(NZ Politics) Was Salute to Lindsay Mitchell - now, Bloody ACT

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Wed, 2008-03-12 00:56

I know, an unusual heading for a post in here, but I've been reading Lindsay's (ACT) blog for a long time, and agree with her on probably 90% of content. And because of that, I reckon she must be feeling pretty betrayed by ACT today.

My post to her blog over lunch, (her entry was to slam the Speaker's Tour junket):

"Lindsay, I love your blog, and have a huge amount of respect for you, but if you want to know why I won't be voting ACT anymore, then yet another reason has been printed in The Press this morning, quote:

"ACT leader Rodney Hide, who joined a taxpayer-funded jaunt to South America, said such trips were all about building relationship overseas."

From your own post here, I know we both see that for the BS it is. You are right, Rodney is way out of order.

You say on another post below that you want to be thought of as a liberal, not right wing, well, assuming you're talking classic liberal, then you're in the wrong party, you should be looking at Libertarianz: that's the party with my vote from this election on. I've had a gutsful of all the non-Left parties, including ACT, and am voting on principle from this point on."


( categories: )

Peron

gregster's picture

I bought "The God of the Machine" from his bookshop in Upper Symonds Street, $49.

He had many good books on show, (obviously I wasn't led out the rear to the top shelf).

Because of the selection I remember asking him if he stocked "The Free Radical" and if he was a friend with Lindsay Perigo. He replied no to both and I thought that was odd.

Then came the Rodney Hide debacle and later Banks got on the radio describing Peron's Akld "adult bookshop" which really was only adult when compared with Banks' usual fare.

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest91.htm
Sir Roger Douglas
29 March 08
“Kids – it’s time to come home”

Gotta laugh!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I went to Lindsay Mitchell's blog to see what you were talking about, Mark, and saw this:

Principled!!! Was it principled to have the Libz host their worshipped leader's birthday using parliament? They could have hosted it at one of his favorite bars. But they got his acolyte Deborah Coddington to get them a room in parliament which inevitably means taxpayer funds went to support Perigo's birthday party. I assume they didn't pay for the wine -- there was a budget surplus that year. The reality is that not even other libertarians think highly of NZ's weird personality cult.

Needless to say this was posted anonymously by one of the Namblaphiles. It should get its facts straight. The occasion was the FreeRad's birthday (10th) not mine. Hahahaha! And there was no taxpayer money involved. MPs are able to book a room but they and/or the organisation concerned are responsible for all expenses.

Naturally there were many Libz there. In my speech I looked around and said, "And who said Libertarianz would never get into Parliament?" But it wasn't a Libz function as such. National's then-leader Don Brash was guest speaker and lotsa MPs from all parties attended ... but a good time was had by all nonetheless.

You'd think the event might occasion fond recollections rather than smears from purported liberty-lovers, but smearing is the specialty of the axis of evil that is posting anonymously at Mitchell's shrine to compulsion-touting.

Yes, now this Jim Peron has entered the thread

Mark Hubbard's picture

I don't know of this man, but you mentioned him Linz, now he appeared on this blog thread.

 

Anyway, my latest post to Lindsay's Mitchell's blog:

 

 The below thread is written by Mark Hubbard. Note how I'm prepared to put my name to my thoughts - it's called being honourable.

This thread is unbelievable. 'Cliques' - you won't vote for the only party promoting freedom of the individual because you felt left out at a conference! It's a political party, not a tea party.

And all the people here supporting Jim Peron. I don't know him, but a single Google search this morning has brought up the following amongst what looks like a slew of paedophilic references:

http://www.qna.net.nz/news/469...

https://www.blogger.com/commen...

So if the Libz were responsible for getting him away from NZ's youngsters, they go up in my estimation, and Hide's support, and yours Lindsay, just rockets ACT down. What's the basis of ACT's support of this man then?

As I said, unbelievable.

Mark Hubbard

Just got myself out of bed

Mark Hubbard's picture

Just got myself out of bed and down to my computer/radio with breakfast at 9.08am in time to listen to Nandor. Don't think so.

Going to email Live and see if they can put the Douglas interview up as a podcast.

Hope the show went well.

