Tashkoff: Hide lied to ACT Board about Garrett

Written By: - Date published: 4:08 pm, September 17th, 2010 - 83 comments
Categories: act, crime, law and "order", leadership, rodney hide - Tags: ,

According to ACT’s Peter Tashkoff, Rodney Hide misled the ACT Party Board by hiding his knowledge of David Garrett’s passport dishonesty offence. So here we have a party leader who couldn’t see the problem with accepting someone who’d committed such a distasteful crime becoming not only an MP, but ACT’s Law and Order spokesman, and so sure of his own judgement that he thought he’d conceal such hazardous material from his own party’s senior administration. And of course, going by Key’s reaction, Hide had also hidden this information from ACT’s senior coalition partner too. That’s a hell of a lot of concealment from Mr Transparency and Accountability.

It really doesn’t say much about Rodney’s integrity, judgement or respect for even his own party’sdemocratic rules. No wonder the Auckland Supershitty Fiasco and the dismembering of ECAN have been executed with such blatant disregard for democratic process. As both the public and his own supporters begin to realise just how deluded and dangerous Rodney really is, you have to wonder how much longer it’ll be before this Il Duce is also swinging in the breeze.

On another point, it seems Garrett made a false declaration in his affidavit to the judge who discharged him without conviction for the passport fraud, by stating he had no previous convictions in New Zealand or elsewhere. That would seem like grounds for new charges.

UPDATE: Both the Herald’s John Armstrong and NBR’s Jock Anderson, who aren’t exactly lefties, have both predicted on RNZ’s panel today that this is the end for Hide.

83 comments on “Tashkoff: Hide lied to ACT Board about Garrett ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bobo 1
    17 September 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Is it possible to find out whether that fake passport was actually used entering another country ? As I don’t think we can take Garrett’s word that he never used it..

    If who ever replaces Garrett on the party list comes in then the party rolls Hide as leader would that make a snap election more likely? Not sure Labour would want that option ..

    • Kaplan 1.1
      18 September 2010 at 7:38 am

      Not just travel but you could use a passport/false identity to do plenty of other things. Just a few off the top of my head.
      – Open a bank account
      – Obtain credit
      – Get an IRD number
      – Obtain a drivers license
      – Obtain a firearms license

      What could you do with all that?
      – Never have to repay your loans, so long as you are willing to ditch the identity
      – Have a get out of ‘jail’ free on your driving record.
      – Money laundering through a secondary IRD number/bank accounts

      I’m sure the list goes on…

  2. The Voice of Reason 2
    17 September 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Hide is bullshitting furiously:

    ‘ “I actually couldn’t remember if he declared it, how he did it to me,” Hide said. “I don’t know what level of detail I knew.

    ”I think I remember that he got something off the cemetery. I didn’t know the age of the child.” ‘

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4137419/Hide-not-sure-if-he-knew-Garrett-details

    He’s gotta go, but then so do the other ACT MP’s, who were all complicit in the cover up.

  3. Kaplan 3
    17 September 2010 at 4:24 pm

    It would be interesting to see Rodney’s answer to the “Have you any court convictions? Yes / No” question on his ACT parties Candidate application. That is assuming he filled one out.

    • bobo 3.1
      17 September 2010 at 4:28 pm

      Just on a side note, does “holier than thou” Mr Garth McVicar have any previous convictions? Providing false testimonials?

      • mcflock 3.1.1
        17 September 2010 at 4:38 pm

        OR has he been found guilty of a crime, but discharged without conviction because he’s such a fine upstanding rich white kind of guy?

        • Roger 3.1.1.1
          18 September 2010 at 12:31 am

          That might be why he thinks giving sentences to other upstanding rich white kind of guys such as Bruce Emery isn’t sensible.

  4. appleboy 4
    17 September 2010 at 4:35 pm

    The big question to Rodney is why was this acceptable to him on Wednesday night? Why was identity theft fine 5 years ago…even 2 days ago – but HELLO it’s all got a bit sticky and he has had a “re-think”.

    Pathetic – political expediency at its most transparent. Well this time it won’t wash..or will we see Wodney give us a ‘tearful’ performance again….

