Monday, April 18, 2005

Site Poll: Cresswell for Epsom?

I've been asked by the Libertarianz to stand in Epsom, and I haven't yet decided.

They make a good argument. Way back in 1996 in the first election in which Libertarianz ran, Lindsay Perigo stood in Epsom for Libz - however, as as the ACT candidate was well-nigh invisible that year everyone assumed he was it. That year, ACT got its best party vote in Epsom and Rodney Hide switched electorates to take on Epsom in 1999.

Epsom is a crucial electorate this year. The ACT candidate should be obvious even to the most myopic voter, and the heightened interest in the electorate promises a great platform.

On the other hand, if I stand in Epsom there's a good chance that I won't be writing here so frequently. Maybe that's a good thing?

I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter. What do you think I should do? I've added a poll down there on the sidebar to allow you to vote on the matter, and you can of course comment here.

35 Comments:

Anonymous Robin Thomsen said...

Do it PC! Give Hyde a run for his money.

4/18/2005 06:20:00 pm  
Anonymous ruth said...

No - no-one understands Libertarianism. They don't understand what freedom is. To stand and get just a few votes makes you look asshatted and does the cause no good IMNSHO.... There is no point in doing something if you can't be good at it and if you can't win.

4/18/2005 06:29:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Barry says:
While I have the utmost admiration for you PC, on balance it is more important for freedom that ACT remains in Parliament. Without ACT there is no pretence of a right-of-centre opposition.

4/18/2005 07:20:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

There is no way you can beat Rodney. He's very prominent.

4/18/2005 07:50:00 pm  
Anonymous lib at heart said...

Bad idea and I sincerely think that the attempt to attribute ACT's vote total to Perigo is invalid, Run against Helen where it might do some good. Why do Libz want to destroy the best small-l libertarians merely because they aren't part of the group? Sounds like an intentional strategy to try and reduce Hide's total and knock out the most libertarian MP we have. Libz are good at ripping things down but very poor at building anything in it's place.

4/18/2005 08:16:00 pm  
Anonymous lib at heart said...

Bad idea and I sincerely think that the attempt to attribute ACT's vote total to Perigo is invalid, Run against Helen where it might do some good. Why do Libz want to destroy the best small-l libertarians merely because they aren't part of the group? Sounds like an intentional strategy to try and reduce Hide's total and knock out the most libertarian MP we have. Libz are good at ripping things down but very poor at building anything in it's place.

4/18/2005 08:16:00 pm  
Anonymous Peter said...

Epsom needs rude men. I say run and ACT be damned

4/18/2005 08:20:00 pm  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Run! Definitely run! To those worrying about costing ACT votes ... so? ACT are at best a conservative party with Libertarian leanings.

Perhaps if they lose enough votes (or even the Electorate) to the Libertarianz, they might start to take their avowed principles of Liberty as seriously as their leader.

4/18/2005 09:07:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

Typical! The fucken losser Libz will piss around and waste votes against Rodney Hide! Morons! You deserve to wollow in shit, dickheads!

4/18/2005 10:26:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

You take on those closest to you and assist those who are your enemy!Come clean...you are insecure blowhards who hate the thought of anyone doing something outside of your circle for Liberty.Sad and a waste of time and effort...

4/18/2005 10:30:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Why the anger James?

4/18/2005 11:39:00 pm  
Blogger Idiot/Savant said...

I wonder how many of those reacting angrily to the thought of you running are also outraged by National's attitude that ACT takes their money and votes...?

As for your question, I think you should ignore the cap and focus on the real question: would it be entertaining...?

And OTOH, it would be a shame to see such a promising blog go quiet.

4/19/2005 12:21:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you get votes with Libz ideas, then other parties will be happy to steal the policies (which is a good thing). If you don't run, nobody can vote for you or Libz.

If it means that ACT spend a season in the wilderness sorting their ideas, well, that'd be no bad thing.

Obviously your call, it's a lot of time and hard work with few thanks. Could be a heck of a lot of fun too though!

Anthony

4/19/2005 03:24:00 am  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

You wouldn't be the same James with whom I've conversed in the past would you? The almost incoherent rage ('losser' indeed) and the hatred directed at the Libertarianz suggests you are.