"All self-respecting SOLOists should, of course be asleep..."

Marcus's picture

Even those living on the other-side of the world at 7pm in the evening? Smiling

Rog and Linz

Lindsay Perigo's picture

For those with the fortitude to be alert at 6.40 am tomorrow, Good Friday, I'll be interviewing Sir Roger Douglas at that time during Radio Live Breakfast, 6-9 am. All self-respecting SOLOists should, of course be asleep, since only shallow people are brilliant at breakfast, as someone famous once observed, but special dispensation will be granted on this occasion.

And ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Rodney wants National to commit to putting Roger in cabinet. Key says: "I'm not going to go and run a government that slashes benefits and privatises off all the assets that the state continues to own; I'm not going to run a radical agenda." Rodney says he wants nothing more radical than "caps" on taxes and spending.

Time was when blokes flashed their members to see who had the biggest. These guys are competing to see who has the limpest.

All good for Libz.

Hmmmm...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I just checked Eli's blog myself. There's a bit more that my little birdie didn't send me:

___________________________________________________________

*sigh*

The only positive to come out of it is this should see a flood of people away from National to ACT.
I would now be prepared to wager $1000 the ACT party gets 130,000 votes in October.

___________________________________________________________

In other words, Eli himself doesn't think Roger's return is a good thing (though one can never be certain with someone whose #1 hero is Richard Nixon!), just that it's screwed Libz.

I think the opposite. One great thing about Sir Roger, as I argued recently, is that he's a conviction politician. But his convictions are not libertarian. If anything, Roger's return opens things up even more for Libz. Rodney's born-again soft-cockery and Roger's compulsionism mean the chasm between Libz and ACT is greater than ever. We are unique.

And no way will ACT get 130,000 votes. They'll be lucky to get 30,000.

Typo!

Mark Hubbard's picture

I can't go back and correct the damned thing now.

'founded'

 

What really hurts is I edited that post so many times, I must have just about edited every word around it. 

(of a ship, boat, etc.) to fill with water and sink

Richard Goode's picture

Because it's a party foundered on philosophy first.

Is that a sly dig at Objectivism? Or just a typo? 

Addendum to my last post

Mark Hubbard's picture

... Elijah is also saying that the advent of a single man has miraculously transformed ACT and given it credibility - WTF!. Well, take just one man away again and you have .... wrong. Same damned unprincipled thing. Whereas, take any member of the Libertarianz party away, and I could still tell you what Libz stance on almost any topic would be. Because it's a party foundered on philosophy first.

Douglas going back to ACT does not make it a party, only a one man band. Philosophically bankrupt would be two words that fit very well: to ACT and Elijah (in every way).

Also, any one man band is a tyranny in waiting *. Libz is the only party that can be voted for if indivdual freedom is the desire.

 

(* Qualification: unless that man were Ayn.) 

But if this spells the end

Mark Hubbard's picture

But if this spells the end of his support for Libz I for one won't be downcast.

I certainly wouldn't be downcast: Elijah had no Objectivist/Freedom based philosophy, of course he would vote whichever way he thought the dollar might be blowing his way.  

Those of us who vote Libz will be doing so on a philosophical basis, and we will be, before all else, lovers of individual freedom, a much wider set of concerns than just economic - the ACT party wouldn't know a freedom if Rodney dropped one on its head.

Interesting ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Former poster here Mr. Lineberry has apparently posted this on his blog:

___________________________

Sir Roger Douglas is back.

He is going to be (curiously enough for the first time) an ACT candidate and, alas, lends a 1,000,000% increase in credibility to that party and in the process has ended the election for the Libz.

The four things I never thought would happen, and which were required not to happen for Libz success, have all happened in 3 days!

1. ACT unity.
2. ACT credibility.
3. A focus on free market economic issues to the 200,000 voters in the relevant demographic.
4. The ability of Sir Roger to raise $1 million by the end of the week whilst standing on his ear...(so to speak)

________________________________

I couldn't disagree more with Eli's analysis. But if this spells the end of his support for Libz I for one won't be downcast.

As for $1 million in a week—that'll be Alan Gibbs, Hayekian, who would have instructed Rodney to woo Roger back in the first place.

