An Authoritarian Act

Written By: - Date published: 2:52 pm, August 18th, 2010 - 14 comments
Categories: act, election 2011, john key, national, national/act government, rodney hide, roger douglas - Tags: , , ,

So Rodney can’t keep 4 other people on side.  The liberal and authoritarian split in Act has had its blood-letting and the authoritarians have won.  No longer will Act be the party of liberal ideological principle.

You may not have agreed with them, but under ‘Mad Dog’ Prebble and Sir Roger, Act was a party of ideas.  Under Rodney however they have moved to simple authoritarian right-wing populism.  And with Heather Roy daring to challenge his brittle ego by (correctly) questioning his right to some of her classified defence papers, Rodney had his excuse to act.  Rodney and Garrett vs Roger and Roy.  By giving the power to Boscawen Rodney could be sure of swinging the party his way.

And Rodney has now secured his power.  Without ideas, the party will never reach the 5% threshold, so it is entirely dependent on him winning Epsom.  He can forever more say: it’s my way or the highway; it will become his personality vehicle, like NZ First was Winston’s.  The question remains though: where will the neo-liberal idealogues go?

Another question also arises: how will Epsom react in a year’s time when DonKey asks them to take their lumps and elect his right-wing monkey?

No longer can they elect Mr Hide in the hope of getting Dr Jekyll.  Instead they get an anti-science jackbooted thug who wants to re-legalise child assault.  Someone so keen on “lock ’em up” that we’ll spend more on prisons than on their Remuera pensions.  Someone who imposed his anti-democratic vision of a SuperCity on them.  Someone too focussed on those populist authoritarian things to worry about implementing rich Epsom’s economic “freedoms” to exploit others with their wealth.

So how will Epsom respond?  Does DonKey risk Epsom going red by not giving them another option?  Because a lot of Epsom will just want A N Other.

14 comments on “An Authoritarian Act ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Armchair Critic 1
    18 August 2010 at 3:33 pm

    I used to quite like many of ACT’s ideas. Almost enough to vote for them – it was mostly their dumb ideas about the economy that put me off. And I liked that they seemed to be firmly wedded to their principles, even where I disagreed with some of those principles.
    Now that they have totally abandoned almost everything they stood for I’m safe in not even having to consider voting for what is now just a disorganised bunch of authoritarian bullies.

  2. tc 2
    18 August 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Well they were stupid enough to elect him last time up against that nice chap Richard Worth so what’s to stop them putting in a repeat performance.

    It’s hardly a seat full of progressive modern thinkers being a dual grammer zoned overpriced area surrounded by upmarket retail outlets….a.k.a John Banks territory.

  3. Bored 3
    18 August 2010 at 3:57 pm

    For a considerable time I have accused Wodders of “corporatism” (aka in less polite circles as the “f” word). Wodders seems to think it acceptable to push through legislation allowing larcenous expropriation of local democratic rights and local body assetts. His treatment of Roy only confirms what we knew already.

  4. Policy Parrot 4
    18 August 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Il Duce has sacked the apparent Badoglio and is intent on ruling the rest of ACT as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers Social Republic, within the bosom of course of the ever present National Socialists.

    Roy and Douglas at least represent relative principle and reason, even if you don’t agree with them.

  5. Pascal's bookie 5
    18 August 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Rodney had his excuse to act. Rodney and Garrett vs Roger and Roy. By giving the power to Boscawen Rodney could be sure of swinging the party his way.

    And Rodney has now secured his power.

    Rodney’s power was always secure though. When there was the first confrontation, (last year or whenever) it was pretty widely reported that Boscawen was the ‘swing’ vote. Garrett was solid behind Rodney’s ‘populist’ approach, and Roy was making the case for a more Douglasite ‘purist’ approach. Boscawen was the ‘pragmatic’ one, rightly dancing with them what brung him (the member for epsom).

    What else we know is that Garrett is too risky for cabinet, and Douglas was ruled out of cabinet by Key. So if Roy was to be rolled , then the only possible contender was Boscawen, who also happened to be the swing voter. So whaddyaknow?

    “Why not me?” is a fairly old saying for politicians. Boscawen may have been the one making the play here rather than Hide. Hide has pretty much been revealed as powerless in this affair. He not only relies on National for his Epsom seat, but John Key also rules out members of his caucus for positions.

  6. bbfloyd 6
    18 August 2010 at 4:43 pm

    try not to act too surprised when the good folk of epsom put hyde right back into parlaiment again. they may be nothing more than nanna’s poodle, but they provide national with a guaranteed three to five votes.
    and we know there’s nothing more soothing than a pet that barks on cue, and is content with the occasional pat.

  7. ghostwhowalksnz 7
    18 August 2010 at 4:49 pm

    When Rudolf Hess flew secretly to Britain during WW2, the nazis didnt know what to do at first, as the British said nothing intially. The strategy then was to make public the truth and to say Hess was mentally unstable ( much to Goebbels disgust as it made a bad situation worse, that they were admitting the deputy Fuhrer ,a person very close to Hitler was crazy.)
    A joke in Berlin then was passed around about an imaginary meeting of Churchill and Hess that went like this:
    C >. So you are the madman then
    H> No, Im only his deputy

  8. comedy 8
    18 August 2010 at 5:24 pm

    If Roy had any sense she’d set up her own right of centre party and then run against Rodders in Epsom – I suspect the locals would fuck him over mercilessly and you’d never see him again apart from puff pieces about him and Winston having porridge fights at the home for terminally demented former rorters.

  9. sukie Damson 9
    19 August 2010 at 12:26 am

    Not according to the Listener’s Jane Clifton.

    “No one has much heard of Heather and those who have … worked with her in government have failed to detect any modestly concealed quotients of charisma or superior intellect.”

    • Pascal's bookie 9.1
      19 August 2010 at 6:40 am

      Jane Clifton was once quite influential, but I think she has spent too much time reading Maureen Dowd Columns in the NYT and thinking “That’s the sort of thing NZ needs”

  10. RobertM 10
    19 August 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Rodney is the only professional politician left in Act. I can’t see anything more in tune with market liberalism than the supercity and Hides market economics. He is after all an economist which Roy and Douglas. Douglas a liberal? Franks a liberal he a hard line law and order man into lynching, stoning and probably concentration camp.s Franks stand on defence its a waste of time and of no interest. Heather Roys basic approach is it would have been a good day if the Air Force had to run a cake store. A sensible right centre approach would be for a sophisticated anti submarine replacement for the Orions and a couple of littoral combat ships. With crews of just 25 male and 25 female officers. A speed of 60 knots. Supporting Gillard in combat in Afghansitan.
    Certainly there should be the death penalty for multiple murder. A two year sentence for pan handlers and beggars in K Road and Queen street. Closure of the prole spillover bars in the CBD.
    An unlimited 24 hour society where people can live for pleasure without excessive taxes to pay for an outdated employment creating health service. We’ll prosper as playground for the world when Act stops wasting their time trying to get working class and underclass support. Abandons social concience and the nanny state of the Roys.

Links to post