ACT speaks its branes

71 comments on “ACT speaks its branes ”

• Comments are now closed

1. QoT 1

   23 February 2013 at 9:24 pm

   Possibly he thought it was the best way to get any coverage of the conference at all? I mean, otherwise who’d give a fuck?
   • aerobubble 1.1

     24 February 2013 at 12:27 pm

     No, Rodney’s angry. Winstons back. Part Maori, part battler for the old poor, party union of old people – Grey Power. Rodney can’t take it.
2. jaymam 2

   23 February 2013 at 9:24 pm

   “Rodney’s motivation in this bizarre outburst” is to piss off Banks and destroy ACT, for daring to get rid of Rodney.
   • RJLC 2.1

     23 February 2013 at 10:19 pm

     lol
   • emergency mike 2.2

     24 February 2013 at 1:53 am

     Surely you mean ‘piss off Banks’ period. ACT’s carcass has been decaying for a while now.
     • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 2.2.1

       24 February 2013 at 11:21 am

       “ACT’s carcass has been decaying for a while now.”
       Some people like well-hung, conditioned meat.
   • David H 2.3

     24 February 2013 at 11:10 am

     And with Act holding their annual conference not in a Phone Box, but what appears to be a Zoo, it just seemed apt.
     • marsman 2.3.1

       24 February 2013 at 1:29 pm

       Not a zoo but a private art gallery funded by public money asset stripped by the owner of the gallery.
3. The Al1en 3

   23 February 2013 at 9:30 pm

   Insane in da membrane. Insane in da brain.
   • Rogue Trooper 3.1

     25 February 2013 at 3:34 pm

     🙂
4. irascible 4

   23 February 2013 at 9:54 pm

   There was no strategy here, no motivation. either…. that’s what and how Rodney thinks. He just opened his mouth and left his tongue in gear while he emulated Key and had a brain fade.
   You are giving far too much credit to the combined intellect of ACT.
   • Rodel 4.1

     23 February 2013 at 10:27 pm

     irascible
     I’ve seen Rodney at meetings. I think you are correct and that is how he actually thinks.
     Banks’s simpleton twelve year old’s logic ( am I being generous here?) is about at the same level. Neanderthals did not become entirely extinct but they still think they have a right to rule over homo sapiens.
   • RJLC 4.2

     23 February 2013 at 10:36 pm

     You are giving far too much credit to the combined intellect of ACT.

     what? all four of them?
   • Roy 4.3

     25 February 2013 at 10:57 am

     Can’t fade what you haven’t got.
5. rob 5

   23 February 2013 at 10:40 pm

   Intellect??
   They are part or the neo liberal model and don’t care about extinction!
6. Saccharomyces 6

   23 February 2013 at 10:43 pm

   Surely their few remaining party members will pack up and leave after such a ridiculous outburst. Or will the members see it as an act that vindicates the party for his removal “just as well that Rodney’s gone, he’s crazy!”…

   Hmmmm sadly I think perhaps the members agree.

   Or is it just a silly ploy to get his face on TV again? Who knows…
7. xtasy 7

   24 February 2013 at 1:23 am

   Dotcom and last year – that was “last year”, Banksie proclaimed in front of the TV news cameras. This year is a new year and from Saturday ACT would look to the future, he kind of claimed.

   He was dreaming of about ACT getting 5 percent in the next elections, and he warned that the “worst thing” that could happen to NZ now (for a whole generation) was, that “this” government would be voted out in 2014.

   Yeah right, Banksie: Since when have you been taking stereoids and other hormones to enhance your spirits, aspirations and “performance”, I ask?

   Maybe he meant 5 per cent of the 1 per cent they had in polls last year??? That is more realistic.
8. BLiP 8

   24 February 2013 at 2:50 am

   .

   No. None of the above. Rodney Hide displayed in full glory exactly what the ACT Party thinks of democracy, politics, and politicians – its all just a lark, mate, a show to amuse the punters while those wearing the big boys’ pants get on with the job; its just a fuken joke, wotarrrrtya?
   • Anne 8.1

     24 February 2013 at 9:54 am

     Spot on BLiP. Hide larks around for the benefit of the audience and the media and he drops a few carefully chosen clangers to make sure they get coverage. He can easily laugh it off later as “just a joke”.

     DON’T WRITE THEM OFF.