4/19/2005 08:35:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fake principles I say. Once again the Libz will take $20,000 in stolen funds from the govt. to run a campaign. Without the govt. handout they'd raise almost nothing themselves. I've heard the bull that this is because the govt. doesn't let you spend your own money on radio and TV advertising. Right!!! Like you had your own money in sufficient quantities to spend anyway. And certainly you've never come anywhere close to raising $20,000 for a media campaign so in fact it's a handout. Sort of like having the Free Radical party at parliament where once again the taxpayers subsidised things (after all the cost of running the place isn't charged out for that sort of thing). But you'll come up with some excuse as to why you have one set of principles for yourselves and another for others. Just like your guru has one code of conduct for everyone except himself.

4/19/2005 10:57:00 am  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Ah look - another anonymous complainant :-) There seems to be a chronic shortage of balls amongst the respondents to this thread, Mr. C :-)

Firstly, w.r.t. to electoral funding - there's always an argument come election time about this.

The conclusion we reached (& which I support) is that the *only way* we can advertise electronically is to take the Electoral Commissions taxpayer funding. We'd pay for ourselves w/o a cent of taxpayers money *if we could*.

It's rather like emergency healthcare in NZ. The fact that the Government has nationalised emergency healthcare & pays for it with taxpayers money doesn't mean that I should decline an ambulance if I'm hit by a car.

Or are you hoping that the Libz kill ourselves off by boycotting *all* nationalised services?

You might have a point about the Free Rad bash. I'll have to find out more about it before commenting myself.

4/19/2005 11:08:00 am  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

By coincidence, this Libertarianz Press Release just appeared in my inbox: Libz say abolish state funding of party broadcasts.

4/19/2005 11:15:00 am  
Blogger Blair said...

I suspect a lot of people who would vote for you would never vote for Rodney anyway, so from that perspective, why not?

However, if say, ACT got 4.5% of the party vote on election day and lost Epsom by 100 votes, would you want the knowledge your candidacy was possibly the direct cause of a more authoritarian, statist parliament on your conscience?

Tsk, silly question. Let me rephrase. Would you have enough ammunition to stave off the lynch mob?

4/19/2005 11:31:00 am  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Blair, I see what you're saying - but that very fear is what the major parties are hoping you'll be subject to come the election, so you'll give your vote to one of the 'safe' parties.

If everyone thought & voted that way, nothing would ever change ...

4/19/2005 11:37:00 am  
Blogger Blair said...

Duncan if there were no 5% threshold and there wasn't already a fairly decent libertarian named Rodney Hide running in Epsom (yes he is a libertarian, don't give me that Randi Krishna elitist crap), I'd agree with you, but people with similar views shouldn't run against each other if it just ends up splitting the vote and letting someone else win. That would mean nothing changes anyway.

4/19/2005 12:28:00 pm  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Yes, Hide is a Libertarian. So is Peter Cresswell. *However* - whose *party* is Libertarian? Certainly not ACT, they've got quite a large proportion of Conservative MPs.

4/19/2005 01:01:00 pm  
Blogger Greg Stephens said...

The Labour candiate in Epson (yes there is one) is running on the line "National will remove school zoning, which will cause your house prices to drop by $25,000" (I take it Epson is in the Auckland Grammer zone).

4/19/2005 03:29:00 pm  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Holy crap!?!? Greg, have you got that in writing? That's absolutely scandalous.

4/19/2005 03:52:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Conservatism grounds libertarianism. It is a good thing. Libertarianism just by itself is too out there and unreal for most people. Even for myself. I toyed with the idea of pure libertarianism for a while.

4/19/2005 05:46:00 pm  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Lucyna, I don't understand your comment. What do you mean by 'grounds'? Conservatism and Libertarianism actually have very little in common; while Conservatives are generally liberal in an economic sense, they are not at all liberal in a social sense (e.g. prostitution, drugs, education).

4/19/2005 06:53:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Duncan, grounds = ties into reality, ie stops from floating away.

Dissecting leftism has a good blog entry on why he is a Libertarian Conservative (you have to scroll down until you find it.

4/19/2005 07:08:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

On one hand, you justify the reasons for running against Rodney, even if it means the difference between him winning.

"but that very fear is what the major parties are hoping"

Noble, purist thoughts.

On the other hand, you can see the pragmatism of taking the electoral funding handout or ambulance ride.

