Some thoughts on ACT

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, September 18th, 2010 - 81 comments
Categories: act, labour, maori party, nz first, Politics - Tags: , , , , , ,

Now Garrett has resigned from the party things are really going to get interesting. As far as I can see there are a few ways this can play out.

1) Garrett stays as an independent and Hide stays leader of ACT – I’m picking this is unlikely

2) Garrett stays as an independent and Boscawen rolls Hide (This seems to be the way John Armstrong thinks it may go, I’m not so sure.)

3) Garrett resigns from parliament and Hide stays on (highly unlikely).

4) Garrett resigns from parliament, Hillary Calvert comes in and Hide is rolled (this would be my pick and it would effectively make Douglas the power behind the throne)

I note that DPF has tried to claim Calvert would support Hide but I find that highly unlikely. I recall having a conversation with her in the 1990’s and being struck by just how much of a Douglas disciple she was. More recently, she’s also spoken well of Roy and just yesterday told the Herald:

I think it is important, particularly in a small party like Act, that the leader has everyone’s total support.

A comment that has been interpreted by the Herald as support for Hide but is notable for the total absence of the words “I support Rodney Hide”. She is a lawyer after all.

Then there’s Epsom. A few months ago I saw a little bit of polling that had been conducted there that showed Hide’s support was collapsing and I doubt that recent events have done much to help that. If Hide is rolled as leader, however, that will be beside the point as he would be unlikely to gain candidacy for the seat and it is even more unlikely that John Key would ease the way for a Douglas-backed ACT candidate.

If Hide struggles on as leader I doubt very much he’d win Epsom regardless of the signals sent by Key and his party.

Which leaves ACT with one opportunity for survival – the 5% threshold. It’s an open secret that a substantial number of ACT supporters believe that there’s 5% of voters who would tick the ACT box if they saw the party returning to its strictly neoliberal roots (i.e. ditch Hide for Roy). And, although I’d like to think that the voodoo economics of the 80’s and 90’s was as dead as Stalinism, there is a chance that they’re right. In fact right now it’s looking like that’s the only shot they’ve got.

Of course there’s also the bigger picture to think about as well. An ACT-less parliament would have significant ramifications for National’s plans for pushing further right in a second term (the privatisation agenda, for example, would have to be shelved) and that would piss off a lot of their backers (but possibly not as much as “centrist” John Key cuddling up to a Douglas-run ACT would piss off a lot of voters)

And if National is looking like it would be hamstrung in government Labour may find it harder to instil a sense of urgency in its activist base (who right now are most motivated by the fear of the irreparable harm a second term of National/ACT would cause).

The Maori Party would gain more power in a National-led government if ACT disappeared but would also have to take more responsibility for policies their base didn’t like.

And then there’s the 800lb gorilla in the room nobody wants to talk about – Winston Peters.

As I said, this is going to be very interesting.

On a more personal note I’ve taken an interest in Garrett ever since I announced his candidacy for him in 2008. Like an old comrade of mine says about the political game: “I’ve seen ’em come and I’ve seen ’em go”.

81 comments on “Some thoughts on ACT ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. john 1
    18 September 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Sooner Parliament is sterilised of Garrett’s Presence the better.

    • comedy 1.1
      18 September 2010 at 12:32 pm

      “Sooner Parliament is sterilised the better.”

      There fixed it for you

      “Winston Peters an 800lb Gorilla”, don’t you mean a 180lb chimp ?

      • bbfloyd 1.1.1
        18 September 2010 at 1:21 pm

        comedy… where does an 800lb gorilla sit at the dinner table?………… anywhere he f****n wants to! you get the analagy? chimps are what you see in the mirror…
        (sorry, can’t do smiley face)

        • Comedy 1.1.1.1
          18 September 2010 at 2:27 pm

          Didn’t know they had mirrors in your enclosure.

          Anyhoo to see a truly simian lineup I just got my Supercity forms in the post …………. since when have Banks and Brown been independents ?

          .. and as for the rest FFS WHAT A JOKE.

          • kbr 1.1.1.1.1
            18 September 2010 at 8:33 pm

            This is an insult to he noble hominidae, Pan troglodytes, to whom I assume you refer – as opposed to Pan paniscus, or bonobo, which uses love-making as a form of conflict resolution.

