Apparently being a fiscal conservative is bad in the National party

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.

 

 

  • Cadwallader

    A return to founding principles by the Nationals is hard to imagine, but give it a go!

    • caleb

      Why even exist as ‘National’ if you are going to ignore the founding principals.

      We do not need two Labour parties…

      • Cadwallader

        The founding “principals” are long since dead. The principles which were applied to the National Party are timeless. I agree we do not need another Labour Party but neither do we need religious nutters like Colin Craig’s party.

        • caleb

          So Nationals biggest dilemma is how to mix fiscal conservatism with social liberalism.
          Ahahaha…

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Jenkins/593642943 James Jenkins

            Its called Libertarianism…the liberty enhancing best of both without the Statist control freak dross of both….

  • Whafe

    May the sunshine you let through Cam, cleanse these idiots.

    Truth hurts hey

  • sheppy

    Sounds like your on the right track – good of them to confirm it!

  • Andrewj

    About time, I gave up my National party membership when the Key government got to power.

    Simon is onto it. Sick of the present lot of National Mps we need a big clean out.

  • onelaw4all

    The GOP has been doing the same thing in the U.S. for some time, RINOS have been trying to undermine/deter fiscal conservatives. Recent examples being McCain vs Cruz.

  • peterwn

    Holding true to founding principles is all very well, but it is not going to win elections. What would most supporters and donors want – a party that holds true to founding principles but stays in opposition, or a party that reaches slightly leftwards and wins elections outright? There are voters out there who are genuinely concerned about disadvantaged Kiwis and the environment – National needs to reach out to moderates with these concerns and this is just what John Key and co are doing.

    • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

      That is the reality of a liberal democracy such as ours. Speaking of founding principles of National (1936), were they not the principles of Social Liberalism?

      And before anyone screams Socialism – social liberalism is NOT socialism. Socialism is getting towards the extreme end of Social Conservatism and nudging the Fascism marks.

      Meaning Social Liberalism allows Free Enterprise, individual/collective freedoms, choice and responsibilities – but also gives a shit about the environment and those kiwis that do need an actual hand in hard times.

      But hey what is history is history

    • caleb

      May I point you to Redbaiters latest post..
      http://truebluenz.com/2012/11/18/the-time-of-cowards/

      • Bad__Cat

        No. (Well, do did ask)
        Redbaiter is not a conservative but a rabid Christian fundamentalist.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Jenkins/593642943 James Jenkins

      “Reaching slightly Leftwards” never stays that way. Once you surrender individual liberty and buy into the guilt tripping of socialist altrusim you have lost the fight.

  • Pissedoffyouth

    Where is the special bullitin on the Labour parties extreme move to the left with the Greens?

  • johnbronkhorst

    I see the main difference between National and labour as one of competence, National are and labour aren’t. As for policy…National could be termed as centre right and holding with the occasional left twitch. But labour are centre left and running toward the left side of the field to embrace the greens. Like two fire balls colliding they will soon burn up all the oxygen and fuel over there, until they disappear in a POOF of smoke (pun definitely intended).

    • Hazards001

      Trouble with that of course is the oxygen is our economy and the fuel is our tax dollar. Those bunch of muppets will vaporise the lot in a carbon credit money printing Armageddon of biblical proportions.

  • Bad__Cat

    WO, you “rogue” lol

  • unsol

    Fiscally conservative – if you are not a fan of this approach then you are not a right winger.

    Question is how to get the govt back on this track, not if. Some clearly advocate cold turkey, I prefer a more moderate approach as NZers are generations deep in their sense of entitlement – across all demographics so a big upset would most likely mean instant death. Brash being case & point.

    For me the more pertinent issue is the pros & cons of incentive led politics vs what we have now? Do NZers prefer the American way? Is this what we want long term?

  • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

    What are National’s founding principles. I always thought of a vote for National as a vote for not-Labour, so I voted for minor coalition partners of National in order to give them some back bone. RIP ACT. I will never vote for that conservative party though. Fuck them!

  • Rimutaka

    Hell yeah, National turning right towards fiscal conservatism is a sure way to ensure they never hold power again.

    The public want fiscal conservatism as much as they want communism, both extremist positions from people living in fantasyland.

    Idiots

  • Jeff McClintock

    Is “Fiscal Conservative” code for “rabid Christian Fundamentalist”?
    Leave the massive albatross of Fundamentalist Christian politics to Colin Craig.

92%