  5. Blighty 5
    17 September 2010 at 4:35 pm

    just a note: ECAN

    sprout: thanks Blighty; corrected.

  6. Herodotus 6
    17 September 2010 at 4:40 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4137419/Hide-not-sure-if-he-knew-Garrett-details
    ”I actually couldn’t remember if he declared it, how he did it to me,” Hide said. “I don’t know what level of detail I knew.
    How can someone say “I don’t know what level of detail I knew. ” Can not Hide see the good ship NZS Act has a fatal hole in its hull and is sinking. At least the captain WILL go down with his ship

  7. Rex Widerstrom 7
    17 September 2010 at 4:48 pm

    So here we have a party leader who couldn’t see the problem with accepting someone who’d committed such a distasteful crime becoming not only an MP, but ACT’s Law and Order spokesman

    No, it’s far worse than that. Rodney’s no fool. Nor are his political instincts that far out of tune. When Garrett told him, Rodney would have had a sphincter-clenching moment and thought “…if this ever comes out…” I’m sure he could clearly see the problem.

    But despite this, he went ahead anyway. Why?

    Time for someone to unpick the links between Act and the SST and the SST and its backers. And while they’re at it, yes, a look into the backgrounds of McVicar and the rest.

    Phil Kitchin, perhaps? Fran O’Sullivan (who must be pissed off at the runing of Act by cretins like Garrett, surely)? Audrey Young? They all did good work unravelling the Spencer Trust skulduggery… here’s hoping they’re on to this.

    • the sprout 7.1
      17 September 2010 at 4:51 pm

      the links between Act and the SST and the SST and its backers

      Indeed Rex, that was a thread pulled on RNZ’s panel today – will post link shortly.

      • the sprout 7.1.1
        17 September 2010 at 5:13 pm

        Here it is,
        from today’s RNZ Panel – well worth a listen

        • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.1.1
          17 September 2010 at 7:00 pm

          Thanks sprout. Brief speculation about “a donation” but surely it’d have to be more than that?

          The one thing Act aren’t short of is backers with money so I can’t imagine Hide being levered into accepting Garrett against his better judgment (and I’m pretty sure it was against his better judgment) simply by a whiff of cash.

          I might be wrong but I suspect there’s something deeper, and much uglier, than the Panel imagine.

          The place is leaking like a sieve… surely we’ll find out soon (he says, crossing his fingers).

          • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2010 at 7:28 pm

            My guess was always the SST’s mailing list. Direct mail to a bunch of motivated single issue voters. Garrett’s spot on the list was kept all secret squirrels for no reason that made any sense to most people who went ‘who?’ when it was announced ‘tadaa, no5 is little mr moustache’. But I’m guessing SST folk got an email or some other back channel announcement about how they were now players and ‘vote team Rodney’.

            This might’ve delivered a few thou votes in return for a spot on the list that they didn’t really expect to to mean anything.

          • Anne 7.1.1.1.2
            17 September 2010 at 8:38 pm

            Actually Rex I’m not sure whether the money is flowing like it used to… Most of the original Act backers returned to the Nat. fold earlier this decade and took their money with them. Last I heard (admittedly some years ago now) they were struggling financially. It was around 2000 that Act became involved with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I think it’s likely money was a factor in that involvement.

            I agree there is more to come out and I’m keeping my fingers crossed too.

  8. bobo 8
    17 September 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Just while i’m at it, ill like to state my own previous convictions, as not to come over as a hypocrite in judging others..

    I actually did back..back in the mid nineties…. vote for Winston…. I’m not proud of it….

    • ianmac 8.1
      17 September 2010 at 5:08 pm

      Ha Ha bobo.

    • mcflock 8.2
      17 September 2010 at 5:18 pm

      Bobo, it’s bold of you to come forward after the media found out about your indescretion.
      I would like to take the opportunity to say that you have my complete confidence, because you’ve been an upstanding member of society in the years since the offence occurred, and you have taken responsibility for it. It was a youthful prank, and I’ve known about it for a while. I’m coincidentally coming back from my holiday early, and we can have a quick chat to see what the situation is. As leader I am fully informed of everything that goes on in my party, and you did mention something about having a blue rinse in the 1990s, but I don’t recall too much detail other than that, although I’m not denying that you fully informed me then, or even that I know everything about it now, I’m just not entirely clear about details like who has just asked for whom’s resignation, which I regretfully accept because it’s a matter of principle that we don’t get caught.