            Chimps are adept at coalition building to achieve objectives such as territory, foraging, or hunting – and could teach us a thing or two.

            I sometimes see them observing Phoenix training sessions over the back fence of Wgtn zoo. They don’t seem to think it has much point ..

          • bbfloyd 1.1.1.1.2
            18 September 2010 at 10:10 pm

            C..so you didn’t get it…. why am i disappointed , but not surprised? the explanation would confuse you..

    • Rharn 1.2
      18 September 2010 at 12:36 pm

      Ditto for ACT too.

    • paula 1.3
      18 September 2010 at 8:28 pm

      [deleted]

      [lprent: As much as I personally dislike the SST. Your repeated comments are defamatory. You’ve been warned before. You are now permanently banned. ]

  2. Rharn 2
    18 September 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Anyone thinking like me that Winstone ‘will’ return?

    Most pundits are still writing him off on the basis of his alledged skullduggery. Remember no charges were ever laid and it was Hide and that wannabe Monaco diplomat that did most of the damage. Key put the knife in by stating that he would not have Winstone as a coalition partner. Now Key has changed his mind and could w.ork with him. What has changed? Key has fewer options.

    Second question. Anyone think Winstone ‘will’ work with Key? Not a chance.

    I’m almost tempted to vote for Peters not only as a thank you for my gold card but also to allow him to settle some scores. He will not sign up with any one for that reason.

    • blacksand 2.1
      18 September 2010 at 3:34 pm

      Second question. Anyone think Winstone ‘will’ work with Key? Not a chance.

      Every chance. Who thought he’d work with Bolger, Birch and Shipley after ’96? Actually, quite a few people, just not the 2/3 of his supporters who expected him to back Labour just because he’d absolutely ruled out anything to do with those three.

      • Rharn 2.1.1
        18 September 2010 at 4:59 pm

        Lot of water’s gone under the bridge between ’96 and now. But knowing Winstone you may well be right. The big if or several big ifs will he get the chance? The other thing is that Clark held on to Winstone for as long as possible. He’ll go with Labour should the chance arise. No he’ll turn down Key ’cause he can.

      • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.2
        18 September 2010 at 9:10 pm

        work with Bolger, Birch and Shipley after ’96

        And didn’t that emd well?! And that was when he had one or two reasonably capable, energetic and personable MPs behind him. Not so now.

    • the pink postman 2.2
      20 September 2010 at 3:43 pm

      Im picking that Peters will promise to improve the Gold Card and all the
      well-of blue rinses will flock to vote for him. What will happen if he stands for Epsom.? I have no doubt he will come back ,but who would he support.? Thats the trouble ,and remember he’s an exNat.

  3. Red Rosa 3
    18 September 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Nice one, here

    http://gonzofreakpower.blogspot.com/

    AS word – plot – how do they do this?

  4. the sprout 4
    18 September 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Winston most certainly WILL be back.

    Anyone find it a bit odd that Calvert can’t rmember if she has any convictions?

    From the Herald article linked to above…

    “I’m not going to say I don’t. I can’t remember a speeding ticket,” [Calvert] said. “I will have to have a proper think about it.”

    I’m not sure how you could possible come up with a less convincing answer than that.

    • Rich 4.1
      18 September 2010 at 2:20 pm

      I had to list mine for citizenship, and I couldn’t remember my motoring offences (from being a young and stoopid driver in the 80s). I tried DVLA and police in the UK, and they delete them after 7 or so years. so I just put that I had several from before 1995, and that seemed to suffice.

    • Red Rosa 4.2
      18 September 2010 at 2:31 pm

      Calvert is a lawyer, so she knows a few speeding tickets aren’t going to bother anyone. Should this set a few alarm bells ringing? Or maybe the skeletons in the closet have been rattling loudly enough!

      • joe bloggs 4.2.1
        18 September 2010 at 2:43 pm

        I see that Phil Goff has made no announcements whatsoever about past convictions. This surely sets a few alarm bells ringing…

        • rod 4.2.1.1
          18 September 2010 at 3:57 pm

          Ditto, Auckland mayoral cadidates, now is the time to speak up guys.

          • Mrhappy 4.2.1.1.1
            19 September 2010 at 4:12 pm

            So in 1984, Garrett as a “prank” decided he had a need to obtain a new identity, and even possibly “prankishly” leave the country under said identity, for presumably “prankish” purposes.