     I can see what they’re trying to do. Alan Gibbs bank-rolled ACT into existence as a political party in the mid-1990s with help from his wealthy NZ mates. They spent around $2million on advertising and publicity stunts alone. They saturated the country with all manner of material including Prebble’s book “I’ve Been Thinking” which was stuffed into tens of thousands of letterboxes. And it worked. They entered parliament in 1996 with 8 MPs.

     They were soon recognised by National as a suitable ‘permanent’ coalition party – one to the right of them which could articulate views they themselves needed to avoid, but would fit well with much of their constituency. Alan Gibbs and co. are now trying to emulate their successful mid- 1990s bid for one reason alone… to provide National with a ‘reliable’ coalition party. They know it might be the only chance of National winning the treasury benches again in 2014.
     • Phil 8.1.1

       24 February 2013 at 10:47 am

       Absolutely, don’t write them off.
       Do not for one second underestimate their support in Epsom.
       Look at the last election results (and don’t think that what’s happened since will have any bearing on how Epsom votes next time.

       ACT
       John Banks
       14150
       MAJORITY 2485
       NATIONAL
       Paul Goldsmith
       11665
       LABOUR
       David Parker
       3093
       GREEN
       David Hay
       1670
       CONSERVATIVE
       Simon Kan
       302
       INDEPENDENT
       Penny Bright
       106
       INDEPENDENT
       Matthew Goode
       48
       MANA
       Pat O’dea
       46

       See that majority? 2485, see the labour vote? 3093.
       We had a chance to get rid of Banks and his cronies, we could not vote strategically as a block.
       I know it’s difficult, felt ashamed of myself for months after, but a vote for the Goldsmith creature was a vote against ACT, over 3000 of us could not see it, wonder if the same thing will happen next time, suspect it will unfortunately.
       Unless we have a viable alternative in Epsom (and it looks like we don’t) we need to wake up and get organised to kick Rodders boys and girls back to the dung heap.
       As for “We hate the unions”, maybe any unionist considering spending their hard earned in Epsom could reconsider. If the view of the encumbant party is “We hate you” well….
       Think DotCom may fund a “Banks Holiday” campaign? One day without Banks, election day.
       • KhandallaViper 8.1.1.1

         24 February 2013 at 12:55 pm

         We (Labour) need to make it very clear, in the newsletters, signage and everywhere that we want people to give party vote to Labour and the seat vote to Goldsmith or whichever stooge they put up. Put it on our hoardings.
         I suspect that Parker actually thought/hoped/wished he might win in Epsom! He should have been screaming “do not note for me”.
         • The Pink Postman 8.1.1.1.1

           24 February 2013 at 2:39 pm

           Vote for Goldsmith ? No way he’s just another Right-Wing anti-Unionist ,believer inlow wages for long hours ,whomif elected would support the Nat’s .Birds of a Feather!\He . NZ 1st ,and the Maori.party and the cockroach Dunne plus ACT would all fully support Key and his mates, In fact all the former are true blue T
           • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1.1

             24 February 2013 at 2:51 pm

             ?
           • felixviper 8.1.1.1.1.2

             24 February 2013 at 8:43 pm

             Better to have a National MP in a world without ACT than an ACT MP, PP.
       • QoT 8.1.1.2

         24 February 2013 at 1:28 pm

         As per usual, the instinct is to assume that leftwing voters (ironically, Labour voters this time) are just too stupid to be trusted to vote based on their own decisions.

         It could just be, you know, that those 3,000 Labour voters considered things like “Who do I really want representing my electorate?” or “Which polls should I believe?” or “How do I personally prioritise voting in line with my heart versus in line with strategic considerations?”

         This always annoys me, but it annoys me more after the number of comments made around the place about how the Greens are stupid for ever running electorate candidates because it divides the Left vote. Maybe Labour could’ve not run David Parker in Epsom! Maybe the voters would still have gone for the Green candidate, or Penny Bright! But no, let’s just slam 3,000 people because they didn’t have 20/20 clairvoyance and voted the way they chose to instead of the way we wanted them to.

         (And I have to say this: I was almost an Epsom-lefty-voting-for-Richard-Worth a few elections ago. I’ve voted tactically in the last two elections, where my partner has voted on the basis of who-best-represents-the-electorate regardless of party affiliation. Somehow we manage to not call each other stupid for having differing opinions.)
         • Jenny 8.1.1.2.1

           25 February 2013 at 6:28 am

           Maybe Labour could’ve not run David Parker in Epsom!

