My question for ACT's libertarians still applies: if ACT can't support the five measures I suggest, why support the party anyway? What's its raison d'ĂȘtre anymore?
PS: Isn't it time for Dick Prebble to realise he's a retired MP now? How about he shut the fuck up with the incessant post-election commenting and just shuffle off the stage gracefully. Or has he found now he's stepped down that he just can't bear to leave the limelight behind?
Categories: ACT, National, NZ_Politics
2 comments:
It's very simple:
ACT fulfills two requirements more consistently than National or Libertarianz.
1) We are in Parliament and we influence New zealand in a non trivial way. The Libertarianz can't claim this.
2) We have a set of principles that we are prepared to stick by even though we know our appeal will never reach beyond 10-15% of voters. National have shown throughout history they'll adopt positions from across the political spectrum in order to garner support.
Hence ACT has a reason to exist and it does. Further, supporting ACT is a better proposition for advancing freedom than either of the other two.
David said: 'We have a set of principles that we are prepared to stick by ..'
No you don't. You call yourself the Liberal Party, when in truth you're the Sometimes-Liberal Party.
Until the day ACT comes to its senses and realises that, I, in order to remain principled, have no choice but to remain a card-carrying member of Libertarianz.
'The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away - for expedients'. Edmund Burke, 1899.
Post a Comment