OPINION: ACT's future
You could reach several times around the world with nonsensical column inches written over the years about the impending demise of ACT.
Many supposed political “experts” had numerous self-absorbed reasons for planting the spin.
Dr Brash went one step further than just talking about it and led ACT to a record thumping. A 1% list vote and barely scraping through in Epsom in a tactically contrived win where Don and John managed to almost grab defeat from the jaws of victory.
Over the election weekend, I immersed myself around hundreds of so called “experts”. I wish in hindsight I had not. All gave unsolicited advice and generally bored me into drunken submission.
When I saw the ridiculous sight of a Young Nat loudly giving advice to a worthy Labour leadership contender, I had just about had enough. As I am sure had he after months of such sideline commentary.
I realised I wasn’t really quite that interested in politics. I perhaps had grown up to see just how horrible it is and politics was sitting in priority in my life by Sunday evening with watching lawn bowls.
Brash mocked, ACT ignored
There are all manner of faux excuses for ACT’s performance; poor media coverage being just one of those rolled out.
I will make it a whole lot simpler – the voters mocked Don Brash and with it ignored ACT.
It wasn’t the usual hate.
Having the public hate you in politics is a health and safety matter.
Having your own core voters think the Leader is a dithering fool and with it ignore the Party as relevant is terminal.
ACT has ground itself down with obsessive branding labels such as libertarian, classical liberal and conservatives.
The over-indulgence has caused me confusion such that right now even I have no idea what faction I belong to.
Should have polled 3%
Other than political junkies, no one ponders these points. Voters are far simpler than that. This election more than any they voted on the front person of the Party. And ours was somewhere in the popularity region between a parking warden and a receiver.
ACT should be able to poll at least 3% when National is doing well and slightly higher when it is not.
For example I spoke with many well-earning stereotypical ACT voters who voted Green.
They did so as they wanted to give National a wake-up call but thought at some stage the Greens would do a deal with National because they had not ruled it out.
Last man standing
John Banks remains as the last man standing after one of the most disasterous coups in New Zealand politics.
A poorly executed coup without an army.
A coup where short-sighted ACT MP’s Douglas, Roy and Calvert anointed Dr Brash but in turn the only reinforcements he dragged with him to run the Party were Lindsay Perigo and John Banks.
Dr Brash turned out to be the old duffer most of us all feared.
As the sole survivor, John Banks has to step up now and make amends.
These people are the future
Banks has a duty to change his politics to defend ACT core values and principles and promote a good portion of the quality candidates that were on the list with him such as the likes of Seymour, Simmons, Nicolson and Isaac.
These people are the future of ACT in whatever form its members choose to take it and with it a whole host of younger more energetic players many of whom helped Banks.
Conservative Party link-up terminal
A John Banks link-up with the Conservative Party would be terminal for ACT and with it ruin the Conservative Party.
ACT must remain separate so John Key and National can do a seat deal with them similar to Epsom encompassing the religious right and social conservatives.
This is smart politics for the centre-right.
Under MMP, even the most popular prime minister could only barely scrape a majority, which proves how hard it will be for the centre-right next time if we don’t work intelligently as a collective to structure coalition partners for National on a more coherent and friendly basis.
Sprinkle that salt over Patrick Gower
In the meantime, I want to hear less from so called political analysts and experts.
There are very few real insiders in politics.
Sitting behind a computer and a pseudonym, wheeling out former this and thats or dressing kiddies in suits parading as political repeaters and interviewing oldies whom had chairs thrown at them by Muldoon, does not an insider make.
Take all commentary on blogs and in the mainstream media with a grain of salt. Sprinkle that salt over Patrick Gower and place him in a clay pot would you?
In business media we don’t allow the unemployed to commentate.
Everyone seems to think they are qualified however to be a credible commentator on politics.
Listen to the MPs themselves and more importantly see what they are doing. Then make up your own mind.
Politics isn’t that hard.
The most popular person and party win.
Which is why Don Brash and ACT did not.
Cathy Odgers is a lawyer and ACT member since 1995. She blogs as Cactus Kate.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions47
Act will rebuild and come back to where it was. All they need to is get back to the beginning principles, which are nothing like the Conservative's ideals.
I have previously supported ACT because of its principles, most of which are on the ACT website. By my standards these principles are still wishy woshy, and not basic enough to be “core principles”. Still, the ACT party seemed to be closer to ultimately core principles than any other party.