            Now a normal person wouldn’t put that much effort into a simple “prank”, unless they thought they might have to utilise it for comedic effect.

            Or if they’d done something REALLY dodgy that meant it might be better to quietly leave the country.

            Now, let me think, 1984 and major unsolved crimes … hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

            So, ummm, did they ever catch [too close to defamation]

        • bbfloyd 4.2.1.2
          19 September 2010 at 4:35 pm

          get a life joe.

  5. Rich 5
    18 September 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Also, as a summary of facts:
    – If Garrett stays an MP, even he never comes to parliament, then Hide will continue to have the numbers to stay ACT leader, unless Boscawen dumps him.
    – If Garrett resigns, then apparently next-in-line Hilary Calvert is no fan of Hide and would probably vote to roll him.
    – Key has said that he won’t accept Roger Douglas a a cabinet minister, so that would point to Roy becoming leader.
    – Unless, that is, Douglas becomes leader but not a minister, and Roy gets her Chief Toy Soldier job back.
    – Also, Roy/Douglas may not want Boscawen as a minister, but that would leave them with no acceptable candidate for their second ministerial slot.
    – And if Garrett stays, then Heather may need to release the next little bombshell.
    – Or Hide could persuade an existing National or UF MP to join the ACT caucus to shore up his majority, possibly with the connivance of Key.

  6. freedom 6
    18 September 2010 at 3:33 pm

    the unfunny thing is all this bs of Garrett and co has succeeded in taking focus away from the only truely important topic of the week, the removal of democracy from New Zealand’s Parliament

    The MSM is blathering about responsibilty of truth in Parliament whilst they refuse to exercise any expression of honesty in their own media.

    Despite the belated and disingenuous statements from the shadows of what was once the left, our elected representatives have unanimously collaboratively, willingly, fucked us, and we didnt even get a nice dinner first

  7. gobsmacked 7
    18 September 2010 at 3:50 pm

    ACT’s problems are only going to get worse. The enemy within is very, very smart.

    The leaker(s) clearly know how to play the game. If they’d put these stories out there in the previous ten days or so, they wouldn’t have had half as much impact. The quake eliminated all other news. There was no appetite for “politics”.

    So they waited until the media were ready. Then they got the lesser story out first (Tonga assault), and got some momentum. Plus they got Garrett on the record, saying he had no more “strikes” against his name. And Hide on the record, telling everyone how wonderful Garrett really is. Oops.

    Then they delivered the knockout punch – Jackal. Job done.

    They’ve leaked separate ‘Exclusives’ to both TV One and TV3, they’ve played them perfectly, an object lesson in how to use the media. Funnily enough, this doesn’t involve just issuing a bland press release and hoping somebody notices.

    Any chance they could lend their instruction manual to the Labour Party?

  8. blacksand 8
    18 September 2010 at 4:24 pm

    and it is even more unlikely that John Key would ease the way for a Douglas-backed ACT candidate.

    I think this is true to a certain extent, but only a certain extent. Didn’t Richard Worth have Brash’s ‘full suppport’ for Epson? I think National and ACT supporters have embraced strategic voting in a way that the left haven’t – I even recall Helen Clark pointedly saying that doing deals on seats was not how Labour was going to operate. As a Green voter, I’m a bit sad that the Green voters of Ohariu-Belmont didn’t see that voting for Hugh Chavel could have got rid of Peter Dunne, but maybe that was just a surprise all around.

    I don’t think it will make much difference whether Key makes any public comment on any particular seat; I’d expect that there are a number of National safe seats with a clever & right wing enough electorate for ACT to find a winning candidate. I really don’t believe that any of the scandals that have befallen ACT would make much difference to their support – whatever disagreements there are within the party, they are still pretty consistent as to what their main goals in parliament are. The ACT voters of Epson were clever enough to know which side to butter their bread. It is only this last scandal that actually goes beyond the pale – I doubt Rodney could hold Epson now.

