Monday, November 28, 2011

Politically homeless

That's that then. I wanted Catherine Isaac in parliament and voted accordingly. But it didn't happen and I see this morning Catherine has, wisely in my view, ruled out assuming leadership or any other active role in ACT.

Ms Isaac said the future depended on Mr Banks. "Will John Banks embrace Act ideology and its policies and seek to advance them?

"I don't know how John Banks is planning on conducting himself. His history is with the National Party, not with Act, and I don't know to what extent he embraces Act principles."

She said she did not intend to take an active role in the party, but there was a future for a classical liberal party.

Mr Banks' conservative views have rubbed the more socially liberal Act members the wrong way. But he was comfortable because of what he called the "80/20" principle - he agrees with 80 per cent of the party's policies.

But will a leader keep the 20 percent he doesn't agree with? Liberals and conservatives can often agree on a majority of economic policy but are deeply divided on social issues - those that arguably have more impact on individual personal lives.

Catherine is right on one other thing too. There is a future for a classical liberal party. One that attracts all ages. The 'disengaged' who are perenially cynical about self-serving politicians. Young people like my son who baulk at socialism and collectivism, but don't identify with a political brand of any sort. NOT conservatists; and NOT statists.

The Libertarianz can surely not go another election with their ever energetic efforts but disheartening results?

There are rather a lot of politically homeless people out here I am afraid.

And on a related note Oswald asks about The Conservative Party, "Why are they getting even more derision from the so-called right-wing blogs?"

My answer:

Because 'so-called right-wing blogs' are misnamed?

Conservatives are by definition anti-abortion, anti voluntary euthanasia, anti same sex marriage and adoption, pro-criminalisation of drugs, and happy to use the state as an instrument of supression. None of which interests me.


Berend de Boer said...

Let me see, it is an act of suppression if the State things it's wrong to stop a beating heart.


Berend de Boer said...

Where is the edit button?

Let me see, it is an act of suppression if the State believes it's wrong to stop a beating heart.


PM of NZ said...

"anti-abortion, anti voluntary euthanasia, anti same sex marriage and adoption, pro-criminalisation of drugs"

Nothing wrong with any of those ideals.

Psycho Milt said...

The above comments demonstrate why there really is a need for a classical liberal party.

PM of NZ said...

PM, and those same 'classical liberals' wonder why they consistently fail to gain traction at the ballot box with the masses?

Redbaiter said...

Milt the "classic liberal"..


Oh gawd help me.

Redbaiter said...

"None of which interests me."

Good that's fine Lindsay. So why do you and all the other "liberals" (in a fine example of hypocrisy as it relates to your claimed classically liberal "tolerance" for other viewpoints) spend so much time attacking and maligning and smearing the Conservative Party?

Rather than spread lies and smears about your political opponents, here's what I reckon you should do-

Start your own political party..

Oh wait..

"Politically homeless.."

Yep, now I get it.

You destroyed ACT with your delusional ideas as your ilk have destroyed National and the Libertarians.

You destroy everything you touch.

I know you have no time for the Conservative Party,and that's fine with me. It doesn't need the destruction you have brought to every other political group you have been part of.

Stay away. Its the best thing you can do to allow the party to succeed.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Red Baiter, That's silly. I wrote one post questioning whether Colin Craig had gone over his budget. Couldn't care less whether he had or not. Cause I'm not interested. And I have explained why I am not interested in Conservatism. To say I have spent time "attacking, maligning and smearing" is silly. I spend my time trying to explain why the welfare ideas of the left (and even of the right) don't and won't work.

I am quite happy to stay away and think that now is the time for like-minded classical liberal types to band together under those principles.

Funny. It is you guys attacking me. Why don't you just ignore me?

Andrei said...

Lindsay time after time you lament the growth of the benefit system and the intrusion of the State into the lives of ordinary people.

And yet you fail to see that policies that develop and support strong family structures, the issues that go to heart of Conservative concerns, are the key to reducing this burden.

Kids with fathers are supported by them not the state - no?

Would liberalization of drugs strengthen family bonds or would they further weaken them and who picks up the tab when they break?

Think about it

James said...

Well said Lindsay...and Milty too. To hell with the consevative scum...they never had a place in ACT and have ended up killing it. A new liberal party will and must have those socially liberal principles of individual rights and ownership of ones body front and centre along with the economically liberal ones.Let the "socialists of the soul go to Colin Craig or whatever party of insecure authoritarian busybodies who will have them...

Red....being liberal doesn't mean you must tolerate all other views and actions without expressing your personal view and judgement upon them...It just means that to a point,being the violation of the rights of a non-consenting other,then you tolerate the right of others to hold those views or preform those actions....very simple concept...but too hard for you to grasp it seems...