The difference between a statesman and a politician is that a politician looks as far ahead to the next election (e.g. Winston) and a statesman looks ahead to the next generation and every one of his/her viewpoints, decisions and actions align to his/her stated core principles.
If every decision or policy created can be referenced back to the core principles, no one who accepts those core principles is going to argue with the decisions or policies.
You can count on that person to be reliable and predictable because you know the principles they stand for and you know they will stand by those principles.
This after all is what makes a good court judge. Their final decisions are consciously aligned to a principle and stated in writing. Both good politicians and good court judges seem to be getting harder to find.
Nothing that I saw of Don Brash in the media prior to the election conveyed to me any ounce of sincerity in regard to where ACT used to stand. He may have it, but it didn’t show.
I have always been a fan of Rodney, but the amalgamation of the Auckland city councils did not sit right with me either. People say it needed to be done, that that is repeating the mistakes of history.
That is the mistaken belief that you can solve a lot of little problems by putting the problems all together, and centralising control. This didn’t work in the 80’s with forced city council amalgamation, why should it work now?
The mechanism of central control is OK if you have good principled people running it, but what happens when some bad eggs take over? When dealing with government, if you want freedom to endure, the systems must not depend of good people. They must depend on correctly aligned enduring principles.
The key to that problem in Auckland should have been to sort out the underlying systems, which would have required looking at the underlying principles and foundations.
Centralisation of control creates centralisation of power, increased distance between the ratepayer or voter and the authorities who control, and decreased accountability. What was Rodney thinking or more importantly was he thinking at all?
I believe that Rodney had good intentions. Some would say that despite all that, Rodney is the ACT member who has most consistently stuck to what ACT promised to be. Rodney still possess a humility that came across well in his appearance on TV3 on election night.
Under MMP we need a party like Act to keep government honest. ACT needs to start by cleaning house, and get back to core principles.
Rodney main problem WAS moving out of politcis focus,and getting side tracked ininto auckland citys problems that.was brashs and banks leg in .
Look you pansies, ACT was terminal because of a lack of discipline by Don Brash and is off-message speeches.
Banks managed to stay on message and despite being surrounded by gay kids on the campaign trail came through with the goods.
ACT needs to harden up, get rid of Boscowan and start afresh. He should stay with his missus.
Cactus Kate is right on the mark.
"Banks came through"
Rubbish! He is a nothing, an old Muldoon lackey, and a closet socialist that only scraped through because John Key told Nat supporters in Epsom to vote Banks.
And now ACT is stuck with him??
I don't think so! Anybody want to bet he jumps over to Colin Craig? What then for ACT Cathy?
If there were ACT supporters that voted tactically for the Greens you would have to question their sanity?
From the far right to the far left??(and they remain the far left - only Hone and his rabble would be closer to the footpath)
They must be a bit thick!
I resent the crack about the popularity of receivers being akin to parking wardens.
And so, no doubt, do the parking wardens.
Interesting article
No doubt Act is not viable in it's present form but govt needs a strong right-wing voice to counteract the pressures from the left and it may be that a merger with the newly formed Conservative party is a way to go
Many of us will watch developments with interest
liberte
I beg to differ. By the end, the only good thing ACT had going for it was Don Brash. Intelligent, well-informed, liberal, and economically literate, all of which was in stark contrast to the rest of the ACT rabble.
Bunter is bang-on. Brash's policy ideas were sound and he kept the message close enough to libertarian ideals (without being idealistic). What a PM he would have made. What a pity he doesn't have the persona Key has.
As well as Banks did campaigning, he is way too conservative and his silly religious values scare the crap out most of the more intelligent ACT voters.
Let Banks right the ship - then ship him out. If ACT tips more conservative (and god forbid hooks up with the Conservatives), it's finished. . . .
Cant questions Brash's intellectual capacity or his understanding of economics but he is NOT a front line politician in a sound bite world
Doesn't the election result tell us that 99% of the populace really don't give a toss what happens to the ACT Party?
Brash's gaffes made the election campaign a little more entertaining, but surely nobody seriously rates ACT as a political force any more.
RIP
I agree about the 99%. The issue for me is that if members of ACT show appalling judgement in managing their own affairs, what possible reason is there to believe the ACT Party or what ever it morphs into could do any better in managing the affairs of the nation.Rebranding isn't going to cut it - different dog same fleas. A frightening thought!
"Doesn't the election result tell us that 99% of the populace really don't give a toss what happens to the ACT Party?"
