Lyndon on ACT

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, September 18th, 2009 - 19 comments
Categories: act, humour - Tags: ,

Found this gem at Fighting Talk. Lyndon Hood examines the act of leaking.

Lyndon Hood: Act Doesn’t Feel Climate Heat

The Act party, in their minority report on the recent review of the emissions trading scheme, have argued that man-made global warming should not be considered a threat. Because they know better.

Thanks to a memo we found stuck to our shoe after leaving the Parliament toilet block, Scoop can now reveal some other policies that Act plans based on this attitude to mainstream science.

ITEM: Disestablish crown research institutes like GNS Science and AgResearch; have Rodney date rocks and sequence cow genomes using his common sense.

ITEM: Unequivocally condemn fire-bombing the offices of one’s enemies. People you disagree with should be burned at the stake.

ITEM: Nuclear power plants + massive deregulation → radioactive waste everywhere → we all get awesome superpowers.

ITEM: ‘Teach the controversy’ on John B’s perpetual motion machine.

ITEM: Establish PPP project to build a tunnel through the Earth’s crust, so we can exploit the resource-rich realms of its hollow interior.

ITEM: Do we really need more policies? Because at this rate every one of our Parliamentary Questions until the election will be about ‘a light smack for the purpose of correction’.

ITEM: Increase productivity by having everyone leave saucers of milk out at night.
• will promote the dairy industry.
• will free up labour by encouraging elves to do the housework.

ITEM: Except we won’t have a dairy industry, because we’ll have swapped all our cows for magic beans.

ITEM: Get everyone magnetic underlays instead.

ITEM: Any demonstrated warming of climate can be mitigated by the cooling fan-effect of everyone face-palming when Act makes pronouncements about climate science.

19 comments on “Lyndon on ACT ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    18 September 2009 at 12:32 pm

    An irrelevant and incompetent party so far. Good at screwing things up, and hopefully powerless once they lose Epsom because the voters there are embarrassed at their representation

  2. Nick 2
    18 September 2009 at 1:36 pm

    …because the voters there are embarrassed at their representation

    Which is why Hide’s majority increased by 9,000 last year.

    • lprent 2.1
      18 September 2009 at 2:16 pm

      That was before he super-shitted on them… And Peter Garrett came in on the coat-tails.

      • snoozer 2.1.1
        18 September 2009 at 2:38 pm

        David Garrett.

        Peter Garrett’s OK.

      • Ron 2.1.2
        18 September 2009 at 3:04 pm

        …and I’m sorry but I have to cast nastertiums in the direction of NZ voters. I’m not saying they’re stoopid…exactly…but we only had to watch the fortunes of Winston Peters wax and wane depending on how much TV time he was getting to know that Rodney’s vote was always going to rise given the amount of TV time he got. And what was that time about mostly? 1 How he was BOUND to be the partner party in government when that nasty Ms Clarke was gone. 2. His pretty yellow jacket. 3. What a fine fellow he is – you can tell because he door knocks and stands on street corners and jokes with dairy owners.

    • Armchair Critic 2.2
      18 September 2009 at 2:20 pm

      Before the election last year National made a call on how to approach Epsom and with hindsight that call was most definitely in their best interest. Just imagine if they had campaigned their candidate hard – we would have had no ACT in parliament and a by-election already.

  3. lprent 3
    18 September 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Yes David Garrett. I keep doing that

  4. jabba 4
    18 September 2009 at 8:41 pm

    Hide is a gr8 MP for Epsom .. or at least he seems to be.
    The so called Super City will make or break him.. 2011 will be an interesting time for all sorts of reasons .. can’t wait

  5. Macro 5
    18 September 2009 at 9:49 pm

    The people of Epsom have a lot to answer for, and the list of what they have to answer for, grows by the week.

  6. jabba 6
    18 September 2009 at 10:09 pm

    hi all .. if I said something slightly anti Labour or slighlty pro Tory, will the Std ban me or are you happy to scrap with me and others .. who wants to blog with like minded sods all the time when you/we always agree?? how bloody boring if that is so

    • BLiP 6.1
      18 September 2009 at 11:40 pm

      It all depends, jabba.

      See, this is a left wing blog and, for people of the Right, its a very strange environment because, often, for the first time in their sad little lives they are in the minority and very little of what they take for granted applies. Fitting into the culture can be excruciating for them because, just like with the Right, there is a language and tone and attitude that needs to be respected. Righties unable to manage this task describe this culture as PC but usually aren’t able to define what they actually mean by that. Let me tell you: if something feels PC its you just feeling the weight and effort of the learning that is required – and, just like weightlifting, it will get easier to manage the more you do it. No one is asking you to change your soul, just your manner and only for so long as you are here. Its not that Herculean a task, just sort of like going into a new pub for the first time.

      Also, ask yourself, do you want to fit in? Is it going to be worth the effort to have some of your beliefs challenged, are you still open to learning or at least considering new things, are you a grown up or a punk-arse shit-stirring troll? It doesn’t matter to the locals here because they will suss you out pretty quick – and have probably already seen some of your comments over at Blubber Boy’s and other such filthy sites.

      I’m of the Left but I am also the new kid in town so, if I may, and assuming you’re being serious and not taking the piss, can I offer you a few simple rules that I have had to learn the hard way.

      1 Do not piss off the sysop.

      2 Do not piss off the sysop

      3 Read, understand and comply with the “About” and “Policy”.

      4 If you are going to comment then extend the courtesy of having read ALL of the post and AT LEAST MOST of the thread FIRST.