    The irony of the whole ‘bbq at Phil’s place’ meme is that the right have a much more corporate loyalty to the CEO ethos than the left – witness poor old Brian Connell’s fate in National’s caucus for daring to question Don Brashes suitability to lead. I’m guessing that the ‘PC Eradicator’ and all of the other strategic loud mouths in the caucus of the time knew when to keep quiet. They also know when and how to ‘move forward’ when they’re in the shit – John Key’s first reshuffle and Brash’s quiet exit. Don ‘family values’ Brash even managed to be painted as a victim of dirty tricks in the whole affair…

    back to the topic at hand;

    ACT served (and will continue to serve) very little use with National polling low. It wasn’t until Brash became leader of the National Party and ACT’s support hemorrhaged in behind him that the right had any show of gaining Government; this gave him the momentum which Orewa capitalised on. It will always be in the interests of the right for National to appear relatively centerist, and the largest party in parliament, with sufficient support for ACT for them to remain as a stalking horse – be it 5-6%, or a safe seat. Ideally the latter particularly when it’s close between National and Labour.

    The reason that it is in ACT’s interests for National to remain the largest party, is that in the eyes of some (enough), this gives them more legitimacy to form a government. There are well educated, intelligent people across the political spectrum, and there are poorly educated (and frequently stupid) people across the political spectrum. I personally believe that the right (globally…) are better at harnessing the power of stupid. There were points before the last two elections where it looked as though National would gain the largest share of the votes, but still be unable to form a government. This (wrongly) was painted by some as unfair. Following ’05 National managed to consolidate and keep the momentum of this sense of unfairness by painting the election as ‘stolen’, bizarrely enough because Labour did things that National had also done. The left on the other hand, deal with diversity of opinion in quite a different way – we place more value in strong arguments than in strong leaders. Nice principle, we just need the soundbites.

    • Red Rosa 8.1
      18 September 2010 at 7:31 pm

      Rebrand this government as ‘The Key/Hide One-Term Government’ and Labour are onto a winner.

      • Tanz 8.1.1
        18 September 2010 at 8:39 pm

        Red Rosa, you wish. Oh the glee of all these posters, kick the man while he is down, why don’t you. Key will survive this, easily, the media and the polls are smitten with him.

  9. Tanz 9
    18 September 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Oh the glee of all these posters. The glee, the rubbing of hands, the chortles.Are you all squeaky clean? Are you happy now that there is finally some mud to fling? Of course they are all politicians, not demi-gods. Blame that on the media.

    • Armchair Critic 9.1
      18 September 2010 at 8:52 pm

      It’s the media’s fault that Garrett assaulted someone? It’s the media’s fault that David Garrett stole the identity of a dead child? The media made him lie to a sentencing judge? Fuck right off out of here. David Garrett is responsible for his own sordid actions, it’s not anything to do with the media.
      Am I pleased about the fact that he’s on his way? Damn straight! David Garrett personifies everything I despise about ACT and to see his hypocrisy exposed and (hopefully) on his way out of parliament, so he can implement less of his warped and weird agenda, brings me true joy.
      Am I squeaky clean? I’ve been out in the mud digging in fence posts all day, so no. The worst I have to hide is one speeding ticket, in over 20 years of driving. I guess the pope won’t be making me a saint any time soon.

      • joe bloggs 9.1.1
        19 September 2010 at 10:42 am

        After 9 years of having this sort of shit rain upon the electors, you Left Wing Nut Jobs should know better by now. I defer to RedBaiter on another site – an incisive observation that cuts to the core of what’s so out of balance with the Leftists:

        Good god, you really cannot see the difference between Garret’s passport offence 26 years ago that hurt nobody and the wave of rape and violence and theft that is sweeping NZ today and that Garret was fighting against?

        What a nation of clueless easily manipulated morons. The left media just have to press your buttons and you’re off jerking away like a population of mindless left wing robots.

        • RedLogix 9.1.1.1
          19 September 2010 at 10:56 am

          In a sense yes. Garrett’s offense is certainly not the ‘crime of the century’. The problem is this:

          1. Garrett is openly Parliament’s spokesperson for the Sensible Sentencing Trust who has repeatedly called for zero tolerance of crime.

          2. Garrett voted against the clean slate legislation that would have allowed relatively minor, non-violent crimes in the past, just like the one he committed, to be parked off the public record.

          3. And Garrett above all, is responsible for the the odious three strikes legislation that more than anything else, removes discretion from the hands of Judges… a discretion he personally has benefitted from.

          If he had made his position clear before the election, had authentically built the case that this offence comitted in a hubris of youthful stupidity had been an important point of learning and insight … then he could have made it work.

