A shadow of the old Act Party is having a conference this weekend. Numbers are way down and there will be enormous anxiety at the performance of the party in its ministerial roles, in the polls and in the house where Roger Douglas acts as whip and seems to regard it as the place to have his senior siesta.
Their centrepiece of economic reform The Brash taskforce was laughed off stage by Key before it was presented to the public.
Hide’s most noteworthy activity has been a trip to his girlfriend’s family wedding.
The three strikes bill has been gutted – it might be a decade before the number of extra prisoners will get into double figures.
Hide is fighting Roy’s zoning proposals because they will knock $150k average off house prices in much of his electorate.
Most likely result will be another Dunne or Anderton one person party. Best result for Labour could be that Roy scrapes in on Hide’s coat tails – because they hate each other and all those votes would come from national.
Have fun.
Shudder.
Heather hates Rodney, that’s a fAct!
Hide is in the wrong party – he beleives in that Ayn Rand no Government, no looking out for the other, take care of number 1 BS that the Libertarianz espouse.
Not sure the people of Epsom would really support those policies, but of course Hide is not upfront about it.
Interesting initial reaction on my facebook page where I linked :- who cares? http://www.facebook.com/trevor.mallard1?ref=profile#!/trevor.mallard1?ref=profile
“Hide is in the wrong party – he beleives in that Ayn Rand no Government, no looking out for the other, take care of number 1 BS that the Libertarianz espouse.”
Wrong. Libertarians espouse looking out for each INSTEAD of mandating the state to do it. They espouse voluntary exchange and interaction (which could be charitable giving or trading) because both parties benefit from the action. No coercion is involved. It is entirely possible to be altruistic but disagree with the state playing the altruist.
@ Greenfly –
SO Mr Mallard from the tenor of your post, you oppose Jim Anderton, who you concede is a one person party, getting any funding on the basis he is a ‘party leader’
It’s a busy weekend for Act. Our local paper is advertising a fundraiser tomorrow at Alan Gibb’s farm, north of Kaukapakapa. Gibbs will be one of the luncheon speakers, along with Roger Douglas, Don Brash, Muriel Newman and Owen McShane, each explaining what they would do if they could be dictator of New Zealand for a year. Now that should be an interesting event to sit in on…
Crikey Kau, that sounds like a battle of “who could mess the country up the most”.
Lindsay – that may be true, but I’ve never encountered a Libz supporter who does altruistic work in the community. Actions always speak louder than words with me.
… and if there aren’t enough altruistic rich people, I guess we’ll just leave the poor to starve.
Kindly folk those libertarians.
“and if there aren’t enough altruistic rich people, I guess we’ll just leave the poor to starve.” – I think you’re on the right track jarbury.
Gnat Exterminator, How many Libz supporters have you met?
Jarbury, You don’t have to be rich to be altruistic. All need does not stem from a lack of money.
Ahh, revenge is sweet. Hopefull ACT won’t return to Parliament in the next term. This will serve Rodney Hide right, for when he picked on Winston with the finances in NZ First. Hide lost all credibility when he took his girlfriend on the tax-payer funded trip – wasn’t very “perk-buster”ish, was it?
Now how does Labour go about improving coalition support for the next election? New Zealand First and the Progressives spring to mind.
A lot will depend on who National put in Epsom next election.
ACT is definitely going through a personality crisis. Hard to see where they end and where National begin – which is death for a small party.
@ Jarbury. That’s what I’ve been thinking about. My plea to the Epsom Labour Electorate Committee is to not put a candidate forward in 2011, just get everyone to give their candidate vote to the National person.
That would take the party vote from Labour aswell, but that would be a better chance of defeating Rodney.
Gulp,
The problem for national is that without FPP no party has been able to govern without a coalition partner. They are putting someone up, they say, against Mr Dunne (the biggest freeloader on the taxpayer , more so than any beneficiary), but who knows.
If they truly challenge Hide, then ACT could have no one (good thing). BUT that would leave national with Dunne (maybe) and the MP? I know Turia’s hatred for Clark seems to drive her common sense (or lack thereof) but really?
I thought it was pretty likely Peter Dunne would retire at the next election.
Kaukapakapa said:
“It’s a busy weekend for Act. Our local paper is advertising a fundraiser tomorrow at Alan Gibb’s farm, north of Kaukapakapa. Gibbs will be one of the luncheon speakers, along with Roger Douglas, Don Brash, Muriel Newman and Owen McShane, each explaining what they would do if they could be dictator of New Zealand for a year. Now that should be an interesting event to sit in on…”
Just a question: Isn’t that what Labour passed the Terrorism Act in 2002/3ish for..?
Call the Bobbies, time for some arrests…
Kaukapakapa
Hello – that’s not an ACT event, it is run for Muriel Newman and Owen McShane’s “Think Tanks”. Yes, I have an aversion to “think tanks” as well. Kind of like Unions for brainy people.
The difference in these speakers at Kaukapakapa and Labour is that Helen Clark actually was a dictator, they are only talking about it.
I was actually at the conference at Wellington College in the Brierley building. There were minimum 150 people max 200. I’m betting Labour’s conference if held tomorrow would have similar numbers so best you not throw stones.
Muriel Newman’s speech was very unusual and I will blog about it when I have more time. Heather Roy’s was stuttering and incomprehensible and I will comment on that more as well. Already fisked Brash’s 20/20 taskforce. Conversely David Seymour’s speech was very good as was Alan Gibbs’ – both were based on reality of the ACT sales message required.
Rather like a Labour conference I imagine – a mix of speakers in quality, tone and result.
Heather Roy has been very busy juggling lots of appearances, blogging, and House sittings. I thought that she was the ACT party whip.
I’m not a politician and can’t judge her impact in her portfolios but she certainly seems hard at work.
I’d like more politicians with her work ethic.
@ Kate – sorry I thought it was their annual NZ conference not a regional meeting.
Cactus Kate re-Act conference:
“There were a minimun of 150 people maximum 200. I’m betting Labour’s conference if held tomorrow would have similar numbers so best not to throw stones”.
Well Cactus, you aren’t as smart and as knowledgeable as you think you are. Labour has rarely had less than 500 people at it’s Annual Conferences – usually more.
The Minister for Local Government yesterday announced that he is gong to be “concentrating” in this next twelve months on getting all over the country to explain to people the huge impact ACT has on us (this could backfire) and how we need them. I know it’s part of the “game” and everyone does it, but somewhere in the back of my mind a voice says…
“I can’t take a years paid leave, or intermittent paid leave, to spend convincing my boss to keep me on”
I recall we subsidised his 7 hours a day training for Dancing with the Stars as well.
Hmmm concentrate on their sales message… Win 1 electorate seat. It worked last time or is national putting up a decent candidate this time, hence the need for a sales pitch father afield?
Hides road trip sloagn could be
ACT isn’t the tail wagging the dog Yea right!
@ Kate again – I see the Herald reported 140 chairs and not more than 100 filled at any time inc Rodney speech.
Three strikes has not been gutted – it is much harsher than the form than was introduced.
Also, given that even the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s version of the bill did not apply retrospectively, it was going to be a decade before anything really happened anyway.
Your opposition to three-strikes on the basis that it’s too weak is about as convincing as National’s opposition to paid parental leave on the basis that it didn’t provide assistance to stay-at-home parents.
National opposed that because they don’t like welfare. Labour opposes three-strikes because it’s a dog of law, really expensive, and does nothing to reduce crime. Just come out and say it.