Act's List released

The tipline has been running hot since Act started its candidate list selection.

At 2% remember this is all akin to fighting over who is left to clean up spilt milk in the kitchen really.

Now the party has released their list. Hillary Calvert has rather abruptly received the same message as the treacherous Heather Roy, that her services were no longer required. A shame John Boscawen hasn’t been given the same message for a full clean-out after his conflicts in the campaign so far. He remains the only MP making the 2011 cut.

Cactus Kate will not be very happy that her sole favoured female candidate Catherine Isaac/Judd/Kerr still isn’t announced, could she be the mystery 3rd place spot which is as yet unannounced.

As to Cactus’ omission on the list, this was not unexpected once it was known that her targets Calvert and Roy were gone. Cactus has pretended rather brilliantly the past months to be keen to give up her entire lifestyle, income and presumedly the rooting, boozing and swearing to be a meaningless scum List MP. I know, just quietly, that she wanted to be an MP like she wanted cancer.

I had far more faith in her than that, even though I was worried enough to have an intervention planned when she made a quick visit this week to meet with the Board and for the first time since I’ve known her, I saw her in a suit!

The real tipline hot point however is the ranking the Act membership placed Cactus in their vote. It seems from several reports I have received now that she was placed higher than all the sitting MPs and only just below the Leader and Epsom candidate in the final members voting list. That is at number 3! Cactus Kate is clearly popular with the membership and is probably related to the fact that she takes many of them out on the town and plies them with copious quanties of top shelf booze. I wonder though why the party is yet to confirm the 3rd spot?

If so, it would be interesting to know what her final list placing was before she kamikazed out. I haven’t been able to get hold of her to ask these questions and assume she’s recovering from a thermonuclear hangover from her last night in town, and is busy right now re-hydrating before the long flight back to Honkers.

If the rumours are true then once again the Act Board is going against the wishes of its members to suit themselves. Not to mention yet another reason to Vote for Change when even the membership of a Party doesn’t influence properly the final list placings of those who put their names forward.

Act chooses its Party list with a panel of just 12 persons, many whom themselves are standing as candidates. One was Roger Douglas, a man who won’t even be an MP or relevant in the slightest way in a few weeks time, yet is know to influence list selections through often evil means.

ACT is dysfunctional as a party. It has more factions now than even Labour. Their campaign is being run by the most terminally boring man in parliament and organised by the guy who was on holiday, left his station and let Rodney get rolled. It is bizarre that people who want to be candidates are allowed to sit in on candidate interviews or even on the board while they are actively seeking nomination. The most outrageous example is Chris Simmons, the current president, who has scored a top list ranking despite being the president and on the board and at the same time actively involved in blocking anything the leader says or does. Farrar again shows how out of touch with the inner workings of Act he is by surmising he has been rewarded for holding the party together. More like he has been rewarded for white-anting Don Brash along the way.

Number 6 and numb er 8 on the list are fascinating. It seems Act has gone the way of Labour and started to reward policy wonks with no real life experience or real jobs. Utterly strange.

The conflicts of interest in the ACT party are almost at the point of political corruption. The list is chosen by such a small subset of the membership and it appears they ignore the members as well, leading once again to the charge that MMP encourages deals done behind closed doors in two star motels of the sort that you would take your third string mistress to for a mid-day rummage, or in cheap greasy spoons.

ACt at McDonalds

If you want a clear indicator that Act’s list management processes are corrupt take a look at iPredict stock for list positions and see when Don Nicholson’s, Cathy Odgers and Hilary Calvert’s stocks started going through the floor, huge hint, it was before the list was even announced. I looked at 10am and they were all at zero by then.

That’s the sort of democracy you get under MMP with dodgy deals and back-room maneuverings. No wonder people are sick and tired of politicians.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Pingback: If I was ranking Act’s list . . . Updated « Homepaddock()

  • jabba

    don’t know about the suit but she looks good in jeans.
    I saw The Nation and wonder how on earth Sepuloni became a MP .. CK would kill her in any sort of debate .. in fact, would sort out most MPs but she would need to refrain from saying fuck so much .. just a thought

  • reid

    Thanks for all that Cam, you make many points that had never occurred to me.

    Don Nicholson has the potential to become the Stephen Joyce that both ACT and Brash needs. He is extremely articulate and has potential to win cross-over from urban professionals who are turned off by Brash’s obsession with race, his attempt to re-create Orewa.

    Drop it Don, is my advice, and stick to economics. You get no traction from your natural market. You get a tiny fraction from what is not your natural market. Stop trying to re-create a one-off phenomena and concentrate on what you know best because in fact, you know it better than anyone else in the whole freakin circus and you can run rings round all of them. Do that, do only that and do it often and you will see a fast uptick, I guarantee it.

    So Odgers was doing a Jones then, as he did to Muldoon in 1984? Just on a party scale not a country scale. Right. I wondered why someone would want to swap what she currently does for what it will be like, at her stage in life. I hope she reconsiders after retirement, if ACT’s still around. She would be good value. You look around at Question Time, very average, almost all of them, aren’t they.

    I’d be interested to know more about Douglas’ poisoned list choices. Is he Boscawens backer at Court? If so, why? What does he see in him? I have huge respect for Douglas for all sorts of reasons, so if that’s what is happening, then how come, would be good to know.

    Thanks again Cam, great analysis.

  • Mike Readman

    I thought you were an ACT supporter Cam. Guess I’m wrong?

    • I am really struggling in trying to support Act. The problem I have is I know too much about the rubbish that is going on under the covers.

  • Kevin Campbell

    Cameron, I couldnt have written a better synopsis if I tried. You are so accurate and on the money in every way because you too know the facts about the numptys pulling the strings.

