Third-placed Epsom candidate Rodney Hide was door-knocking around the electorate yesterday with The Herald in tow. "I'm on 1 per cent in the polls - nothing can bother me," he says. He may not be bothered, but I noted yesterday he was delusional; today's report suggests he is also economical with the truth: Responding to questions from one group of clients, he says of "the Resource Management Act which 'bugs' their clients, 'we won't just review it, we'll throw it out the window!'"Um, honesty alert Rodney: That's not your party policy. Your environment policy promises only "substantial changes" to the RMA, not a stake through the heart. Sadly, there's only one party at this election promising a stake through the heart of the RMA, and it's not ACT.
Surely honesty is the best policy, Rodney.
13 comments:
We've had this discussion before, and if the effect is you keep the name, but cut the heart, what's the issue with you PC?
I know you don't like ACT. Let that not blind you for the facts.
One would have thought that you'd be supportive of Rodney and ACT?
Better to have some Liberal ACT MPs than none at all isn't it?
PC, you've been calling for the ACT Party to state unequivocably that it would dump the RMA for ages. Now that Rodney has made that promise you accuse him of lying. Grow up.
Blair, you said, "PC, you've been calling for the ACT Party to state unequivocally that it would dump the RMA for ages. Now that Rodney has made that promise you accuse him of lying."
As I've said many time before Blair, when you're dealing with politicians it's the clear, unequivocal promises that matter. If Rodney says "out the window" and the policy says "substantial changes" then what would you call his promise?
As I've also said many times before, when I see on ACT's policy page that they're promising to abolish the RMA -- with the 'a' word or a synonym thereof used -- then I will be the first to celebrate.
I've waited ten years to see them say even as much as they now do. I can wait until it's clear, open and public, and it there for all to see on the policy page. There's about eight weeks to go until I can stop waiting.
Berend, you said, "if the effect is you keep the name, but cut the heart, what's the issue with you PC?"
As we have no clear idea what form the proposed "substantial changes" will take -- the website suggests "ACT has a separate RMA Policy that details these changes" but that specific RMA Policy doesn't at present seem to exist -- then how can we know? And if you plan to drive a stake through the heart, then why not say so, and why not make a song and dance about it. Given that I've seen ten years of equivocation from ACT over this issue, as with everything else, why should this election be any different?
Anon, you said, "Better to have some Liberal ACT MPs than none at all isn't it?"
Short answer: no. Long answer: see my posts below on the ACT Party to explain why.
PC,
hmmm ok yea looked below, basically you claim ACT are not libertarian bla bla bla.
Still, I don't know about you but I'd rather have people like Deborah Coddington and Rodney Hide in my Parliament than Keith Locke and Rod Donald.
Is the reason you want ACT gone actually because you just want their votes?
Let's face it, Libz (unfortunately) don't have a chance; ACT does. Surely we should be doing everything we can to ensure they get back in to at least have a (partial) libertarian voice in parliament?
Anon, you said, "I'd rather have people like Deborah Coddington and Rodney Hide in my Parliament than Keith Locke and Rod Donald."
But they're no good being there if a) they don't understand liberty, and b) when they speak they say less than they know and not as much as they mean, and c) promote scandal-mongering rather than liberty, and d) don't use the platform they've got to promote the ideas of liberty but instead use it for petty-politicking, headline-hunting and bickering.
Basically, no politician in a minor party can achieve anything much beyond promoting the ideas that underpin their policies. Since ACT MPs haven't bothered to be consistent in their policies, nor to understand themselves their own stated party principles -- nor to promote the ideas behind those principles -- their being there has achieved little if anything, and has served instead to give false hope to those who've thought that just having them there does a good job. They've had their chance, and they've essentially done nothing with it. Frankly, Deborah as journalist was more effective than Deborah as MP -- as she's conceded herself -- and that will likely be so again.
So you want to see them out of Parliament?
Surely any party that abolishes the RMA will simply replace it with some other legislation that achieves the same intent. As much as individual landowners have their rights, surely they also have the right to be protected from their neighbour doing something obnoxious.
All these Anonymites. I feel sure that some at least are taking ACT's shilling. Anyone like to deny that? :-)
Anyway, one of the Anons asks, "Surely any party that abolishes the RMA will simply replace it with some other legislation that achieves the same intent."
Good question. Libertarianz are the only party pledging to abolish the RMA, and Libz pledge to replace it with common law, which has the intent of protecting the environment whiel protecting property rights, something which the common law has over seven-hundred years of success and sophistication in so doing. Libz arguments here and below.
It is from the principle - that property owners should be free to peacefully enjoy their property providing they recognise the same right in others - that the body of Common law derives.
Private property rights enshrined in law provide the best protection for both property owners and the environment. Private property sets up mirrors, in which the consequences of our behaviour is reflected back; it sets up tradable rights and easements which neighbours and others may exchange to their mutual benefits.
That Common Law experienced nearly eight centuries of success in protecting property owners and the environment - before being buried by busybody planning legislation beginning early this century - is ignored by academics, environmentalists and politicians alike, in some cases deliberately. But they ignore a long history of success.
Common Law offers the only way to truly de-politicise the environment, to protect desirable environmental values without the need for constant political agitation - to remove political meddling from property rights issues forever."As much as individual landowners have their rights, surely they also have the right to be protected from their neighbour doing something obnoxious."
Indeed, which is precisely what the common law rules of nuisance and trespass have long protected against. As I say here, common law was always "property-based, and was focussed on specific harm or damages – it focussed on determining the rights in a property, and on finding remedies to damage caused by specific nuisance or trespass.
Common law held that those who had rights in property were entitled to the quiet enjoyment of that property; that a man’s land and his house were his castle, and that protecting it from harm was his right."
Elizabeth Brubaker's online book 'Property Rights in the Defence of Nature' offers more detail on the sophisticated environmental protections afforded by common law.
And Libz will do what...? Talk about bollocks and achieve bugger all? Typical.
Another anonymite asked, "And Libz will do what...?"
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it's about ideas, stupid.
What has ACT achieved in that field? What will be their legacy? As you say, bugger all.
I am not on the ACT payroll nor am I a member.
My question was:
So you want to see them out of Parliament?
"So you want to see them out of Parliament?"
Uh, I thought that was obvious, for reasons well-stated above.
Post a Comment