Actually what it tells you is that a huge number of those 99% don't give a toss about the future of our country
The rednecks like me must be accommodated in a party to the right of National, but in a viable party and not with geriatric leaders. A rejuvenated ACT will suffice, but the Conservative party is tainted with the christian / abortion sort of feel and will suffer without a compliant seat arrangement like the must have Act and Epsom.
WE have said by yhe VOTES that WE in epsom do not need ACT. the votes went in to support national.NOT banks and his gays.
I think the average Kiwi tends to see act as a bunch of scary extreme right wing thugs.
Rodney didnt help matters but then act has little to offer the average person and clearly has an image problem... their doctrine tends to appeal to some people but this is still a niche in a niche country - politically thats a dangerous place to be.
Perhaps ACT need to take a long hard look at how they are seen in the wider community and get back to basics before doing any fancy pants stuff like pissing bug dollars down the gurgler engaging in re-branding and all that other corporate nonsense
Some great comments in this thread. OK - we were lucky to have one member make it to the House. But he was not included in my picks for the List and was never a mayoral candidate I could support. But he is the ACT MP and, I will have to have grudging interest in his performance. But if he sells out and takes a portfolio, I am gone! We need the right to be unfettered by Cabinet responsibility.
I was a Rodney fan - and could be again. But he blew his reputation over a minor issue. I won't do that again and, I am sure, has much to offer in terms of revitalising the Party (from the inside)
A good start for Act would be to choose a leader who can keep it in the pantry and won't take world trips with the girlfriend at our expense.
Then they might want to consider choosing a leader who has actually been elected to something and doesn't qualify for the pension.
Right now their brand has the creditworthiness of Bridgecorp.
Any second tier party without a ideological foundation that resonates with a broad base (aka Greens) is doomed unless it has a charismatic leader.
Winston: soiled, liar, doomed
Hyde: soiled, cheated on his own tough rules, doomed.
Brash: academic, appeals to no-one.
Banks: failed mayor, doomed.
Unless Banks can win the minds of NZ First voters across the entire country he will be gone by afternoon tea (should make it passed lunchtime)
Bob at 11:24 is correct, the ACT brand is shot, and John Key's supposed quip that NZ First supporters were dying off can be said of the ACT founders as well.
Don Brash was always the natural leader of ACT. ACT stands for no government interference in our lives, free markets, free love, and the legalisation of drugs (free choice). Don understood this and was about to embark on a whole raft of new policies- sadly, ACT voters let him down. What exactly do they want, for god's sake!
Don Brash wasn't the reason the Party went terminal, the last straw yes, but not the cause.
The infighting, the criminal class element, the silly actoncampus teeshirts, the hypocrasies, John Banks, the stupidity in Epsom.......
A whole million reasons why ACT now smell of a bashed corpse
Absolutely spot on Not Campus, except, I believe the real start of the end was when Rodney won Epsom by "doing a sweetheart deal" with the Nats.
I say, "if a party cannot grow on the strength of its reasoning, then bury it in the garden and start again."
Popularity in the polls doesn't mean that one is necessarily right just as unpopularity doesn't mean that you are wrong. The ACT message that NZ has a day of reckoning looming not too far ahead, that drastic action was urgently required, did not appeal to the masses who either think that the world owes us a living, we have the situation under control, or it will sort itself out.Or don't understand the true enormity of the issues. The electorate has enjoyed way too many elections that may have well been lolly scrambles. Anyway, ACT did not enjoy the patronage of, or the goodwill of the media. The message to the mollycoddled majority was in the end unpalatable.
I didn't vote for ACT in Epsom ( i voted strategicly the last two electons), Rodney won my confidence I felt that he did really care about his electorate and its people. If Banks want the four votes in our house he will need to follow the model and think of us and NOT himself.
Voted for ACT, rated Brash as a clear thinker but lacked the charisma to be leader, Brash & Hide would have been a formidable team Banks is a twit and an arrogant one at that and the re emergence of Catherine (Judd) Isaacs + Banks convinces me I need to vote elsewhere next election.
When I heard that John Banks had won the seat of Epsom, I knew then at that ACT was back, baby!
