Okay, I'm an Epsom voter, and I know that a number of Epsom voters read this blog. I think most readers will be aware for whom I will be casting my Party Vote, but as far as the electorate vote is concerned I'm currently in the 'No Idea' camp.
For reasons pretty well canvassed at Not PC since I started this blog, all candidates look equally unsuitable, and I'm presently thinking of following the 'don't encourage them, don 't vote' option.
Feel free to use this space to eloquently and passionately try and persuade me and other Epsom readers otherwise. I promise not to bite, but you'll have to do better arguments than National's "Richard Worth... is a hard-working and dedicated local MP," which sounds awfully reminiscent of how Helen describes her ministers when she finds them with their foot in their mouth.
NB: Some arguments here on this thread already, but not nearly persuasive enough..
21 comments:
Check out the interview with Hide at http://www.thevoicebooth.com/podcasting/index.htm
He can at least talk libertarian.
He may sound libertarian (when he's not evading answering why nearly half of his MPs voted against Civil Unions) but his is the party that stands between the Libertarianz and those who should rightly vote for the party because they believe in its ideas but lack the courage of their convictions.
There's no room in parliament for the Libz and ACT at once. Get ACT out of parliament and hasten the day we get there.
Party Vote: Libz.
Electorate Vote: Worthless.
One other thing - if the Nats don't get there this election, the next three years will be a lot more socialism as opposed to a more slowly creeping socialism. There will be a backlash in three years time and with ACT out of parliament the Libz stand to do a lot better.
Voting for either the National or ACT candidate would be a pragmatic vote, as there isn't a principled candidate in Epsom.
So, vote for either Hide or Worth, whichever one is currently leading the Epsom polls by a significant margin. Either is better than Labour, and neither is a great choice.
And with this logic you guys are still wondering why everyone treats you as a joke...? With ACT in the beehive you already have a party thats closer to your ideal than any other.If you joined wholesale you could push it in a Libertarian direction very quickly and be in a far better position than you will every be otherwise.But from Andrews comments it appears you are more interested in power for yourselves then actually freeing NZ....sad.
I believe PC has to come to terms with the following: the possibility of a Labour/Greens coalition. What will that do for the principles you hold dear?
If you think these principles will be eroded in the next three years, it is time to think about what you can do.
Do you have the possiblity to do something such that less/no erosion will occur (or that things will improve)?
That can be done, IMO, by having as many right of centre MP's in parliament. In Epsom that is simply an electoral vote, because it will give you one more MP. Something Labour has figured out, so that's why they now call voters to vote for National.
So either you let yourprinciples erode the next three years (with an unsure gain for the Libertarianz three years after that, if the party has not been declared politically incorrect...) or you take a stand.
James,
I guess it comes down to whether or not you think there's a significant difference between National and ACT, and whether that difference outweighs the difference between National and Labour.
In short: it doesn't matter how many seats ACT has, what matters is that Labour *doesn't* have enough seats to govern, even in coalition. If that means voting for a National candidate in favour of an ACT candidate, so be it.
No, James. What's sad is that Act has always had the chance to truly stand for what it *says* it stands for: liberalism. But it's chosen not to. Me, I'm not remotely interested in 'power' as such. Act has to only fully implement liberal philosophy and I'd happily kiss politics good-bye altogether, & go back to growing my business full-time, (a much more satisfying activity!), leaving it to those who wish to be in Wgtn, like Rodney Hide.
As you yourself said in the Frontbencher the other day Peter "our ideas will get to parliament long before we do". On that basis, it is in your interests to use your vote to ensure the bearers of those ideas do indeed get there.
I can't believe that there are people in the Libertarianz who take the Shining Path approach to politics and assume three more years of Labour will be "better for the movement". What bullshit. Governments measure success by shifting the centre ground and making the marginal mainstream, which is precisely why Clark and Cullen have not fucked with Roger Douglas's reforms. But in three more years, will any government dare mess with Welfare for Families? If there is slim hope now, there will be even less later on. The reality is that libertarian ideas are not going to permeate government in a sudden flash, but gradually over time, and you should vote for people who are prepared to at least endorse some of them. That is how you shift the goalposts of public debate.
And the fact that Master Bates sees ACT as competition for the Libertarianz vote indicates the degree to which ACT can advocate libertarian ideas successfully - so successfully that it keeps the Libz out of parliament! (aww poor bubba!) He suggests voting for a doddery old Tory to snuff out that advocacy with no guarantee that the Libertarianz would then take their place. Well there's principles for you!
I'd just vote for the person who is closest to your own point of view. (Hint: It's not Keith Locke)
Regardless of tactical voting, I am doing the party vote only. I will not give my vote to a candidate who wishes to infringe on freedom. Even if it means I miss a chance to eject an even worse candidate.
To Thyn own self be true and bugger the consequences.
act going under will be good for freedom in both the short and long term.
ACT only potentialy take votes from National or Libertarianz.Some libertarians use act as some sort of crutch.
In this election National needs to collapse ACTs vote to win the elction.If National cuts them any slack ACT may get upwards of five percent by collapsing ACT suporters conferdence ACT gets wiped out and National gets more votes then Labour and wins by bringing over winston first
Three years later ACT are out of the picture giving the libs a shot.
The great potential of the Libertarianz is that unlike ACT is that the libs can potentialy atract voters from the left of the political spectrum since the libs in reality are neither left nor right. If the libs got in theres the potential also to get the idealistic youth vote which at the moment is hoged by the greens.
Hells bells Po, do you have the same selection criteria for what toilet seats you utilise? That would explain why you're so full of short sighted notions.
I like your Shakespeare, but surely you don't expect to wait until Snow White runs for Epsom?