          But he didn’t. Garrett and Hide both lied and covered it up. Both have failed the hypocrisy test comprehensively. That is the issue at stake here.

        • Puddleglum 9.1.1.2
          19 September 2010 at 2:38 pm

          “Garret’s passport offence 26 years ago that hurt nobody”

          Hurt nobody? Ask the family of the child – they sounded pretty hurt on radio. Even Garrett claimed to be overwhelmed by sadness for the harm he had done to the family (though that grief hadn’t caused him to come clean about it.)

          Or are you unconcerned about the victims of crime all of a sudden when the crime is done by one of your – and Redbaiter’s – heroes?

        • bbfloyd 9.1.1.3
          19 September 2010 at 4:40 pm

          kinda scary ain’t it joe? to think that there are still people like that around. the ones that still havn’t figured out which planet their on yet. get a life joe…

      • Vicky32 9.1.2
        19 September 2010 at 5:25 pm

        I for one am squeakier than that! (The advantage of being a lifelong non-driver!) 😀
        So, Ms Calvert, it can be done…
        Deb

    • bonobo 9.2
      18 September 2010 at 8:54 pm

      Tanz, so you find Garret’s behaviour trivial, especially as ACT spokesperson for Law and Order, and his notion of sterilising the poor ?

      Where do YOU draw the line for acceptable behaviour in politics ?

    • Draco T Bastard 9.3
      18 September 2010 at 10:52 pm

      It’s the media’s fault that John Key lied? That Richard Worth is a sexist scoundrel? That Bill English claims that he lives in Dipton while living in Wellington and costing us~ $40K/year?

      I’d say “Get real” to you but you’re just another delusional RWNJ trying hard to deny reality.

    • Max Factor 9.4
      18 September 2010 at 10:57 pm

      Hmmmmm, I thought that parties such as ACT, National, Republicans, Conservatives, etc, all promote personal responsibility?

      Can you explain to us what that entails, Tanz?

  10. appleboy 10
    18 September 2010 at 11:18 pm

    What I am astounded at is Rodney Hide’s brazen lies. He has stated that when Garrett told him about this he didn’t ask any questions / get any details. WHAT? So, let me see, Garrett says “Rodney, I’ve had a conviction for passport fraud”. What DID Rodney say next if he didn’t say something like “Tell me about it..” …”What happened..”

    Sheer and utter lies that defy belief.

  11. gobsmacked 11
    18 September 2010 at 11:31 pm

    So the next on the ACT list, Hilary Calvert, revealed today that she’s the owner of a brothel.

    Personally I don’t think that should disqualify anyone from being an MP.

    But what would Rodney Hide have said, if that was a Labour MP, any time between 1999 and 2008?

  12. aj 12
    18 September 2010 at 11:32 pm

    What will be interesting will be the distance Key will want to keep from Hide between now and the next election. Rodney will be trying to get into every photo op with the PM he can, and Jonkey will be trying to keep him out of every one….

  13. Max Factor 13
    18 September 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Hide’s claims that he didn’t know the full story and that he’d heard only that a “cemetary head stone was involved” simply defies belief. Rodney Hide was lying and I think most folk realised it instantly when those words came out of his dishonest mouth.

    In some ways, Rodney Hide’s behaviour in all this has been even worse than Garrett’s. Hide should NEVER have allowed Garrett to be put on the Party List, in the first place. It was irresponsible and it was downright stupid.

    What on Earth was he thinking?

    It occurs to me that Hide thought he and his cronies could get away with keeping this quiet. In a way, this event speaks volumes about how ACT and Hide view the public – that we are easily-duped fools.

    • mcflock 13.1
      19 September 2010 at 2:00 am

      ACT seems to define “Good character” as “you did it, but you didn’t get caught; you got caught, but you didn’t get prosecuted; you got prosecuted, but you weren’t found guilty; and you were found guilty, but you got name suppression”. Failure to meet up to those exalted standards and you’re not fit to be in parliament.

      Unless you’re in Labour or worse: in that case the merest allegation is enough to show you as a despicable human being.

    • Lazy Susan 13.2
      19 September 2010 at 6:47 am

      This event speaks volumes how ACT and Hide view the Public – that we are easily duped fools.

      Why restrict this to Act and Hide? I believe many politicians think that way and if you look at the big wad of centerist swing voters they’d be right. The current National government got elected by duping these voters.