The real problem for ACT is they are in a country whose populace is hopelessly addicted to socialism. You only need to look at our supposed right wing National Party and how it's outspending our previous left wing government hand over fist to see what Key & National had to do in order to win power. That's the reason why people I know have moved to Australia, because they see no escape from the downward spiral of the socialist junkie nation. What happens when National run out of political steam & the left look to win back power? If the current Nats, who borrow $300,000,000 a week are the right wing in our current political spectrum then the exiles to Australia are right. The voting electorate are only interested in hand outs from the govt and as a consequence NZ is f!@#d. Nobody has the balls to do what's right & there will be consequences.
Although Hide pumped great time & energy into the party, he was the one that killed it with his overseas trip hypocrisy, & he should be ashamed of himself. The decision of the ACT board not to sack Rodney was understandable, but they should've done it anyway. The decision of the ACT board to let Garrett be the Law & Order spokesman with his past is inexcusable, not because of what he did, but because it was a political time bomb and an extremely dumb thing to do.
I'm an ACT voter & I'm pissed off at Hide & the ACT board's mismanagement of the Party. I'll be surprised if they come back, & I am now considering being an exile to Aussie before the next Labour govt gets voted in & starts shaking everyone down for protection money worse than the current National Party socialists.
Excellent article.
Let's forget all this libertarian, conservative, classical liberal nonsense - Act should simply be a more right wing version of National and focus on economic reform. Gay marriage, relaxing drug laws etc, shouldn't be priorities for Act at a time when the country is facing an economic meltdown.
Banks is a retail politician who can sell the Act message and attract sufficent support at the next election to get a few new MPs.
Infact, being reduced to one MP might be the best thing to happen to Act . An end to the caucus backstabbing and scandals are the most important things that can be done to encourage voters to give the party another chance.
Members join any political party for different reasons. Many people do not support all policies and principles can have a wide interpretation. I joined ACT in 2000 and left for a time and joined National when Don became leader. I rejoined ACT in 2008 because of its stance on smacking, ETS & Law & Order.
Parties learned a long time ago if you try and force MPs or even members to agree on moral issue you are going to have problems.
Most those who managed to persuade Don to raise the the issue of cannabis realise it has harmed their cause as well as ACT. The exception is Perigo,
It is beyond me why ACT employed Perigo. He had rubbished ACT for years,
One thing I will add is that not enough recognition of the board has been given. They were put in a very awkward position and had to respond quickly. They were unpaid unlike the advisers such as Perigo and Ansell who had their own agenda.
I have heard some criticism of the board but if it was not for them we would not have Epsom and half the party vote .
Hey Chuck, I always like reading your comments. My criticism of the board was not so much at the present, but their actions in the past. The fact that they were in a difficult position & had to act fast is a direct result of them not acting correctly in the past. I sincerely hope ACT survives.
Well done Cathy.
Well said Cactus Kate
As an ACT voter and supporter from the beginning it was humiliating to watch Brash and others wreck the brand and almost wipe out the party in a short space of time. We of the RIGHT need ACT and ACT needs us. Its about ACT principles. not the personalities.
Well reasoned and I agree - Brash killed ACT in 2011.
As for hope from the tenches, there's nothing so sad as a fervent ACT on campus supporter. While Cactus joined up in the days when the party stood for something, I hear no rational reasoning from any of the yellow shirts I have met. I get the feeling in that the are wannabe 1%ers, without actually understanding how dim their prospects are of meeting the requirements in either sense of the word. They remind me of poor Republican voters who consistently vote against their own interests and for the interests of the wealthy elite. Maybe they just like yellow.
The one thing that was clear is that every ACT person standing was standing for themselves. There was no coherent party line, and Banks and Brash are in it for all the wrong reasons. Neither seems to believes in anything beyond that which gives them votes and airtime.
"No coherent party line"
DUH!!
What don't you understand about "smaller Government, personal responsibility"?
Rodney Hide both revitalised ACT - and then precipitated its path to destruction. Why, is a total mystery. His incomprehensible jaunt to the UK was probably the most obvious start to the inevitable downward spiral.....but there were many more deliberate steps, bad decisions, double-speak and back-stabbing that made a once proud party a laughing stock. And throughout this charade, the weak and vacillating board approved of every wrong move. And Kate (Cathy), you were right there watching as this all happened. To start blaming Don Brash at this point is more than a bit rich. Don Brash made one major error at the very beginning. Once on board, he failed to put to the sword those who had supported Rodney in his destructive actions - namely most of the board and its officers They and others then surrounded and undermined Don and the writing was on the wall. Very sad to watch happen - and even more sad to now see apologists like "Cactus Kate," who were part of the problem, now blaming Don Brash instead of looking to themselves for their own lack of positive action which could have prevented this inevitable conclusion.