           QoT

           Why did Labour do this?

           David Parker aggressively campaigned for those three thousand votes that ensured that ACT got in.

           How idiotic. What an egotist.

           In contrast the Mana candidate actively campaigned for people not to vote for him, to keep ACT out. Getting front page news for telling the people of Epsom he would have no idea on how to represent rich people anyway!

           And the Mana campaign was succeeding right up until the tea party. Until then, despite Parker’s efforts to sabotage the Mana strategy, Goldsmith was leading Banks by about a thousand votes according to polls.
           • Georgecom 8.1.1.2.1.1

             25 February 2013 at 6:48 pm

             A reasonably simple way around this. Run a low profile candidate with no ambition to make a name for themselves and and run a lazy low profile ‘party vote’ Labour campaign. Essentially what National did but even lower profile. Easy enough to message, ‘diverting resources to an area we have a real chance etc’. If the voters of Epsom really want banks back, they will vote for him. If not, they will shun him. No assistance from Labour to split the ‘Anyone but Banks’ vote, give Goldsmith a better chance and politically clean hands as not trying to ‘screw the scrum’. merely prioritising. Greens do so as well and may be enough votes to tip Banks over and flush ACT down the toilet.
       • North 8.1.1.3

         24 February 2013 at 2:53 pm

         ACT’s (and Key’s) only hope, if ACT is to win seats additional to Epsom, is for Banks not to stand, making way for Boscawen. The stench of the vainglorious little crook which emanates from Banks wafts vexingly into the nostrils of most of the voting populace now. ACT can say goodbye to party vote if he stays. True, Epsom’s a dyed in the wool old bitch where right-wing crookery is politely overlooked and probably would be in 2014 as well, but what use to Key is Epsom alone ?

         If persuasion, coercion, dethroning him as ACT leader, if all else failed then I’m sure Key would shamelessly up the ante with a promise the Botox Boy couldn’t refuse – in return for not standing, after the election, an ambassadorial post to somewhere or other with a knighthood thrown in. So that our newest diplomat might better enhance the punch and authority of our mission on the far side of the world you understand.

         Don’t tell me Key’s moral compass wouldn’t allow it or that Botox wouldn’t jump at it – even seek it. Shitting on any semblance of moral governance they’ve both already done. That’s why cautions not to underestimate them should be taken very seriously.
         • Phil 8.1.1.3.1

           24 February 2013 at 4:56 pm

           @QOT, really clairvoyance? You mean those 3000 Labour voters really thought Parker could win Epsom? As for voting for for who best represents the electorate, well in reality it probably is Banks. Stupid left wing voters, not really, but they must shoulder some of the blame for Banks re election.If we don’t use the mechanisms of MMP to our advantage you can be sure the right will.
           @North, again don’t underestimate the Bankster’s appeal in Epsom. The electorate see’s itself as some maverick neo liberal outpost.Banks is the daddy in Epsom.As for what use is Banks alone? Well he gets an awful lot of news time, something even Goldsmith’s stupidity during the run up to the last election could not match. As has been said before, he can carry the ideas which even Key’s troops may not voice, allowing the Nats to get watered down versions of into policy. He is also a very useful fall guy and a fantastic diversion
           I wish it were not so but, to those 3000 who voted Labour Labour last time, have a think. Labour Labour is really ACT Labour in Epsom.
           • felixviper 8.1.1.3.1.1

             25 February 2013 at 7:16 am

             “You mean those 3000 Labour voters really thought Parker could win Epsom?”

             It does seem like an odd thing for them to think, but I don’t really know what else they could’ve been thinking.

             Do you?
             • Phil …

               26 February 2013 at 7:51 pm

               See the Pink Postman above.
     • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 8.1.2

       24 February 2013 at 11:26 am

       Anne
       Sounds sound.
     • Yorick 8.1.3

       24 February 2013 at 2:09 pm

       +1
9. felixviper 9

   24 February 2013 at 7:21 am

   http://thestandard.org.nz/the-racist-party/

   ACT conferences, eh?
10. karol 10

    24 February 2013 at 8:16 am

    And John and Don (the ACT ones) are being considered by a judge for allegations of fraud with respect to Hurlich.

    A judge is considering whether Act Party leader John Banks should face charges this month for allegedly misleading investors.