      5 Do not press the submit button without taking a deep breath first and asking yourself “do I really want to say that?” – if in doubt, then don’t do it.

      6 However knowledgeable or funny or intelligent you think you are, there are others here, many who lurk without saying anything for months at a time, who know more, are wittier and far smarter than you will ever be. Having said that, those same people will actually respond generously to a genuine question or call for assistance.

      7 Expect that your comment will be ignored or torn to shreds and/or to attract opprobrium and/or to have the piss taken out of you for days and sometimes weeks at a time. Anything and everything you say will be remembered and any inconsistency will be noted.

      8 If you are going to argue against the central point of the post or someone’s comment, make sure you have verifiable facts and/or rock solid logic and/or good natured humour. Don’t try and be funny to start with.

      As it happens there are quite a few Righties here who manage to hold their end up quite well and have even become “prospects” – follow their example and, not that I count for much around here, I welcome your presence and look forward to whatever robust exchanges lie ahead.

      Haere mai.

      • r0b 6.1.1
        19 September 2009 at 12:26 am

        That’s as fair a summary as I’ve seen – well spoken!

        • lprent 6.1.1.1
          19 September 2009 at 1:13 am

          I liked that. Especially point 2.

          Disagreeing with me is ok about ideas. God knows I’m opinionated, knowledgeable and sarcastic. I like stirring the pot, preferably on a different line to the norm.

          Disagreeing with me about how to run the site isn’t. The best that can expected is to make polite suggestions. However I only really listen to people who I see are making an effort to contribute to discussion.

          Pissing me off is defined as making comments that you know won’t be acceptable. It implies that the policy wasn’t read, and that is one EULA that isn’t there for the legalisms. It wastes my time, so I usually move from sarcasm to sadism to ensure that the practice doesn’t spread.

          On point 7, I really must fix that damn search engine. The number of comments and posts has gotten so large that it can’t scan them all before it times out.

          On point 8 – yep. I’d add ‘and consider point 7’.

    • lprent 6.2
      19 September 2009 at 12:37 am

      Nope – read the policy. That is the guideline. Basically what we find tiresome are people who just drop lines in without bothering to discuss or defend them. We also don’t like tedious flamewars arguing about nothing and tend to nip them in the bud really really HARD. Pointless homophobia, racism, sexism, anti-unionism or anti-employerism, anti-immigrant, etc tend to fall under that category. Thread-jacking annoys us because the posts are written to be discussed – not what some jerk thinks is more important when they log on – there are a lot of blogs – find one that is discussing your issue of the hour.

      But there is generally a wide latitude. It gets wider the more you make your points even if we disagree with them. Agreeing to disagree is the norm.

      If you find someone being really offensive, it will usually be me or a moderator – listen to them carefully. Don’t get too wound up about others being offensive to you. State your distaste and we’ll usually look at it while we’re periodically scanning the comments.

  7. jabba 7
    19 September 2009 at 9:23 am

    hi all .. it was a serious question and I am more than happy with what Blip said.
    I can’t remember saying anything offensive, I just like to, as you all do, express myself and I admit that sometimes I don’t take a breath of any sort before hitting the submit button.
    My comment was based on a week ban on red Alert. Trevor is always quick to accuse the Nats of all sorts of things but hates being reminded of the Labour Govts recent past. He calls it trolling or off thread!!
    I go to a few blogs and never hide behind another “username” .. never have, never will.
    I can embrace the left because I have been there and I’m no right winger to the extent some seem to think.
    I wonder how many others can see more than 1 side to a story?

    • lprent 7.1
      19 September 2009 at 10:32 am

      Ah yeah. There is frequently a big difference between what actually happened and how it was spun. The problem is that as moderators we repeatably see people coming in saying the same stupid and incorrect lines over and over again. It gets tiresome, especially when they pronounce it as being absolutely obvious and irrefutable. Now keeping vaguely to the topic of the post..

      For instance the myth that the removal of s59a would cause more parents to be arrested from smacking their kids. It is utter crap. It might result in more people being convicted because they don’t have the defense that they thought hitting someone with a horsewhip was reasonable. That was why the judges were complaining about the wording of the existing legislation. However the police have exactly the same powers to arrest after the repeal as they did before.

      Or burt’s favorite about the pledge card spending in 2005 and retrospective legislation. He seems to fail to grasp that the only party that didn’t spend on the basis of what the AG subsequently ruled was illegal were the progressives. Moreover the misinterpreted rules (at least according to the AG) had been going on since the early 90’s. Personally I think that rather than doing retrospective legislation (commonly used for fixing screwups in government financing like accountants would do adjustments to a GL), I think that the police should have taken a test case. Start with Act.

      Or the lynch mob that formed around NZFirst. I still have yet to see some of the braying imbeciles who metaphorically went out and hung the Winston apologize for their behavior. The simple fact of the matter was that while Winston is a arsehole, the media and talkback hosts ran a dogwhistle campaign on him about absolutely nothing. That was apparent from the time the campaign started. In the end what happened? No wrong doing was ever proved, just some crappy book-keeping. The only result was a censure from the house that basically just diminished my respect for the institution.

      Or….

      Act was right in there in all of these dealing with the lowest of the low for the headlines. They have to be the most unprincipled of all of the political parties. Especially since their favorite policies appear to be a matter of faith (ie not up for discussion) rather than debate

      But basically the 5th Labour government was pretty damn good. The biggest problem they had was that they didn’t deal with the liars like Larry Balcock or Ian Wishart early enough. They should have set up a counter-idiot task force purely to deal counter-factuals with the morons. In short they were too damn slow.