Ha! Cathy Odgers, the Rodney Hide loyalist who is putting out the spin he wants her to so that he can really dig the knife into his old mate Don Brash.
ACT lost sight of it's core values under Rodney Hide, not Don Brash.
Rodney was the Leader who could not manage effectively the dissension within his caucus.
Rodney Hide was the Leader who recruited David Garrett and thought it was OK to not advise him to bare all past sins early and up front to get them out in the open and out of the way.
Rodney Hide was the Leader who created a smoke and mirrors excuse to shaft Heather Roy, dumping her as Deputy and as Minister, in the most devious and bullying manner.
Rodney Hide was the Leader who lost all credibility through his overseas taxpayer funded trip earning him the rightful title of "hypocrite". That was when he really lost his way with Epsom voters.
I have been told that ACT membership more than doubled under Don Brash, within just a few months. That didn't happen under Rodney Hide.
So quite how Cathy Odgers can sheet home ACT's demise to Don Brash is beyond me.
Rodney Hide brought the Party to it's knees, not Don Brash. Don Brash had no chance of turning the Party fortunes around in just 6 months.
Rodney Hide had made sure of that.
Ha! indeed. Membership may have increased but votes dropped by 200%! Thanks for this Peter Tashkoff.
Ha! Rodney bowed out of the party spotlight in April 2011. So much so he was asked not to be involved in the campaign. He didn't and continued his Ministerial duties until the end.
Brash said he could take over what was there and get 15%. Blaming the former owner of a business for its poor performance when you've due diigenced it and made such claims - well there's pages of that in the NBR and its generally looked down upon.
Correct, but wasn't ACT doomed from the day that the first sweetheart deal in Epsom was made? Smart politics for Nats? maybe!!.
But ACT lost credibility and became, in the public's mind, an ACT "clip on".
Damned shame, because I believed, and still do, the basic ACT message of smaller government, greater competition for all goods and services, (goods and services paid for by taxpayer NOT exempt), personal responsibility, flat tax, education money goes with the student. etc. etc. could grow ACT into a viable opposition.
But no, the first intake of ACT were, 1. Old hands loaded down with baggage, or 2. show ponies, selected for their (obscene) eagerness to groom the old hands ego. The rest is history.
A fun read at the start (keeping a slow reader like me engaged) and a liked the idea about not linking up with the conservatives. This was the first time 28 years I did not vote for Act/NZ-Party/Similar. I voted Conservatives but Green was my 2nd choice. If only Green were more like Green in Germany I may voted for them. Funny they way we think out there in voter-land.
Observer 10, what is your name? The board and many members including me were not happy with the way this second coup was conducted. Rodney resigned for the good of ACT and did nothing either directly indirectly to undermine ACT. Once it was clear that Don Brash was the leader the board gave him complete support.
After the coup I met Don and strongly lobbied that Rodney stayed on. He didn’t but I supported him as did the vast majority of the members. I am still quite angry about this ill considered coup. Rodney could have survived despite the white anting that went after he acknowledged his serious error and genuinely apologised for it.
I feel bad for Don. He is a good genuine man who wanted the best for New Zealand. He had his ego pumped up by idiots like Perigo and Ansell before he made his foolish remark about 15%. The same applies to the cannabis issue. It is on public record that it was Perigo’s idea. There were others involved of course.
It has been a hard lesson for Don. He has been too willing to trust people who gave him advise sometimes not always dispassionate.
ACT now has a new leader. He is new to ACT but I have every confidence that he will do his best to bring the party together and the board will support him like they have the last to leaders. The one thing they will have to do is deal quickly and decisively with any member who tries to undermine the leader and effectively the party. Failure to do so in the past has been a mistake and I am sure the current board is well aware of this.
"Act has a new leader" This is big news to me! Mind telling us his name?
Who is this NEW leader for act, .a real leader yea right
Care factor: nil.
As your more astute commentators have said this country tends to have a left wing bias-why otherwise did we tolerate the Klark/Kullen mismanagement for nine long years?
New Zealand needs a right wing influence to counter this and this is what Act can provide.
Act will strengthen again given proper management.
Peter Martin
Some good comments here mixed with the usual leftie BS.
There is no doubt that NZ needs a strong right wing party to counter the left-leaning inclinations of our politicians and the socialist streak in many New Zealanders.
John Banks has the ability and experience to regrow Act and I hope he succeeds.
Peter Martin