    The threat hung over Banks’ head as he took the podium at yesterday’s annual party conference.

    Court papers supplied to the Herald on Sunday allege that because Banks was an executive director of finance firm Huljich Wealth Management, he has absolute liability for false statements in the company prospectus….

    Banks, and former leader Don Brash, had until earlier this month to respond to papers filed in Wellington and Auckland district courts. The pair stand accused of making false statements in the prospectus.

    About time. Penny Bright, please stand up!
    • freedom 10.1

      24 February 2013 at 9:18 am

      so Banks is suggesting that by removing the word ‘Executive’ he removes liability?

      I’m no lawyer, but isn’t that a somewhat dangerous precedent he is going for there?
      A Director is a Director, no?
      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1

        24 February 2013 at 10:49 am

        He doesn’t care about the precedent, he only cares about getting away with his alleged crimes.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 10.2

      24 February 2013 at 9:45 am

      Dont forget Banks still has a private prosecution over his election donation lies
      • bad12 10.2.1

        24 February 2013 at 5:27 pm

        That prosecution was ‘abandoned’ in the Wellington District Court a few weeks back apparently over the paper-work being incorrectly filled out,

        Permission has been sought form the Judge to relay the relevant information…
11. ianmac 11

    24 February 2013 at 9:12 am

    I do not defend Mr Hyde but I think he meant that the public thinks, ” you have horns, hate the poor, hate Maori, hate the unions – well, that’s true.” What he meant was that ACT hates unions (that’s true) and failed to correct his apparent inclusion of the other three on his list. He was given a chance to clarify but….
    • Matthew Hooton 11.1

      24 February 2013 at 9:47 am

      Yes, I suspect the “well that’s true” was meant to be a little joke limited to unions. They are on his mind at the moment: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10865826
      Hide may be many things but he certainly doesn’t hate Maori.
      • felixviper 11.1.1

        24 February 2013 at 10:44 am

        That’s how I understood it too (although “little joke” isn’t really accurate, he really does hate the collective power of workers.)

        However if you accidentally say something that could be taken as racist and you’re openly given an opportunity to clarify, and you decline???

        Well then people are going to take you at your word.

        And pandering to a room full of racists doesn’t make him any better than a racist himself anyway.
        • xtasy 11.1.1.1

          24 February 2013 at 10:52 am

          That comment by Hide is why I tend to call him “Hideous Hide”.

          Whether it was “limited” to unions or not, and whether it included Maoris and others, that does make no difference to me.

          He is one of the most self-righteous, ruthless, self focused and trouble making politicians there are about. At the same time a has a level of ignorance about a lot of subject matters, but that is what he smartly uses to appeal to the “Kiwi battlers” out there, who are easily manipulated and thus get worked up in rants about “bludgers”, “welfare breeders”, the lazy, the “treaty claims industry”, “green tree-huggers” and what else there may be.

          Hide is hideous and dangerous, and although I would like to see ACT once and for all on the scrap heap, the wealthy donors and sponsors behind that party can lead to sudden revival that will be thing to worry about.

          So keep Banks there, as long as he is the “leader”, they have very little chance to get over 1 per cent.
        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.2

          24 February 2013 at 11:10 am

          Yeah, he was kidding on the square.

          And as for him “not hating Māori” I’m sure he doesn’t for certain definitions. But he doesn’t have much time for Māori ideas about property rights. He wrote a contemptuous article about Māori claims to water, sneering about ‘taniwha’ and so on. It didn’t seem to occur to him to actually think about what Taniwha are, (or what they mean), or whether or not they are any more ridiculous than western abstractions that relate to and explain property rights (Hint: they’re not).

          Given how sacred he otherwise seems to think property rights are, that oversight gives some insight into the way he thinks with regard to Māori collectively, even if he doesn’t ‘hate them’ individually.
          • TheContrarian 11.1.1.2.1

            24 February 2013 at 4:28 pm

            What’s wrong with sneering about taniwha?
            • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.2.1.1

              24 February 2013 at 5:25 pm

              In the context of property rights claims?

              However, the Maori belief that taniwha were the guardians of their waterways giving them exclusive use of that water was evidence that Maori believed they ‘owned’ the water in modern English terms.

              “People say ‘in this resource is my taniwha, my guardian spirit. He protects me, he protects my water resource. He’s not your taniwha so if you are going to use that resource without my permission, he will do terrible things to you’.

