Act Party

ACT’s at the Conservative’s throat again – but with good reason

thumb900_phpnyxygxduckcraig

It’s getting tense for the far right conservative and liberal votes.  And it doesn’t help that Coling Craig can’t use a calculator

“Colin Craig’s tax plan is to have two rates of income tax: 0% up to $20,000 and 25% above that. This will leave a $6.4 billion hole in the budget even before the new spending proposed by the Conservatives. The Conservative tax promises are dishonest” said Dr Jamie Whyte.
“Using Treasury figures, ACT calculated that to get the same revenues with a tax-free threshold of $20,000 the rate above $20,000 would have to be 34%, a significant tax increase for middle New Zealand. Read more »

ACT go feral on Colin Craig

Heh.  One shitty poll result and Jamie Whyte’s losing his lunch.   This is beautiful:

Colin Craig is deluded and dangerous

“Colin Craig is proposing a radical transformation of our constitution. The Conservatives are proposing to overthrow of one hundred and fifty odd years of parliamentary democracy and replace it with binding referenda” said ACT Leader Dr Jamie Whyte.

“Yet Craig does not want a referendum to make this change. He has said repeatedly he will support a Labour/Green government if they will agree to binding referendum. In other words, Colin Craig thinks that if he gets just 5% of the vote, he should be able to overthrow our form of government.”

“If anything should be put to a referendum, it is a significant change to our constitution.”

“The media should stop mocking Craig’s loopy ideas about “chem-trails” and the American moon landings being faked and instead examine his much more radical political ideas” said Dr Whyte.

“Binding referendums have destroyed California.  It has gone from being the powerhouse of America to being ungovernable.”

“The problem with government by referendum can be seen in Colin Craig’s own policy platform.  He says totally contradictory things.”

The Conservative Party have made Citizen Initiated Binding Referenda a “bottom line” issue.  That is, they won’t form a coalition with any party unless that party agrees to bring in CIBRs.   Read more »

Don Brash on Paul Little’s HoS attack against Jamie Whyte

Paul Little wrote a column today in the Herald on Sunday where he attacks Jamie Whyte’s call for the end to race based policies and describes it as a “vile play”.

Don Brash responds on Facebook.

I know how Jamie Whyte will be feeling today, attacked on all sides by media commentators. One article, by one Paul Little in today’s “Herald on Sunday”, is headlined “ACT’s race card a vile play”. It really is astonishing that somebody who calls for an end to race-based legislation can be accused of “playing a vile race card”.

In his article Mr Little accuses Jamie Whyte of “recycling the tactic that failed so spectacularly for Don Brash. Of course, Brash did it to get some political notice when his party was in the doldrums. It succeeded in the short term but helped finish him off in the long run”.

Mr Little is completely wrong. A commitment to ending race-based preferences was one of the five goals I outlined in my very first speech in Parliament after becoming Leader of the National Party in October 2003, and had nothing to do with any short-term desire to get noticed.   Read more »

The logic of The Cunliffe

Yesterday David Cunliffe rushed of to make a statement about the conviction of John Banks, and his diminutive candidate in Epsom did likewise. Michael Wood defamed John Banks in his press release, Banks was found guilty of filing a false electoral return which is not electoral fraud as he claimed. But that is by the by. Both Cunliffe and Wood both think that because of something that John Banks did in 2010, standing as an independent in a local body election which he lost, somehow impacts on the Act party in 2014.

Labour Leader David Cunliffe said Mr Banks’ conviction “underlines a sorry chapter in our political history” and he should “accept his sentence and move on”.

“His conviction is also a reminder of the dodgy deal that kept him in Parliament over the last three years – and of the heavy-handed pursuit of the media by the police in its wake.”

However, with Prime Minister John Key this week saying he would again do deals with Act and United Future, “the National Party has learned nothing from this distortion of the MMP system”.

“National has been kept in power by a self-evident manipulation of our democratic process – relying on discredited and irrelevant support parties such as ACT and United Future which owe their place in Parliament to cups of tea and a nod and a wink.

“Labour will remove coat-tailing to make the electoral system fairer and more transparent.”

Basically their premise is because John Banks filled out a form incorrectly in 2010 when he wasn’t even a member of the Act party and subsequently was pursued by a convicted fraudster, tax cheat and blackmailer then sfor some reason people shouldn’t vote for  Act this election.

“You failed to disclose only two donations. There is nothing to suggest it was a pattern of offending,” Justice Wylie said.

But it was not a victimless crime, he said, the victim of the offending was the community at large.

Which is not particularly accurate, as John Banks at the time had lost the election and was then a retired politician and a private citizen.

Cunliffe’s claims were a long bow and he failed to draw it properly.  Read more »

Act says being in government was a mistake

In the latest ‘Letter’, Act says that being in government was a mistake.

Readers may not have noticed, and if so we are sorry to be the bearers of bad news, but ACT is struggling in the polls. This would seem surprising as the party now has the whole of the right/center to itself.  The Letter thinks there is an organisational issue here.  ACT joining National in government has compromised the party.  In the last five years, what have we heard from ACT on the advantages of low flat tax to increase investment, growth and jobs?   How many speeches have you heard on the advantages of free markets?   It has taken having a leader outside Parliament to get ACT back to advocating the party’s core policies. Those policies remain ACT’s bedrock. Yet, it is a big ask to expect a new leader in five months to overcome five years of being too close to government.

I disagree with them on this.

The alternative being espouses seems to be that the delivery of Charter Schools was a poor choice and instead they’d rather have made 200 speeches to no one about flat tax.  Read more »

Comment of the Day – Coat-tailing

Grendel_from_the_dead comments about coat-tailing and gives a little history lesson on the way through.