  • Cam, the right has some problems this time around.

    I’d like to support ACT: The conservative party seems to be a one person thing (and I’m not sure if they believe their manifesto and would be hard nosed enough to act on it or would wimp out under pressure).

    We need a party that is going to talk about some ugly facts. We cannot afford to have:
    — people retiring at 60 or 65. The boom us upon us, and we need em paying taxes until their health gives out.
    — the perpetuation of the underclass and their culture of entitlement. (Yes I know that we are buying into class warfare, but I find that any idea that makes John Minto crazy is generally good)
    — the gold plated culture of Wellington needs to go. We need to destroy not only quangos and regulation, but the mechanisms to resurrect them.
    — The role of the state has to shrink: I’d support a strong military, a neutral foreign policy, a conservative judiciary and the return of social insurance to the unions, the friendly societies, and the churches. The state should be able to function on GST alone — indeed it could probably be reduced to 10%.

    I can’t see anyone doing this. I can see similar things happening … given the global financial risks — because, as we were in 1984, we could find ourselves at the mercy of Bankers.

    • I find my self agreeing with you. Unfortunately with MMP there isn’t a politician in the house with the courage to do anything remotely like that.

  • reid

    We can­not afford to have:
    — peo­ple retir­ing at 60 or 65. The boom us upon us, and we need em pay­ing taxes until their health gives out.

    Yes Chris. GL with selling it to the people who make up a significant segment sufficient to swing the govt in a close election and quickly to become increasingly significant due to their dependence on us.

    I’m sure they’ll vote Yes.

    the per­pet­u­a­tion of the under­class and their cul­ture of enti­tle­ment. (Yes I know that we are buy­ing into class war­fare, but I find that any idea that makes John Minto crazy is gen­er­ally good)

    I’m looking forward to seeing John in the Chamber. That would be fun, in a kind of appalling way like a fine brand new Rolls Royce just being completely trashed by mindless British soccer hooligans.

    I’m also looking forward to seeing Annette Sykes and Don in the Chamber. That’s going to be massive. I suspect Don’s dapper appearance may not be quite so, following that.

  • thor42

    Agreed. I just wish there were a party with the balls to destroy the teacher unions, raise the eligibility age for national super, axe Working for Families, axe the DPB (and force all of those receiving it to work), force everyone on the dole to work…..the list goes on. ALL of that stuff is f**king common sense.

  • Reid:
    I listed what I think (minimally) needs to be done. I don’t think this will be voted on, but it could come into play if the global crunch — which is progressing slowly in the US and EU — hits us hard. We are less vulnerable than other countries, but that does not mean we are invulnerable.
    And Lockwood Smith vs Minto and Sykes would be interesting. I think they would be sin binned on a daily basis.

    You need 5% of the electorate (that is around 60 000 people) to get over the 5% threshold. I’d be surprised if any more than 0.5% agree with me — I’d restrict the franchise to taxpayers. However, most NZers will vote against their interests and for their kids if they see it is fair. It’s how Labour won in 1987 and how the greens survive.

  • Cartwright

    “As to Cac­tus’ omis­sion on the list, this was not unex­pected once it was known that her tar­gets Calvert and Roy were gone. Cac­tus has pre­tended rather bril­liantly the past months to be keen to give up her entire lifestyle, income and pre­sumedly the root­ing, booz­ing and swear­ing to be a mean­ing­less scum List MP. I know, just qui­etly, that she wanted to be an MP like she wanted cancer.”

    So basically she cannot be trusted on face value in any shape or form. you are saying she’s is utterly untrustworthy? Personally I don’t believe you.

    “I had far more faith in her than that, even though I was wor­ried enough to have an inter­ven­tion planned when she made a quick visit this week to meet with the Board and for the first time since I’ve known her, I saw her in a suit!”

    So for the first time ever she dresses in a suit – is this because she wanted to deliberately not impress the Board? Or is this just another example of you not being able to summon the moral courage to admit any type of defeat whatsoever?

    So CK is so brilliantly Machiavellian that she had you worried even though you actually ‘quietly knew’ it wouldn’t happen? But you planned an intervention anyway – as some sort of equally brilliant double-reverse psychology……

    Seriously WO – is this supposed to be credible, or just more arcane counter feints that ordinary souls could never understand?

    • Well you have failed to understand for one.

  • atrout

    ACT lost my support some time ago when Ken Shirley left the fold. At that time there was a small but vocal group in the Party who equated ACT’s fiscal responsibility commitment with wise resource management strategies. In other words, our natural resources should be exploited at a well thought out rate, using the best technologies available- all feeding to industries feeding local and offshore markets. Again all creating investment and employment opportunities on a forward looking basis. This would apply to mining, forestry, fisheries and embracing tourism, as another resource consumer. The latter because tourism generally consumes, and easily destroys, its focus resources- thus requiring smart management.

    ACT had the largest and most vigorous environmental on-line discussion group at the time. The Greens equivalent was pathetic by comparison. What happened to the, perish the thought, ACT Blue Green section??? Nothing, it had no support at the top, wasn’t valued except by the few adherents who eventually moved off. This group now finds no place in National or the Greens due to obvious reasons of politics/policy.

    ACT no longer seems to have any coherency. It is certainly not the moderate libertarian option for rational folk. In turning its back on a environmentally focused resource management ethos it has gained the image of the rip, rape and pillage party- rightfully or wrongly.

    Am I completely naive in making any connection between wise management of resources and the best interests of Consumers and Taxpayers? If not, why does ACT happily accept the image of having no concern for environmental issues?

  • atrout

    No replies… hmmmm… that rather effectively answers my question. Cheers