              “It’s not a joke, it’s a very strong indication that hapu was telling the world that this was their water resource and it couldn’t be used by anyone else without their permission. That is the very essence of a proprietary relationship.”

              Mr Geiringer said ownership of the river bed had already been accepted, and Maori saw waterways as indivisible. Hapu had shown their interests in water were strong.

              “It shows a relationship that, were it land, we would not pause for a moment to recognise it as title.”

              Mr Geiringer and some of the hapu claimants in the case will deliver their closing submissions today before the Crown delivers its tomorrow

              That’s why. It’s no more ridiculous than the idea that some squiggles on a piece of paper defer ownership.
              • Pascal's bookie …

                24 February 2013 at 5:29 pm

                meh, formatting failed, the body of text “However, the Maori belief… the Crown delivers its tomorrow” is quoted from here:

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10820686
            • bad12 11.1.1.2.1.2

              24 February 2013 at 5:32 pm

              Whats wrong with sneering about Taniwha, probably the same thing wrong as sneering at the Virgin Mary giving birth,

              Both are spiritual beliefs that have no foundation in science and both would be said to be impossible in any logical framework,

              Both tho have people that ‘believe’…
      • Nick K 11.1.2

        24 February 2013 at 2:23 pm

        I was there. It’s exactly as Hooton says. But you guys carry on. It’s very entertaining watching you froth and spit over a party which got 1.2% in 2011.

        The Left wanted representation in parliament. Well, I give you MMP.
        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.1

          24 February 2013 at 2:37 pm

          I assure Nick, everyone finds it very amusing.

          For me the most amusing part is that at least the party recognises how toxic its beliefs are. Banksy on the radio last night pleading that Epsom should return him, not for ACTs policies but for John Key; and the Party President’s speech which makes the case that “Vote ACT or else Oh N the Murriies, Aieeee”.

          Laughable really. Keep it up.
          • Nick K 11.1.2.1.1

            24 February 2013 at 3:19 pm

            Well we agree on that PB: The begging to the electorate is pathetic. My view is we win it on our merits or we Foxtrat Oscar. I was one member at the last election who spoke out regularly on this. I was not happy with the messaging, at all.
            • bad12 11.1.2.1.1.1

              24 February 2013 at 5:37 pm

              Win what on ‘your’ merits, that’s even more laughable than Hide or Banks, if your talking about the Epsom electorate,

              Without the ‘chimps tea-party’ with Banks at the 2011 election ACT wouldn’t be in the Parliament now,

              If Slippery the Prime Minister doesn’t give the same nod to Banks,(or should i say Boscowan) in November 2014 over Epsom that electorate will vote National and ACT will be consigned to the dust-bin of New Zealand politics where it belongs…
              • Nick K …

                24 February 2013 at 8:26 pm

                I’d rather be go down with dignity. But we obviously don’t agree on the ability of our candidate to win because they are the best candidate. Hide did it in 2008. Banks could have done it in 2011, if he wanted to.
                • The Fan Club …

                  24 February 2013 at 8:34 pm

                  Oh come on Nick, the ACT Party’s been reliant on National’s largesse since Bolger knifed Thomas in Wellington Central.
                • felixviper …

                  24 February 2013 at 8:37 pm

                  Hi Nick, your position re:- winning or losing on your own policy merits is admirable.

                  I’m a bit confused about the last bit though. What did Hide win that Banks didn’t? Or are you saying they won for different reasons?
                  • Nick K …

                    25 February 2013 at 11:10 am

                    Yes. Hide won in 2008 because he was a superb MP after 2005. In 2005 I think the tactical message won it for him. I think Banks could have won easily by saying he was the best candidate, but instead they chose the tactical message which, IMHO, was undignified.
    • Colonial Weka 11.2

      24 February 2013 at 11:31 am

      “but I think he meant that the public thinks,”

      He wasn’t talking about the public, he was talking about ACT members.
      • felixviper 11.2.1

        24 February 2013 at 12:44 pm

        It was what Hide thinks the media think about ACT members.
12. ghostwhowalksnz 12

    24 February 2013 at 9:48 am

    What I dont get is Farragoblog mentions a symposium at the Gibbs ” Neverland” the day before.

