Attacking the messenger doesn’t alter the message
Um, can someone tell me why it’s so important to know who leaked that 82-page memo last week confirming how far ACT has strayed from being a party of ideas, rather than addressing what is in it, i.e.,
- that ACT’s caucus has discarded the realm of ideas altogether, and now fights people instead;
- that unless ACT urgently tries to expand the market for its ideas, something at which it has signally failed, it will remain reliant on National’s favour in the seat of Epsom;
- that National Party polling in Epsom suggests Hide has only a “tenuous” hold on it, yet, (almost unbelievably given its reliance on the seat for its very existence), no ACT polling has been done to determine the truth of that;
- that the thuggish David Garrett appears to run the caucus;
- that secure documents in Act’s offices are just the opposite;
- that Act is a dysfunctional party run by an ego made fatter by ministerial office, in denial about its imminent oblivion.
The document itself argues “Act sees [politics] as primitive combat, with a need to destroy a colleague's reputation” rather than address the real issues, and it offers ample evidence to back up the claim.
The reaction to the document’s release tends to just further confirms the thesis, wouldn’t you say?