      They campaigned on a “Labour-lite” policy platform with the concept that Labour was “Nanny State” and that government should get out of peoples lives.

      Since being elected they have rolled back democracy in ECAN, the Super City and the Brownlee Enabling Act and their social and economic policies can in now way be described as Labour-lite.

      Of course, if National campaigned on their real agenda they would be unelectable.

  14. jcuknz 14
    19 September 2010 at 10:11 am

    This thread like others here speak volumes about the mentality of those in the political field with notable exceptions …they do not gain much credence from me … though I’m not currently up with the play I prefer argument to mud. The events of the last government in its final days suggest the comment “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”

    • RedLogix 14.1
      19 September 2010 at 10:35 am

      The events of the last government in its final days suggest the comment “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”

      Are you comparing Winston’s non-crimes to this debacle?

      And are you forgetting that it is the now discredited, proven liar, Rodney Hide who was among the chief players in that affair?

      • Rex Widerstrom 14.1.1
        19 September 2010 at 3:10 pm

        Oh come on RL, you know Winston was hanged for being economical with the truth about topics on which democracy requires absolute honesty if it is to function properly. So was Garrett.

        And you also know that the media went after them both with such gusto because of their hypocrisy in having spent a long period telling everyone else what scumbags they were, only to turn out to have size 14 feet of clay.

        History is littered with the careers of those brought down by hubris. Both Winston’s and Garrett’s can be found in the same shallow grave.

        • RedLogix 14.1.1.1
          19 September 2010 at 4:42 pm

          you know Winston was hanged for being economical with the truth about topics on which democracy requires absolute honesty if it is to function properly.

          Winston made a dreadful blunder when he held up that infamous ‘No’ sign. All he had to do was to say ‘None of your business’ and stick to the line that ‘I’ll open up my Party funding to public scruntiny when National opens the books on it’s massive trusts’. Trusts worth millions of dollars that to this day the real donors remain secret.

          If NZ1 was to be hounded from Parliament for being ‘economical with the truth’ about some of it’s funding… then so should have National.

          • Rex Widerstrom 14.1.1.1.1
            19 September 2010 at 9:18 pm

            But National does run the “none of your business” line… just like a really smart crook when fingered by the cops. Winston is more like the mouthy amateur who thinks he can outsmart the system by running off at the mouth with constantly changing permutations of his alibi.

            I just had a lengthy conversation with a client this afternoon, someone I’d call a “career criminal”, and had to explain to her that while it’s not a good idea to lie, there’s no onus on you to run off at the mouth trying to be a smartarse and thus give the opposition enough evidence with which to hang you. She thought she could expect the court to parse the information exactly the way she demanded they do. It was precisely her status as a “real” crim that made her arrogant enough to think she could get away with it.

            Thankfully, she shut up. I doubt that, even I had been round to advise him, Winston would have done the same. He’s just too arrogant, pugilistic and mouthy. And too in love with the spotlight, even when he’s writhing in its gaze. So he got what was coming.

            OTOH the rules need to be changed so that National, retrospectively, loses the right to remain silent so as not to incriminate itself. Then if it lies, then yes, out with it too.

            • RedLogix 14.1.1.1.1.1
              19 September 2010 at 9:36 pm

              Agree totally that Winston’s ego was the abundant rope with which his enemies hung him. An element of hypocrisy yes, but it was mostly driven by a media and opponents maliciously delighting in the opportunity to stick it to a man who’d outplayed them once too often.

              Still not in Garrett’s league though.

  15. RedLogix 15
    19 September 2010 at 10:30 am

    Anecodote I know, but I’m hearing unhappy rumblings in Nat heartland. More than a few of them saying that ‘they’re not going to vote next election’.

    Which I read as ‘I’m very dissapointed in Key’s govt, but there’s still no way in hell I’d ever vote Labour’.

  16. Adrian 16
    19 September 2010 at 11:28 am

    RedLogix… that’s what the the Nats rural vote said and did in 1999.

  17. Anne 17
    19 September 2010 at 11:30 am

    Not surprised RedLogix.

    Your 10:30am comment has prompted me to dig out my copy of “The Hollow Men” which you will recall came into being in the first place because of dissatisfaction and concern by some National Party members. There was a lot of stuff in that book that the media ignored at the time. Maybe it’s the right time to resurrect some of it, because there is a correlation between those pre-2005 political scandals (some of which was being practiced by Act before Brash came on the political scene) and the latest scandals.

