Tuesday, 10 July 2007

LOST: ACT's mojo?

Everyone from Roger Douglas to the Herald to Colin Espiner to David Farrar to Whale Oil suggests ACT has lost their mojo and doesn't know where to find it. (Others of us are unsure whether they ever had one.)

"I seem to remember," says Whale Oil, who thinks ACT's mojo can be found out where Pink Tories don't go, "all the ACToids screaming bloody murder when National created some room for ACT on the right even describing them as Labour-Lite and Smurf's, but then absolute silence about Rodney's master strategy of rebranding ACT, leapfrogging over National to jump in between them and Labour."

ACT vice president Trevor Loudon puts the case for ACT's softcock approach. It's a "long term" strategy, he says.


  1. Said it once and will say it again.

    Act should be supporting any party on a policy by policy basis.

    If the policy increases freedom, support it, if it decreases freedom oppose it.

    Act should be able to work with anyone, but by the same token - they don't owe anyone (Especially the pink tories) anything.

    So act should be able to work with Nats on say reducing tax and complaince costs, greens on drug reform, labour on some socially liberal stuff, UF on toupees etc.

    And its better that ACT can have some influence on policy, rather than just being able to criticise it.

    Its better if for instance if they can't stop bad policy due to numbers, that they can at least mitigate its damage etc.

    ACT shouldn't loose sight of the end goal however.

    ACT has gone from a party of 10, with a decent percentage of votes who achieved sweet fuck all in 10 years, to a party of 2, who almost passed a bill capping rates, has a bill going to select committee that is going to seriously limit regulatory interferenance, another bill in the pipeline for voluntary student unionism etc.

    All the criticisms so far seem to be tribal in nature, where people don't wnat to work with labour regardless of the outcome.

    I say who gives a shit who act work with, as long as the outcome is true to classical liberal/libertarian principles.

    Its also interesting to see most of the criticism comes from the conservatives, how have buggered off to national anyway - and would hardly feel comfortable with what the readers of not pc have to say anyway.

    Me, I don't care who act works with - as long as bad policy which reduces my freedoms is decreased, and good policy which increases it is passed.

  2. Well said Mike....and Libz have also been known to buddy up with some less than freedom loving party's on various issues at times...

    Destiny on the smacking...Greens on some drug issues....etc...Issue by issue is what ACT should be doing as long as they stay true to its liberal principles and try to get the best outcome for freedom....its imperfect but the best option that reality has on offer.

  3. MikeE : who act works with - as long as bad policy which reduces my freedoms is decreased, and good policy which increases it is passed.

    Very true.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.