James said...

Andrei...wrong. Its not liberal (in the true sense) values that lead to the negative outcomes you mention and we all recognise...its the SOCIALIST ones of welfare with no corresponding, individual responsibility....a value which is at the heart of true liberalism. Liberalism is not open license to do what you want with no thought of consequences....its freedom within the natural boundary of personal responsibility and respecting the exact same right of everyone else to do the same.

Its rich of conservatives to cry-about being attacked and misrepresented when they do the same thing re true liberalism.

James said...

A new Liberal party to replace ACT is on the cards...and it will have its values and principles front and centre for potential members to understand and sign up to if they wish to join. That way there is no wiggle room or confusion over what its there to represent.Conservative minded types will know what's what and can opt to either change their minds...or go elsewhere where they would be more comfortably.

Contrary to PM of NZ the future is young and liberal...and that's where future votes are. The massive positive reaction Brash and ACT got to his musings on decriminalising cannabis show the truth of this.

Psycho Milt said...

Milt the "classic liberal"..

I don't claim to be a classical liberal. It's possible to recognise the need for a political party without being a likely supporter of it - something partisans never grasp. And the fact that authoritarians like yourself are enthusiasts for a conservative party is good reason non-authoritarians to avoid voting for it.

Mark Hubbard said...

As a classical liberal/libertarian I find the Conservatives almost as abhorrent as Labour. There's nothing classical liberal about them: no asset sales policy, while clever tactical politics, tells me they're Statists who believe the State own the means of production, so no limited government to be found here. Worse, lets face it, with Gordon Copeland on the list, they're just a Christian party, so, again, they believe the State, channeling God, has the right to police anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia polices. No freedom to be found here, just the big jackboot of State all over again. Indeed, National will give us smaller huge government than they will.

In fact the more I think on them - and John Banks should have been in that party, not ACT - the more I realise how awful they are.

I note both Peter Cresswell and Lindsay Perigo, on their blogs, are raising the proposition of a new 'freedom' party: we need one, desperately.

PM of NZ said...

"that's where future votes are"

Aaah, trading principles for votes. No wonder ACT is where it is today. I have also noted where that's got the Nats prostituting themselves for votes over principle.

As for Brash, I disagree on your positive reaction. Not six years ago he was the nearly the best thing since sliced bread sticking to principle, but he was kneecapped by those willing to prostitute the party over those principles.

I sincerely hope the Conservatives, like your newly mooted liberal party, might have some non-negotiable bottom lines.

Redbaiter said...

"I note both Peter Cresswell and Lindsay Perigo, on their blogs, are raising the proposition of a new 'freedom' party: we need one, desperately."

We sure do.

We need a place where all you loonies libs can gather so you can stop stuffing up every other party.

(with the kind of incomprehensible gibberish lies, smears and misconceptions we see on display here.)

Redbaiter said...

What did the Objectivists get?

1400 votes?

Go for it loons.

Oswald Bastable said...

Lindsay- I'm talking about the National cheer-leaders the media loves to call right-wing blogs.

Parlor pink, they called them in a bygone age.

I call them Smurfs. Blue on the outside, pink in the middle.

Manolo said...

Yes, Oswald. We know full well who the National cheerleaders are.

The name smurf sounds appropriate.

Berend de Boer said...

For those who believe Colin Craig is on the right economically: he promised voters the first $25,000 tax free. How was he going to fund that? How was he going us out of the deficit when he doesn't want asset sales?

Colin Craig is, perhaps, somewhat on the right socially, but definitely left economically. He belongs in NZ First.

James said...

Aaah, trading principles for votes. No wonder ACT is where it is today. I have also noted where that's got the Nats prostituting themselves for votes over principle.

No....the principles naturally dovetail with younger voters...see the positive reaction Brash's cannabis musings got for him from clued up young Kiwis who know the drug war BS is a lie and something that needs sweeping away with all other conservative untruths and stagnant dogmas.

James said...

Classical liberalism of the sort ACT was supposed to represent originally emerged to counter not lefty socialism but Conservatism in the oppressive form of the Church.

True liberals and Conservatives are polar opposites....and should not mix.

Redbaiter said...

Classical liberalism of the sort ACT was supposed to represent

The usual lies. ACT was not founded on "classic liberalism".

Anonymous said...

Correct Redbaiter, I was there at the founding of ACT - the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers - the original purpose is in the name, it wasn't about pushing liberal social engineering at all. It was about economic freedom and reducing the financial/regulatory size of the state, end of. If it had only stuck to this it would not be in the position it is today. And those original core ideas are going to be needed more than ever in the coming years.