A “senior party source”, lol Roger Bridge, has leaked documents to the Herald, The Nation and Fairfax in an attempt to try and get rid of me and Simon Lusk. He tells David Fisher on page 10 [snigger]
“As far as I am concerned, dealing to them is not about airing dirty National Party laundry, but disposing of a political nuisance.”
Oh dear, this is going to backfire spectacularly. I’ll bet Simon’s phone is ringing off the hook from donors after the Herald quoted this:
[A] paper written by Mr Lusk dated February 2012 and titled “Building A Conservative Fiscal Majority.” It begins: “This National government has been a disappointment to fiscal conservatives.
The wet wing of the National Party control the senior ranks of the party and cannot be easily replaced without losing an election. After National loses an election there will be a clean out.”
The purpose now, he said, was to plan ahead to “move the political centre to the right”. “New Zealand’s political market is exceptionally retarded. The first organised group to professionalise and fund politics properly will obtain prime mover advantage and control the market for sometime. This is a one-off opportunity to exploit the gap in the market and I am looking to exploit this gap.”¬†
Mr Lusk’s plan began with selecting like-minded candidates young and seeding them in “safe blue” electorates which would vote National. He said local body politics should be targeted to get “fiscal conservative” councillors and mayors. And training was the key for the politicians, he said, so “when they are elected they can make real change based on solid planning rather than intent”.
The message was also important – “dominate the media by controlling the message through credible right wing blogs”. Mr Lusk also said there needed to be a focus on “taking over the public sector” to create a pool of fiscal conservatives who would work with politicians.
He also recommended making fundraising more professional and dominating company boards to help build a “war chest”. “I can provide resumes for several people who are fiscal conservatives and understand the role they will play in the future.”
He said National raised $2 million a year, which needed to triple in size. “Union money will not be able to match business money.”
Overall, the work needed to be guided by a long-term strategy which would see a smaller government which was focused on “changing education, increasing mining’s contribution to GDP and making property development easier”.
He urged those reading it to “stop donating to the current government”. “They have not listened and will not listen.” He urged supporters to “blackball” current MPs to stop them “trading on their time as MPs to build a lucrative business career”. It would show MPs “the consequences of ignoring donors”. “If donors buy into this and the next National government does not offer former ministers jobs then there will be a very clear incentive for the next crop of ministers to listen carefully to donors rather than ignoring them.”
Most members of the National party will be wondering just what is exactly wrong with those comments. The donors especially are probably saying “Fuck yeah, get me Lusk’s number”.
The comment about getting rid of a political nuisance is laughable. Peter Goodfellow has already tried that with,¬†attempting¬†to block my membership, personally entreating electorate committee members and hectoring the local MP to ensure my membership was cancelled. They enven enlisted the General Manager Greg Hamilton to ring and lecture me about my “behaviour”. It didn’t work the committee voted unanimously to allow my membership.
So now they try the cowards route to smear and shame, but all it will do is tell people that there are some of us that hold true to National’s founding principles.