Sorry but “coat tailing” only became a bad thing when the left stopped getting the advantage from it. It was very clear when MMP came in that it was a valid way for a party to get into parliament.

I remember watching the first MMP election (also my first election at all), and the experts reminding us that getting a seat got you all your party vote % of seats. It was not good or bad, it just was. The theory I vaguely recall them saying was that if a party was able to generate enough support in one area to win a seat, it could get all of its support from across the country. But if you were just spread across the country, you needed to get more. This enabled small single issue parties located primarily in one area to get more benefit focused to one area, rather than trying to fight all over the country. This was back when everyone thought we would get heaps of parties.

To me it’s the same as the overhang from getting too many electorates. The rules state that you are supposed to get as many seats as your party vote, but if you win more electorates than you were allowed seats, you still get the number of electorates. Other than actually winning electorates, I don’t see the difference.

But lets look at the facts:

1996 – No one gets an electorate and less than 1% and gets more than 1 seat (Dunne wins his seat but not enough party vote for a 2nd seat).

1999 – NZ first gets 4.26% and gets 4 extra seats due to winston winning tauranga. The greens were looking like needing to do the same with Coromandel, but specials put them over the line (the media had no issue with the ‘coattailing’ when the greens might have needed it). With NZ First, Labour is able to keep the Greens out of govt. If NZ First did not get the extra 4 seats, its possible the Greens would have been in govt to give Labour the majority.   Read more »

A few thoughts on the new Alliance

With the left wing shamelessly selling out to Kim Dotcom in the creation of the new Alliance I thought I’d share some thoughts.

One thing we do know is that left wingers are prepared to sell their souls if the ends justifies the means.

Read what Martyn Bradbury has to say:

I just don’t believe we have the luxury of telling the 285 000 kids in poverty that we preferred principled opposition than pragmatic co-operation. 

There you have it…money trumps principles…the very thing that Martyn Bradbury and his little band of socialist dreamers rail against the right for allegedly doing we see them jumping in boots and all. For just a few shiny shekels the hard left of NZ politics has dropped their trousers.

For all of the accusation they have leveled and continue to level against John banks they are doubly worse. When John Banks received a donation it was in his mind “NO strings attached”. Kim Dotcom thought he was buying favours but John Banks could not be bought and so we arrived at the point where we are today with John Banks stitched up on trial by the manipulations and mistruths by Kim Dotcom and his band of enablers and at the same time the left-wing selling their principles for a bit of german loot.

One thing we will be hearing no more from the left-wing though is the description of the coat tail provisions of MMP as a dirty little rort like in Epsom. In fact I await the lengthy posts, articles and television utterances of Patrick Gower about the dirty deals being done on the left. He will no doubt put as much effort and vigour into his reporting of that like he has done with his kickings over Epsom and Ohariu. Or will he? I suspect not.

Dodgy deals and rorts seem to be only done by the right, and not the left. It is a dodgy deal in Epsom but pragmatic use of the MMP system in Te Tai Tokerau. It is dodgy for the right to receive donations from wealthy people but not dodgy for a foreigner interloper on criminal charges to buy two whole political parties.     Read more »

Young Labour member abuses Act leader, calls him a Jew…coz you know Jews love money

unnamed

This is what the young up and coming Labour party members have to say about people they disagree with…like the Act party who are proposing to add interest to student loans. For that they get called Jews, and attacked via Facebook.

Stupid bastards, they can fuck right off, as if my $14,000 loan for 1 year wasn’t enough, just slam some interest on there too, bloody top job. Jews

That was Alex Halliwell…he added;  Read more »

The Letter asks “What happened to the ACT vote?”

Kiwiblog has a piece from a reader: “I have recently performed some statistical analyses of results from the 2008 and 2011 elections, in order to test a theory about voter behaviour in 2011”. The analysis shows the Conservatives got their vote from National, all wasted. NZ First also took votes away from National. The reader says his analyses show “contrary conclusions among the commentariat (eg that the low turnout hurt Labour)”; “it was National voters (more than Labour voters) who stayed home”. (source)

What happened to ACT’s vote? The Letter knows many ACT voters who think National is just pale blue Labour. Last election they stayed at home. In Jamie Whyte these “real” ACT supporters have someone they can vote for.

I didn’t “stay at home”.  I stopped voting for ACT.

It isn’t because ACT, on paper, doesn’t represent the kind of policies I want to see.  To the contrary.  I very much believe in personal responsibility, minimal government and pragmatism in law and order.

All of these ideas, and more, are poorly represented by the National Party.

But it had become clear that ACT was disorganised, off-message, and suffering the results of people that weren’t talented enough, people who were infighting and people who made for very poor ambassadors for ACT policy.   Read more »

Act’s alternate budget – Slash company, personal tax rate to 17.5%

NBR’s Duncan Bridgeman reports on Act’s alternate budget.

It certainly looks more researched and thought out that David Parker’s lame attempts at policy on the hoof.

ACT would immediately cut the top tax rate for individuals and companies, to 24%, leader Jamie Whyte says.

Dr Whyte says that would be the first step along the path to reducing both rates to 17.5% by 2020.

Currently the top individual tax rate is 33% for income over $70,000. The company tax rate is 28%.

Mr Whyte made his comments ahead of his party releasing an alternative Budget (below).

The rate could be achieved by cuts on spending, Dr Whyte told TV3’s The Nation during a debate of minor parties.

“We propose no cuts on health and education,” he added, or welfare for lower earners.

His party would cut what he terms “corporate welfare” — a top on which supporter and commenter Matthew Hooton has recently been been focussed on in a series of columns focused on the MBIE super ministery.   Read more »