Oh.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Oh.

 

Tell you what though, an ACT party conference for the weekend - even for me that would not constitute a good time Eye

At least the Greens have uncoordinated folk dancing.

And dope.

No.

Olivia's picture

I'm not a member of any political party.

You asked the question if there was any talk of limited government at that conference. The simple answer is yes, there was.

Um, Olivia, are you

Mark Hubbard's picture

Um, Olivia, are you ACT?

The problem with this is it goes nowhere far enough, and they still tout compulsion on the basis of tyranny of the majority. I mean referendum on do we want more taxes? So if over half the country gain by the tax they steal from me, for example the beneficiary sector,  they can legitimise the further plundering of my wallet. ACT will further erode my freedoms.

I don't want 'ordinary Kiwis in the box seat' - they're fools by and large. I just want them and the State out of my life. 

 

Mark...

Olivia's picture

Did anything come out of the ACT conference, or from Douglas's mouth to say you're going to reduce the size of the State?

I'll answer that since I was there.

"This leads me back to the referendum on smaller government. ACT has always said that less government is good government. I see the role of government as being only a limited range of core functions. Imagine a government of eight Ministers responsible for the eight core roles of State, plus a Prime Minister and Deputy forming a 10 percent management component of a Parliament of 100. Workload could easily be covered by better use of the Under-Secretary role, rather than the current practice of distributing largesse via meaningless and fragmented portfolios in and outside of Cabinet." [Speech from Heather Roy - Act MP]

Rodney Hide also spoke of directional changes within government:-

To boost productivity, we need to cut taxes and slash mindless red-tape. How do you get taxes down? By getting government spending under control. Government spending has spiralled out of control under Labour. The harder we work, the more Michael Cullen gets. And the more he wastes.

We need tougher and smarter budgeting in government. Politicians should have to budget just like the rest of us. We need taxpayers to have a say about how their money gets spent.

That's what ACT's Taxpayer Rights Bill does. It puts taxpayers in the driver's seat. Tax hikes would be subject to winning a referendum. It's taxpayers' money after all. It's only right that politicians should ask their consent before taking even more money from them.

The Taxpayer Rights Bill would cap taxes and force politicians to live within existing spending limits. No budgets would be cut, but nor would they mindlessly expand. Total government spending would be capped in real terms.

The impact of this would be huge. If we'd just held government spending to where it was in 1999, it would now be $9 billion a year less. And what does that $9 billion mean?
It means every New Zealander and every New Zealand company would be paying no more than 20 percent in tax. 20 percent, tops. Many would be paying less.

ACT will cap taxes, cap politicians and cap government spending. We'll put government spending under the blowtorch, set proper priorities, and make disciplined decisions to benefit the whole country.

We'll also rein in the red tape. That's what ACT's Regulatory Responsibility Bill will do – a bill now before the Commerce Committee.

For the last nine years, our parliament and our government have taken to passing outrageous and intrusive laws and regulations at the drop of a hat. They do this without good reason, for no good purpose, and without regard for consequence.

They ride roughshod over New Zealanders' basic rights.

ACT's bill reasserts our rights. It sets out clear criteria for judging new and existing law. It puts ordinary Kiwis in the box seat when new laws are being considered.
A bonfire of red-tape. Lower taxes. Better government spending habits. These are vital for our future prosperity.

My further post to

Mark Hubbard's picture

My further post to Lindsay's ACT blog. I think the context can be gleaned from my post without further explication.

 

 "As a Libertarian, I believe in a very small State (we're not anarchists, Lindsay, or at least this one is not). That is, a police force and army to protect the individual from the initiation of force, plus a criminal and civil (to enforce contract) legal system, the first to protect against the initiation of force, again, the second to allow the operation of a laissez-faire capitalist system.

And that's it. The smallest state possible. ACT would still crush the individual under compulsion, and run the currently huge state mechanism that would continue to do likewise. Did anything come out of the ACT conference, or from Douglas's mouth to say you're going to reduce the size of the State? NO! Like the socialist Key, you're still talking about merely curtailing it at the level it is now.

Appalling. There will be no state of personal freedom found in NZ under ACT. Our lives will continue to be used and abused by second handers."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.