Grounded in reality.

If you can hold both those views, then I suggest again that you NOT run against Rodney and risk splitting the vote.

With MMP it seems the bigger parties are aware that the reality of the situation is to form a coalition.

Small steps are better than no steps. ACT is closer than anything else out there, and any success it claims will only help your cause later. Any failure will only provide new opportunities and lessons for later.

Give them a chance. It's more than National and Labour would do, and that's got to count for something.

4/19/2005 09:57:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I agree with Zen. And want to add that New Zealand is not yet ready for libertarianism. ACT is out there breaking ground. Don't shoot everyone in the foot now. Wait.

4/19/2005 10:02:00 pm  
Anonymous Mike Readman said...

Lucyna,

I thought better of you. Stating that a blog which doesn't allow comments has a good blog entry by somebody with a PHD who seems to have completely forgotten that the USA was a libertarian country for a long time is not what I expected from you.

4/20/2005 01:00:00 am  
Anonymous James said...

The reason Im pissed at the Libz is because of the stupid,ill thought out things they do that defy sense.They bag the very parties who could be allies over the smallest thing and end up alone.They have no policical nous and seem content to stay on their mountain top being holier than thou.I put a lot of effort into Libz and left(sort of) with a feeling of frustration at what could have been but never was.Many other ex Libs tell me similar stories ie:a small band of sycophants mooning over their Guru Perigo who thinks hes the second coming of Ayn Rand, chase off anyone who may have a different view on things.Silly infighting and banishment of the "Inpure".Sigh!....

4/20/2005 01:02:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stay anonymous people. Libz are vicious if they get you in their sites they will do whatever is necessary to destroy. They are particularly good at tearing into people but at promoting liberty they are crap. Libertarianism is a political philosophy but some treat it more like a religion with high priests and the like and you know what they do to heretics. Stay anonymous. Let them call it gutless if they want. And a run in Epsom has nothing to do with promoting liberty. It is part of the their desire to destroy ACT by taking out the most libertarian MP in parliament. They want him out because they don't control him not because he isn't libertarian. hell, he's more libertarian than most their members especially the large number who joined 3 years ago, never got involved but are still listed as members so they qualify for the campaign dole.

4/20/2005 03:00:00 am  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Mike, I'm sorry to have disappointed you. And no, he hasn't forgotten the US was a libertarian country. I still stand by what I said, it was really to point out that libertarianism and convervatism is not mutually exclusive. The mix of the two makes ACT stronger for it. And no, I'm not an ACT member.

4/20/2005 10:57:00 am  
Anonymous Mike Readman said...

Lucyna,

Here's a quote from John Ray:

"I think the USA could abolish its whole alphabet soup of government agencies (FDA, EPA, DEA etc) to great net advantage (for instance)."

He doesn't mention anything about the fact that they never used to have those agencies, as if they always have.

I think libertarianism and conservatism are mutually exclusive, John Ray is a good example. He's conservative, not liberatian.

I don't think there should be conservatism in ACT. It should get rid of Stephen Franks, I don't believe he almost became leader!What's their obsession with lawyers (Prebble was one too)?Haven't they heard any good lawyer jokes?

4/21/2005 02:21:00 am  
Anonymous michael fasher said...

by james logic the best thing the libs could do for freedom is just shut down and not contest the election. if your going to put the efort into contesting the election you might as well go all out to get as many votes as possible and to hell with any other contenders or "tactical voting"crap.you might piss a few peaple offbut then thats because your percieved as a serious threat
once that happenes the libertarian element in act will get it together against the conservitives
act need to see which side their bread is buttered

5/06/2005 09:33:00 pm  
Anonymous michael fasher said...

remember act were never a libertarian party from the beginning just a continuation of rogernomics.they screwed up right at the get go by never having any intention of promoting personal freedom.90 percent of the marketing is branding so who the hell would give a libertarian party a pathetic name like asosiation of consumers and tax payers.that sounds like some limp wristed consumers group.
classical liberalism is just an afterthought tacked on later....jesus christ what a lame name and branding
thats why the libertarianz need to replace act.act have been stereotyped by their history and lame branding among the non political punter not many young voters could get pasionate about a party called asosiation of consumers and taxpayers and act can never recover from

5/06/2005 10:24:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home