    150 were flown up from Wellington. Seriously ! Flown up to wonder around some glorfied golf course. But of course a party meeting held the next day, didnt come into it.

    They cant even hold a conference without turning it into a tax dodge
    • The Al1en 12.1

      24 February 2013 at 10:15 am

      And the plain brown gift bags doubled as donation forms.
13. Tiger Mountain 13

    24 February 2013 at 10:16 am

    Where do you start? the sculpture park is a superb setting, way too good and inappropriate for the carpetbagging shabby little party ACT has become (“Hillary’s Eyes” or “Lamingtons all round” anyone?). Really ACTs work has been done and the Natz should just hold hands with Colin Craig and the Saffas from Rodney/North Shore.

    “There are no communities just individuals” has substantially been acheived in the subjective sense at least over the last 30 years for many of the kiwis that remain on these shores, so ACT could well pack up and shuffle off. BUT substantially does not mean all. The NZCTU with over 350,000 members is the largest democratic organization in the country and the teachers unions have shelves containing many cans of “whip-ass” yet to be opened.

    People are starting to occupy closed plants and not just meekly accept redundancies. You want austerity ShonKey? Well it is coming your way you smug toupee wearing language mangling bankster.
    • Arfamo 13.1

      24 February 2013 at 1:55 pm

      I know he already wears a smarmy barmy grin every day, but Jonkey wears a toupee? Are you sure?
      • bad12 13.1.1

        24 February 2013 at 5:44 pm

        i was of the opinion that Slippery has a ‘hairpiece’ aquired from plucking the soft hairs from the anal crevice of a blind donkey called Brucie,

        Just another vain bald head intent upon covering up that as He is covering up ‘the deal’ over Sky-City…
14. Pascal's bookie 14

    24 February 2013 at 10:55 am

    Best conversation @DrBrash “hi Rodney how have u been?”… Rodney “go f*** urself”

    https://twitter.com/CactusKate2/status/305095578348572672
15. Tim 15

    24 February 2013 at 1:32 pm

    I’m wondering whether my offspring will be given the opportunity to piss on their graves without fear of surveillance. By the time they (Rodders et al) pass on though, I suspect there’ll be an entire world wanting to do so and they’ll be having to stand in line.
    Faster route – just bury them in shit now – i.e. IGNORE them
16. vto 16

    25 February 2013 at 12:27 am

    I couldn’t believe it when he said “I hate the unions”. Rodney Hide is a prick for saying that and I bet he doesn’t even believe it himself. .. .. ..
    • Pascal's bookie 16.1

      25 February 2013 at 7:43 am

      I bet he does.

      It’s no accident that the word ‘union’ willl send the KB Krew into the spasms of bile they usually reserve for Muslims, environmentalists, male homosexuals, lesbian politicians, Maori property rights, the idea of tax, or the fact that poor people also have children.
      • vto 16.1.1

        25 February 2013 at 9:00 am

        Heh, well put. However, if Rodney Hide does actually hate unions then he describes his own shortcomings in failing to understand the important role that unions have played and need to play in our society. If he genuinely hates unions then he is a man of extremism and must considered as such. Perhaps that is why their vote keeps dropping and dropping and dropping… nobody likes an extremist.

        It also means he has little regard for the working manwoman.

        It just means he is an ugly bastard
17. ACTs Looking-glass World 17

    26 February 2013 at 7:36 am

    Er, why hasn’t anyone (until now…) questioned the logic of plotting to, and then unceremoniously dumping the party leader in a blitzkrieg attack, and then booking said ousted, nay, shat-on leader as a keynote speaker at the party’s last-chance-saloon conference…

    Was Don “The Weedman” Brash buttering the scones, somewhere, too?

    Honestly, it’s a bit like George Dubya getting Al Gore to write his official biography, isn’t it?
18. Mel 18

    26 February 2013 at 7:37 am

    Wow the amazing humans we have at the top aye…shame on us Kiwis for voting unworthy excuses of people like Hide in. ‘Hide run away and hide’!!!
19. Phil 19

    26 February 2013 at 7:47 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8351737/Nats-signal-renewed-ACT-link
    There you have it
    ACT represented “room to the right” for the party to move, and teaming up could satisfy more right-wing voters, Key told TV3’s Firstline this morning.
    “We’re going to need friends, and how we cobble them together is up to our voters.”
    Underestimate Banks, Act’s support and Key’s support for Banks at your peril.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS