim Institute tries to cobble together very conservative people to push a case for a religious agenda. They cause harm in an open society of freedoms that we largely enjoy.
All the above you can ignore if you show me where they have refuted the Hollow Men. Lets see where the controversy goes from here!
Lindsay: We will agree to disagree. Maxim is odious and has been looking for a way in push American fundamentalist thinking into New Zealand. They wanted this for ACT and now for the National Party. This is precisely the sort of things I thought them capable of. You are a very trusting person and don't know to what length these fundamentalists will go to achieve their ends. They are not allies.
What is the current National Party but a collection of wimps, sycophants, yes-men, spineless and emasculated individuals?
It is no surprise they are taken over by minor entities.
There have always been instances of selection panel "stacking" in the National Party, in mostly futile attempts to select a branch favourite, or a clique favourite, as the Party's Electorate Candidate.
Generally stacking is the "favoured one's" only chance because he/she lacks the general appeal to succeed in fairly conducted contests. Often they have personality weaknesses which panels are quick to identify. Stacking also creates a degree of backlash, so never a good idea and not usually the modus operandi of candidates of genuine ability.
In National's healthier days, Party membership was usually so strong that big increases in numbers prior to selection panel establishment were less possible, and additional numbers were a much smaller percentage of the total Party membership for the Electorate, so any potential effectiveness was diluted.
The problem in Rodney is that 250 new members are a significant increase on the widely touted membership of around 600.
Even if elected, less worthy candidates struggle on the Campaign circuit without the access to knowledgeable strategists who might otherwise assist them. If the seat is safe enough and they win at Election time anyway, they are unlikely to be a good fit in the Party Caucus. So really an unhappy outcome all round.
The chances of an organised bloc establishing any sort of dominance across a wide number of Electorates is slim indeed - possible through the Party Listthough, but as John Key is insisting that his Caucus has List preference, that process is unlikely to be highjacked any time soon.
Despite many National Party supporters having a strong religious faith, very few accept that as a preferential quality when it comes to selecting a nominee to become the Electorate's official candidate.
Seldom has National failed to select the best candidate in the field. It has happened, but very rarely.
Disgruntled losers have often created plenty of post-selection disharmony, but their support base is short-lived.
kurt
"You are a very trusting person and don't know to what length these fundamentalists will go to achieve their ends."
Agreed. I am trusting and wish to remain so. But that is why I particularly asked for input on this matter. So I can get a feeling for the wider view. Thank you for yours.
You are a very trusting person, Lindsay, and very logical, and very commonsense.
You are not going to be swayed by fear mongering, or by the stealth of fundamentalists.
Or The Hollow Men or Investigate Magazine.
There be elements of truth in every opinion, and the wise man learns more from a fool than the fool ever learns from a wise man.
Scientology, Exclusive Bretheren, White Supremacy, any cult or religion you wish to mention will seduce some minds.
But not yours, Lindsay.
And not mine.
You, Lindsay, can see good where there is good, and evil where there is evil.
The National Party may not comprise the smartest thinkers in the world, but they are too self-interested to not notice if their power base is being threatened.
Upstarts are not welcome.
kurt
STOP PRESS: Religious group partakes in democratic political party.
Flee, flee for your lives. It's all over. Get out of here. It's all over. Go now. Before they get you and eat you.
It is amazing how much influence a group like Maxim could exert if they chose to.
Remember they are a professional think tank that I think does "advocacy research". They are not amateur fans of politics.
Look at this example of "research":
http://www.socialjustice.co.nz/
As someone who is familiar with Maxim and knows many of the people there, I know that Maxim was not working as an extension of National's campaign, nor did they hae anything to do with any selection jack up. Brent Robinson, however has lived in Rodney for 12 years. Scott Simpson doesnt, and he just happens to be a mate of Cameron Slater and his dad....
Look at this example of "research":
http://www.socialjustice.co.nz/
Hardly the harbinger of evil intent.
kurt
But Kurt, is it really useful research? What did it prove?
I found it more amusing than informative.
And look at the surveys of the public - looks mainly like in-house University to me!
And Big News - thanks for defending these people that you say you know. It is not clear whether you attended one of their pre-Election forums. Read the chapter of "The Hollow Men" on Education. Sinister stuff.
at least their using their money to organise the debates and lobby.
Unlike Labour/unions...
thieving shits.
Evan, have you any actual, you know, "proof"?
Basing your delusions on Nicky Hager's "Hollow Men" seems very silly to me.
Big News says he is familiar with Maxim, and knows some of them personally.
Yet you're still taken in by Nicky Hagers' insinuation.
Fuck me, I might not agree with the fundies on lots of things, but they're, for the most, on the side of good and right and truth and wholesomeness.
Unlike so many in current socialist climate.
/ R
Yeah, what evil things are these people wanting to do?
A few concrete examples please Evan. (just one would be a surprise) Followed by a reasoned argument for why it is bad.
Right now they are promoting SM voting system to replace MMP.
They are in the company of Roger Kerr, Michael Bassett, and other right wingers in doing so.
Post a Comment