    • SHG 8.3
      17 September 2010 at 6:02 pm

      If we’re in confessional mode, well I gave my party vote to ACT in the last election. I said this on another site LAST month, so imagine how I’m feeling now.

      OK yeah fine, I gave them my party vote at the last election.

      Look, I’m sorry, OK? I’m sorry.

      Fuck, we all make mistakes! Jesus! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME?

      • Anne 8.3.1
        17 September 2010 at 7:33 pm

        Hell, Bobo and SHG did you have to! Now I’m feeling guilty and need to make a confession.

        Must’ve been something strange in the water around that 1996 election cos I voted for ACT. Only did it the once!!!! Oh god I’ve said it. Perhaps now I can put it behind me.

    • lprent 8.4
      18 September 2010 at 8:24 am

      I have to confess that in 1978 I voted for the Values party. But I was only 18. Please forgive me….

    • Armchair Critic 8.5
      18 September 2010 at 10:35 am

      I voted National in 1990, thinking nothing could be worse than the incumbent. In hindsight I was wrong.

  9. ak 9
    17 September 2010 at 4:59 pm

    …going by Key’s reaction…

    Nope. A mite too relaxed, even for the Jelly Eel himself.

    More likely Tashkoff knows Rodders is dust and is lying to save NACT’s carcass by making it seem unlikely that Rodders told Key.

    Which he would have, you can be sure.

    Which leaves the questions: can Rodders get a deal sweet enough to keep him from squealing? Will someone else squeal first?

    Especially when the rest comes out.

    NACT sweat. Divine for all occasions.

    It’s better than who killed JR. (remember that reference…)

  10. kbr 10
    17 September 2010 at 6:06 pm

    Has anyone checked the quality of humour on the ACT mailing list, lately ?

  11. tc 11
    17 September 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Geez the evil thunderbird could pass off for the uber lord of supershity real easy……lets all pullup a chair and bask in the warm glow of the burning careers of some of the most unpleasant and anti democracy tossers ever to get a gig under MMP….about bloody time.

    Would’ve happened alot sooner if our MSM weren’t so bust doting at their idols feet.

  12. gobsmacked 12
    17 September 2010 at 6:57 pm

    John Key is so absurd, I’ve got past outrage now, I just piss myself laughing at the guy.

    His latest line: Garrett must go, but Rodney’s doing a fine job. As if the two had never met.

    So, when will the PM knife Rodders? Key never let loyalty get in the way of his first love – himself. Tick, tock, tick, tock …

    C’mon, DPF, give Key the polling numbers in Epsom, he’s got his script ready (“Voters deserve a real choice … fine new National candidate … by the way, new appointment announced, Sir Rodney Hide on the board … will step down … grateful for his work … see ya later Heather … other coalition partners? Oh, I’ve always liked Winston … so much common ground …).

  13. Vicky32 13
    17 September 2010 at 7:20 pm

    A cosy little panel on Campbell Live tonight, with the self-loving right wing girl (as she calls herself) Deborah Hill Cone – and a guy whose name I missed. Very cosy, and no real condemnation of Hide or Garrett, just a happy little chat about how they were very naughty! Fie on them…
    Campbell used to claim to be an “exciteable left wing boy” but I think he’s been a closet rightist for years!
    Deb

    • Carol 13.1
      17 September 2010 at 7:40 pm

      On Campbell Live – actor from Outrageous Fortune – plays the ex of Mrs West.

      Well at least Hill Cone debunked Hide’s claim that garrett’s 3 strikes law was good for all Kiwis. And neither were convinced by Hide’s spin.

    • Pascal's bookie 13.2
      17 September 2010 at 8:05 pm

      That’s not the way I saw it Vicky.

      Campbell asked Hide repeatedly why he didn’t know what he obviously should have known, let Hide give his nothing answer and then cut back to the panel and they had a dismissive chat about how unconvincing he was and how much did he sound like Winston peters during the Owen Glenn issue, exactly like, or pretty much exactly like?