Before liberty can strike it needs to be within striking distance. Better to have an ACT party in parliament than extra Nats in their place. If Nats and Winstonaughts, better to have ACT in with that mix! ACT, and even Brash, are adolescents of freedom and deserve all the encouragment and 'guidence' we fully grown libertarians can spare them.
If you've got a spare vote, give it to Rodney. Show your liberty vote to the stats, it's a market signal. One Hide on a bench is Worth too by this plan.
Libz....I was with you once! PC...I stood beside you in red square in Tauranga fighting the good fight in red square in 1999?..remember?.but it comes down to reality and facts and Libz have forgotten those in favour of lust for power!...ACT going under will set liberty back miles and you will feel it!!!Better to be on the inside than impotent on the outside....?
Any "lust for power" the Libertarianz have is sorely unrequited.
Some of us who vote for act do so because of the economic policies. If act weren't around national who be getting my vote. I would not be giving it to the libertarians. So act is definitely my first choice while national is a sorry second. Libertarians will never get into government.
I was hoping someone could come up with something new to persuade me, but for the most part all I'm hearing here is the same old arguments warmed over.
Blair's are the most thoughtful:
"As you yourself said in the Frontbencher the other day Peter "our ideas will get to parliament long before we do". On that basis, it is in your interests to use your vote to ensure the bearers of those ideas do indeed get there."
But sadly, ACT MPs do not 'bear those ideas.'
"The reality is that libertarian ideas are not going to permeate government in a sudden flash, but gradually over time."
Exactly right. Which means there are ~no~ shortcuts top getting those ideas into parliament in their most virulent form. And they've been getting there despite ACT, and will continue to.
The most important thing to realise is that it is a marathon, not a sprint. Attempted shortcuts can sometimes make it more difficult.
"...you should vote for people who are prepared to at least endorse some of them. That is how you shift the goalposts of public debate."
You shift the goalposts by presenting and following strong, principled cogent arguments for your position, and inviting others to share them; and also to recognise that if well-argued and well-presented your own 'set of goalposts' would not otherwise exist without your advocacy, and your advocacy itself helps to shift the game in your direction. As ten years of ACT advocacy has shown, you do not either move people in your direction or acquire a firm constituency for your views by selling out on those views, by keeping silent about them, or by spending time and energy ignoring them and going for mudslinging and scandal-mongering instead. If that's the approach, then every argument here is moot anyway.
"And the fact that Master Bates sees ACT as competition for the Libertarianz vote indicates the degree to which ACT can advocate libertarian ideas successfully..."
No, it indicates the degree to which otherwise-honest libertarians are seduced by proximity to power, as if that proximity will of itself produce any gains for liberty. It hasn't.
"Better to have an ACT party in parliament than extra Nats in their place."
Why? How are the Nats MPs substantially different?
"I'd just vote for the person who is closest to your own point of view."
Why not abstain?
**********************************
Andrew said:: "There's no room in parliament for the Libz and ACT at once. Get ACT out of parliament and hasten the day we get there. Party Vote: Libz. Electorate Vote: Worthless."
I agree with that analysis, but I don't think I can bring myself to do it. :-/
*************************************************
James said: "...from Andrew's comments it appears you are more interested in power for yourselves then actually freeing NZ."
You've got to be kidding. Sus's reply is right on the money.
"What's sad is that Act has always had the chance to truly stand for what it *says* it stands for: liberalism. But it's chosen not to. Me, I'm not remotely interested in 'power' as such. Act has to only fully implement liberal philosophy and I'd happily kiss politics good-bye altogether, & go back to growing my business full-time, (a much more satisfying activity!), leaving it to those who wish to be in Wgtn, like Rodney Hide."
*************************************************
Berend said, "[Non-erosion of my principles will be achieve], IMO, by having as many right of centre MP's in parliament."
But my principles are not right of centre, and having more right of centre MPs will be no more use to me than they were when they were last there on the Ninth Floor.
*******************************************
James said:"Better to be on the inside than impotent on the outside....?"
Does that mean then that you will be joining National in the coming weeks, James? Because that is what your argument is shortly going to mean for ~you~. Or might you then realise that 'being inside' can often leave you more impotent than being an advocate from without, and without all the dirt--as Deborah Coddington has found to her cost.
You might realise too that long-term cultural change is more important than short-term political headlines, and that principled advocacy is more important than photo opportunities.
************************************************
I said: "There's no room in parliament for the Libz and ACT at once. Get ACT out of parliament and hasten the day we get there. Party Vote: Libz. Electorate Vote: Worthless."
PC replied: "I agree with that analysis, but I don't think I can bring myself to do it. :-/"
I say: "Harden up, Francisco."
And great response to James (and you to Sus) and to Blair. Not only is ACT made up of otherwise honest libertarians but it also has conservatives like anonymous (who should go back to National) and thugs like Blair who threatened to whack me when I teased him the other night about something in Molesworth Mole a few TFRs back.
I don't think anybody's ever called me a thug before. I'm so proud!
Hmmmm, if this poll is any better than the last ACT poll, it might be better to give your electorate vote to Hide than Worth:
Roy Morgan poll puts Hide ahead
Cathy, PC isn't interested in Rodney or Worth. They're the same for him. And if he can keep more of his own money in the next government by giving his vote for Rodney doesn't concern him either. Despite him claiming that the Libz would vote in every direction that guaranteed more freedom.
1) " Despite him claiming that the Libz would vote in every direction that guaranteed more freedom."
That's more freedom, with no new coercion. Funny how you keep forgetting the coercion, Berend. :-)
2) There's an irony there in Andrew calling you a thing, Blair. :-)
2) Who the fuck is Bill Goldberg?
Post a Comment