Act Party

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 »

Oh dear lord…Prebs please do something about this

I’m not sure the matrons of Wem-u-ewa ware going to be convinced about this this candidate.

Come on Act, Prebs, you guys are better than this.

The Huddle at 1740

newstalkzb

I am on the Huddle again tonight with Rachel Smalley as host and Josie Pagani.

Our topics will be:

So we’re waiting to hear from Labour on what it really meant about Nigella Lawson being allowed to come here to film a Whittakers ad. I’m not sure what the big deal about this is. So she said she had taken drugs in the past. Not really sure where the problem is with her being allowed here. I mean if we banned every celebrity who’s indulged from being allowed here then we would have no acts on stage or any actors coming to make the big blockbusters. Not sure why Rajen Prasad woke up during a long weekend and thought he’d pick on Nigella. It’s a bit like waking up and kicking the easter bunny himself. It’s also pointing to a wider problem for Labour in being a cohesive unit and working on sensible issues to bring up in public and talk about. It’s also about getting your facts straight!    Read more »

Is money important in elections? New research suggests it is

In New Zealand, despite no evidence to support the contention that money has a massive influence in politics the Labour party passed the draconian and anti-democratic Electoral Finance Act.

The evidence in NZ is actually contrary to the opinion that money in politics can sway results. The Act party for instance spent a great deal more than any other party for a negligible return, same with Colin Craig. On the other hand the unions pour money into Labour’s coffers and get a good return on their investment.

In Fiji the news electoral laws forbid anyone or organisation other than natural persons from donating to political parties or candidates. This stops corporates and the unions donating.

Meanwhile the left wing continues to push for state funding of political parties, a system that rewards incumbency. They don;t want to have to bother with pesky things like members and sausage sizzles and cake stalls.

And of course there is Kim Dotcom who is making the mistake many wealthy business people make in entering politics, thinking that money can buy you votes.

In the United States however there is building evidence that big money, and by big I mean BIG, can and does make a difference in campaigning. Apparently 91% of the time the better resourced candidate wins.

There are few talking points more beloved by underdog political candidates (and their aides) than to declare that money doesn’t matter. (If it did, Steve Forbes would be the president!)

Well, they’re wrong — at least most of the time.

Take a look at the chart below, created last month by Jasper McChesney, a designer at United Republic, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tries to spread awareness about the influence of money in politics.   Read more »

Jamie…explaining is losing

Act seems to be caught in a needless loop of having to explain themselves after intemperate and unguarded comments about various issues.

Now Jamie Whyte is having to explain why what Alan Gibbs, the godfather of Act, said isn’t policy.

Jamie, my readers will tell you for free that explaining is losing.

ACT leader Jamie Whyte is distancing the party from comments made by high-profile supporter Alan Gibbs on the weekend.

Mr Gibbs, who has no formal role within ACT but is one of its largest donors, said on the weekend that schools, hospitals and roads should all be privatised.

He made the comments at the party’s annual conference on Saturday at Villa Maria, avoiding the use of taxpayer-funded roads by flying in via helicopter.  Read more »