      That kind of thing is way more damaging than fireworks from lefties. Hide is right that the media has written him off before, but that has always been based on poll numbers. His personal credibility has always always been kosher, the perk busting little dynamo that might have some crazy ideas, but he’s straight up and keep the buggers honest. that’s gone now. He’s got a new narrative, and narratavium is the single most powerful force in media politics.

      I thought that piece, along with the panel, hooten and various other bits of coverage today signaled that Hide has been dismissed by the village as no longer being personally serious. That’s not a writing off based on poll numbers, it’s one based on credibility. He’s toast unless National decide he is still of use. For that to happen ACT needs to sort it’s shit out fast, and lift it’s poll numbers.

      ACT go bye bye now.

      • gobsmacked 13.2.1
        17 September 2010 at 8:21 pm

        Agreed, PB.

        Only a few stories reach beyond the political world to the wider public, to popular culture even. Benson-Pope was one, this is another.

        Being a running joke is far worse than being unpopular. Loyal minorities will still support an unpopular but consistent figure – like Sue Bradford or Hone Harawira. Their own constituency still stands by them.

        Rodney’s has fallen apart.

      • felix 13.2.2
        17 September 2010 at 9:05 pm

        Yep that’s how I saw it too.

        Hoskings on Close Up nailed it, exposing just how out of touch Rodney is with everyone on this issue. Hosking spoke about how repulsed kiwis are by the sickness, the weirdness, the creepiness of Garrett’s behaviour and Rodney just didn’t get it.

        He gave Rodney a perfect opportunity to show empathy, humanity, and Rodney failed. All he could say was “discharged without conviction” over and over again as if that was the salient issue.

        Rodney has truly exposed himself as non-human. Most likely a Ferengi.

        Hosking is right about kiwis being repulsed by this, and I’d also add that kiwis aren’t stupid. Kiwis know that there is a lot more ugliness behind this story. Kiwis know that you don’t get a false passport for a prank; you only get a false passport to assist you in carrying out very dirty, sinister, criminal behaviour.

        And Rodney knows. And kiwis can smell it on him.

        • QoT 13.2.2.1
          17 September 2010 at 10:17 pm

          Most likely a Ferengi.

          Felix, for the thousandth time, get out of my head.

          Captcha: artificial – great, even the software thinks we’re the same person.

          • lprent 13.2.2.1.1
            17 September 2010 at 10:54 pm

            Hah! during my current dose of the common cold, I’ve been watching seasons 4 & 5 of DS9 on DLNA. I suspect that you haven’t been a ferengi female oppressed by by the FCA… (ie unable to enhance the economy by wearing clothes….)

            And for the last time – reading tealeaves has a higher correlation than a psuedo-random number generator… It must be time to edit the word list…

            • QoT 13.2.2.1.1.1
              18 September 2010 at 12:48 am

              If I were a Ferengi I would dream of being Moogie when I got old and cranky.

              And all I’m saying is it may be random but it’s awesomely cool when you get a wholly appropriate anti-spam.

              • lprent …
                18 September 2010 at 7:10 am

                The Moogie character is awesome. She hasn’t shown up yet..

                But felix is right. Hide does give a very strong stench of being a believer in the rules of acquisition. It is pretty damn hard to see anything else that he does believe in.

                • QoT …
                  18 September 2010 at 10:49 am

                  Nah, at least a true follower of the Rules of Acquisition would be consistent. It’s what makes Quark such a sympathetic character despite being a cockbag.

          • Rhinocrates 13.2.2.1.2
            18 September 2010 at 11:50 am

            I’m thinking that he looks like a Sontaran.

        • Vicky32 13.2.2.2
          17 September 2010 at 11:08 pm

          “Rodney has truly exposed himself as non-human. Most likely a Ferengi.”
          Perfect! 😀
          Deb

      • BLiP 13.2.3
        17 September 2010 at 11:25 pm

        Don’t talk to me about John Campbell!! Did you see the jism-covered bromantic hagiography about his new BFF the other night . . . put me right off my dinner.