  18. Zaphod Beeblebrox 18
    19 September 2010 at 1:23 pm

    You forgot to mention option 5)

    -Garrett leaves, Hide stays propped up by Key. Then ACT disntegrates and takes National and Key down with them in a big fiery mess. If Key makes a hash of the Epsom situation and is seen as propping up Hide for political expediency National’s female vote share will plummet. Then he will be relying on the Maori Party and possibly Winston to stay in power. And I doubt he will get any takers for a coalition with ACT after this fiasco.

    The question is- wouild Key be stupid enough to let Hide take him down? or better still- who in National does Hide have some dirt on? Given the strong ACT sympathetic rump in National you’d have to think it would be possible.

    • IrishBill 18.1
      19 September 2010 at 1:59 pm

      Key won’t even back his own ministers when they do something that upsets the focus groups. There’s no way he’ll back Hide if it looks like any of the stink will rub off on him.

  19. Gotham 19
    19 September 2010 at 1:39 pm

    So, what are the chances that the Nats will help Don Brash set up the new ultra-right party to replace ACT and give him support to take the Epsom seat??

    National NEED a far-right party to pass legistlation that is too unpalatable for their new ‘centrist’ followers. It would be unacceptable for their supporters to have to rely solely on the Maori Party after the next election, as (I hope, I desperately hope) the Greens would never go into a formal coalition with them. Dunne is likely gone after the next election – Chauvel will have a very, very good chance of taking his seat in Ohariu.

    And MMP being what it is, it is far more important for National to have a small lapdog party win a seat (and possibly bring in several MPs, like ACT managed to do) than just pick up one extra MP by winning it themselves.

    So, Brash for Epsom??

    • The Voice of Reason 19.1
      19 September 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Brash for Epsom? What could be more agreeable? The sooner the better I say and I hope that Hide emulates the pompous windbag Roark from Ayn Rand’s novel The Fountainhead and blows the whole Act party to smithereens by resigning from Parliament and forcing a by-election.

      C’mon Rodders, you know you want to go down in a blaze of glory! Call Sir Roger’s bluff and hit the self destruct button one more time.

  20. ianmac 20
    19 September 2010 at 2:06 pm

    John on Campbell Live did an excellent job of pinning down Hide re Garrett Friday night at about 2:40 into the program. (That woman Cone however is really weird!)
    http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/Friday-September-17-2010/tabid/59/articleID/1137/MCat/73/Default.aspx

  21. gobsmacked 21
    19 September 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Most of the media are still focusing on Garrett. That’s like blaming a burglar for Watergate.

    The real story is much bigger …

    Speaking to TV ONE’s Q and A show Hide revealed that the whole ACT caucus and some of the senior party management knew about the passport, but not about the affidavit.

    Putting aside the affidavit, basically Hide is saying that everyone that matters in ACT is morally bankrupt. Sure, we knew that, but it’s good to have it confirmed by their leader.

    Apart from the ethical emptiness demonstrated by ACT here, there’s a whole bunch of political questions too.

    Like, why the hell did Hide think it was so important to dump Roy and start a civil war, when he knew what they had on him? Did he think they loved him too much to use the weapons they had?

    And when will Key start backing away from these suicide bombers? Tomorrow morning, probably.

    • Puddleglum 21.1
      19 September 2010 at 3:08 pm

      “Speaking to TV ONE’s Q and A show Hide revealed that the whole ACT caucus and some of the senior party management knew about the passport, but not about the affidavit.

      Sounds like Rodney telling his caucus and party bosses they’re coming down with him.

  22. felix 22
    19 September 2010 at 3:18 pm

    “…when he knew what they had on him…”

    The truly awful possibility is that sociopaths like Hide and the rest of ACT really just don’t see the problem with it.

    After all, Garrett was probably just acting in his own rational self-interest.

  24. Drakula 24
    20 September 2010 at 10:45 pm

    I think most of you said it all for me, Toad said give it heaps of thumbs up and if ACT falls and brings the NATS with it I would say as I did in the last post; Bottoms up!!!

    Get the Chateau Plonk bottle in the cooler ready and a few glasses, no sorry you will need thousands even millions of glasses.
    CHEERS!!!!!!

Links to post