        WARNING: CONTENT LIKELY TO RESULT IN NAUSEA IF NOT PROJECTIVE VOMITING

        • Vicky32 13.2.3.1
          18 September 2010 at 12:06 am

          Oh I see, it’s a video, and I couldn’t get it to load… was it Campbell and Key at Fox Glacier? I heard that on the telly the other night, and the projectile vomiting was indeed imminent…
          Deb

        • lprent 13.2.3.2
          18 September 2010 at 7:17 am

          I watched the first part and it was a vile hagiography.

          The TV3 video on demand seems to have a problem. Even on my system it was slow loading and frequently stopping – at 7am on a saturday morning.

        • Draco T Bastard 13.2.3.3
          18 September 2010 at 9:30 am

          I saw it advertised and left the room.

        • Rich 13.2.3.4
          18 September 2010 at 7:21 pm

          Why is it that if you crash a car and die or kill others, you’re a bloody idiot until proven otherwise?

          If you crash a plane, you’re a national hero until proven otherwise.

          (It may be that the Fox Glacier crash was due to some freak circumstance that led to the particular accident – on the other hand it might be that they’d got away with dubious practices for years).

          (See also the Air NZ Perpignan accident – and the Dom Post attempting to put the blame on French ATC for denying them airspace for test flying they were unqualified and unbriefed to conduct).

    • Pascal's bookie 13.3
      17 September 2010 at 8:13 pm

      And if you want to see it get a good working over, I’m guessing 7days will find this story less of a target rich environment than a free fire zone… 😉

  14. gobsmacked 14
    17 September 2010 at 8:12 pm

    It’s been almost a whole hour since the latest fix, so for all fellow addACTs, here’s another:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4140388/ACT-leader-used-Garrett-affidavit-as-scapegoat

    Looks like Hilary Calvert is going to have the best job in Parliament.

    “Rodney, be a dear, and pop down to the cafe for me, one soy latte and a blueberry danish … and don’t forget to pick up my dry cleaning on the way back.”

    “I’m not your slave, who do you think …

    “Tashkoff!”

    “Oh, sorry Hilary, coming right up! Anything else I can do for you? Don’t leave me, please don’t leave me!”

    • bobo 14.1
      17 September 2010 at 9:11 pm

      Seeing Keys latest response on tv that he now cant work with Garrett because of the “Public Outrage” , so I take it he would still work with him if the Public wasn’t so outraged…Talk about fence sitting and decisions made in hindsight at the same time, what happened to stricter higher standards for ministers in his government. Rodney says to Key if I go your going down with me mate !

      • outofbed 14.1.1
        17 September 2010 at 9:24 pm

        ok If the Labour party can’t lift its poll rating after the last months news , then we are all really fucked
        Talk about shooting fish in a barrel

  15. Anne 15
    17 September 2010 at 10:14 pm

    I saw the latest Roy Morgan poll somewhere taken 12 Sept. I think. Nats down about 1.5% and Labour up about the same. It’s a start.

    Also, only a week out from the ChCh earthquake when Smile and Wave was having a veritable feast with his smiling and waving.

    • The Voice of Reason 15.1
      18 September 2010 at 12:11 pm

      Here ya go, Anne. No bounce for Key despite all the smiling and waving in Chch.

      The latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows support for John Key’s National-led Government has weakened to 53% (down 1.5%), comprising National Party 48.5% (down 1%), Maori Party 1.5% (down 1.5), ACT NZ 2% (up 1%) and United Future 1% (unchanged).

      Support for Opposition Parties has risen to 47% (up 1.5%); Labour Party 34% (up 1.5%), Greens 8% (down 0.5%), New Zealand First 4.5% (up 1%), Progressive Party 0.5% (up 0.5%) and Others 0% (down 1%).

      If a National Election were held today the National Party would be returned to Government.

      Gary Morgan says:

      “Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a drop in support for the National-led Government (53%, down 1.5%) for the third straight interviewing period. The lead over the Opposition Parties (47%, up 1.5%) is now at its narrowest since just after the General Election in November 2008.

      “Support for National (48.5%, down 1%) has also fallen — now at its lowest since May 2010 while the increase in support for the Labour Party (34%, up 1.5%) has cut National’s lead to 14.5%, a significant lead but the closest since November 2008.”

  16. Draco T Bastard 16
    17 September 2010 at 11:09 pm

    The Self Destructive Gene of Individualism

    But back to Act, and the disintegration of small parties. It’s the individualism, I believe, of the members. By nature, a party such as Act is made up of people for whom a cooperative is anathema.

    An interesting take by Deborah Coddington.

  17. Clint Heine 17
    18 September 2010 at 12:37 am

    I’d take anything Tashkoff says with a grain of salt. He has had it in for Rodney for a long time. One thing for sure, he won’t be in Parliament if Heather went or if Calvert decided to stick around Dunedin a little longer.

    But Rex has said it all really. It will be interesting if anybody does do a little digging about. As for the leaks, we all know who they came from…

  18. Peter Tashkoff 18
    18 September 2010 at 8:38 am

    Clint has no inside information QoT, He’s been predicting (visualizing is probably more accurate) my ejection from the ACT party for some time now, and yes you are quite right, he is clueless as to how the party list works.

    • lprent 18.1
      18 September 2010 at 10:13 am

      He does seem to be a bit optimistic quite frequently. But especially on the law about the party lists

      I noticed his similar confidence that this site would disappear after 2007 as well. Or was that Cameron. They all seem to blur together.

      • Rich 18.1.1
        18 September 2010 at 7:28 pm

        Yup, the list people voted for at the general election stands. The only way a party could change this is by the consent of those on it or by expelling the list candidate (http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM309474.html).

        Which is only fair really – people vote for a party knowing (should they be interested) who the candidates that might be elected are. Allowing different candidates to be substituted would tend to defeat that.

    • The Voice of Reason 18.2
      18 September 2010 at 10:27 am

      Not wanting to be cheeky, Peter, but why would you want to stay in Act under these circumstances? Do you see the party having a future?

      • Peter Tashkoff 18.2.1
        18 September 2010 at 10:39 am

        It’s a reasonable question VoR, and you are not the first person to ask.

        This post on my blog explains my view of the factions within ACT
        http://petertashkoff.blogspot.com/2010/09/rodney-hide-must-go-recapturing.html

        I was asked a similar question yesterday by Marcus Lush and the answer I gave him was that I am working through a process, that there are still some options and avenues left, and that I have not (yet) come to the point where I regard ACT as irredeemable or irretrievable.

        It is very close to that point however. Hilary Calvert in parliament would be a positive, but the clock is ticking. For the ACT party to survive it does need a game changer very very soon, and that can’t be just another wild lunge for a silver bullet (like the suggestion of Don Brash). It is this populist – silver-bullet – approach that has got ACT in its current state.

        The only way that ACT can survive is by a focused re-commitment to core principles and a lot of hard work over time.

        If Rodney really had the best interests of the ACT party at heart, he would stand down from the leadership now, and announce his retirement from politics at the next election.

        That might sound a bit far fetched to suggest that, but who could have predicted this week’s events last week?

        • The Voice of Reason 18.2.1.1
          18 September 2010 at 11:10 am

          Cheers, Peter. That lays it nicely and I think you are right that if Hide put the party first, he’d quit. But I doubt he’s got the moral compass that would make that likely. He’ll be more likely to hope that the new MP comes to his aid and perpetuates his leadership. Being the betting man I am, I’d say the newbie will actually go with the inevitable Boscowan challenge and Hide will be rolled.

          Boscowan can then go to Key looking for the endorsement for his own tilt at Epsom as Rodney’s replacement. Safe pair of hands, untainted by scandal, arrangement works well, etc.

          • Lazy Susan 18.2.1.1.1
            18 September 2010 at 12:16 pm

            Oh what music to my ears VOR. To see Wodney suffer the ultimate humiliation of losing the Act leadership and his beloved Epsom will be a delight.

            This sanctimonious hypocritical “perk buster” trougher has taken less than two years to screw up NZ’s largest city and demolish the Act party. I loathe him for the former but am thankful for the latter.

            Not so sure the good voters of Epsom will be prepared to do the performing seal bit for Boscawen, or anyone in Act, though. Many must be feeling very burnt by the latest turn of events.

            Of course, without Act, DonKey will have noone to blame for all the unpleasant bits of policy he and National want to push through. Maybe time saddle up the horses and find some new playmates? Curtain rises – Act II.

          • Kevin Campbell 18.2.1.1.2
            18 September 2010 at 7:25 pm

            Well spotted VOR. I hope John Boscawen reads The Standard.

            I would like to see John Boscawen and Heather Roy as a co-leadership because they are fresh faces (to joe public). As Peter says a gamechanger is not required, but a game change is long overdue.

            I dont think Don Brash has the face of acceptance that could swing voters coming from Labour and National which is necessary. Remember, most of Act originally came from the right of the Labour party.

            Either way it must be the members who decide the leadership.

        • Armchair Critic 18.2.1.2
          18 September 2010 at 11:45 am

          Thanks Peter.
          The ACT party might not survive in its present form, but there will be a place for an ACT-type party in NZ politics.
          Previous incarnations of ACT had understandable positions and they tried to be consistent with them – much easier when you are not the government. Since at least 2008, and maybe since Rodney took the leadership, that consistency has been eroding. There’s a causative relationship there. For the good of ACT Rodney must go, though IMO (and I’m sure we will disagree on this point) for the good of NZ he should stay and drag National down with him.

          • gobsmacked 18.2.1.2.1
            18 September 2010 at 12:31 pm

            My strategy for ACT:

            1. Rodney announces that he will leave the ACT caucus, and party. He will serve out his time as independent Epsom MP (justified on grounds of by-election cost, near general election). Key could keep him on as a Minister if he wants, though a clean break would be better.

            He could make a statesmanlike speech, acknowledging personal failure, time to hand on the baton, etc. Captain Oates leaves the tent, for the sake of the team. Voters like self-sacrifice: the mood would change overnight.

            2. ACT would be entitled to stay in Parliament, as a caucus of four MPs. If anybody wants to retire (e.g. Douglas), they should go before the election, allowing new blood in off the list. Leader? Boscawen or Roy, I suppose.

            3. ACT (minus Rodney) would guarantee confidence and supply to Key. (Presumably Rodney would too).

            4. ACT would then have a year or so to rebuild, rebrand, etc. They would aim for 5%. Forget Epsom: let Rodney retire, and a new National candidate wins the seat in 2011.

            5. If Key wants to give New ACT a free run in an electorate, that should be considered. But no nods and winks (the voters HATE that). Just don’t put up a National candidate at all. Key can make the call.

            Would this work? Probably not. ACT would probably fall short of 5%. But it gives them a chance of success, as opposed to a guarantee of failure, which is what they have now.

            The essential point is: ACT are disliked, but Hide is loathed. To the general voters, he is the face of ACT, and until that changes, they’re doomed.

            (and for the record, I hope none of the above happens, and Rodney Hide drags John Key down to defeat. He’s doing his best!)

            • Rich 18.2.1.2.1.1
              18 September 2010 at 7:31 pm

              I’d hope that if National are still trying to game the system and get the corpse of ACT elected in 2011 by refusing to contest Epsom, that some principled right-of centre candidate runs as an independent in the seat. And that Labour and the Greens withdraw their candidates to give such a candidate a clear run.

            • Armchair Critic 18.2.1.2.1.2
              18 September 2010 at 8:29 pm

              My preference is for all of them to move to a hidden valley in the Rocky Mountains, protected by a giant hologram and powered by a magic engine the draws electricity out of the air. There they can make fully informed rational choices in relationships they enter into entirely voluntarily, and they can avoid having to take responsibility for anyone else.
              I’d like world peace and annual visits from Santa (for the kids) and the tooth fairy (for the youngest), but in lieu of that a world without ACT will suffice.

      • the sprout 18.2.2
        18 September 2010 at 12:41 pm

        Thanks for your contribution Peter

  19. Drakula 19
    19 September 2010 at 12:06 am

    May the whole of the ACT party go to the Rocky Mountains and join Ayn Rand and John Galt; whoever John Galt is.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.