Who is John Banks?

After the election I penned a column the subbie titled "ACT's Future".

It was requested that I complete a follow-up this past week on the announcement that John Banks is the new ACT Leader. By Friday afternoon I did contemplate submitting one word starting with "f", ending with a "d" [“Fricked”? – Editor]. Shortest. Column. Ever.

There's another word starting with "f" and ending in a "d" that's slightly more positive - forward. Which is what ACT has to do. Move forward.

My piece in December discussed moving forward from the untidy, unhelpful and divisive libertarian, conservative and classical liberal labels. I suggested moving forward from pointing at members and candidates and taunting them with such if you didn't agree with their philosophy.

Didn't want the job
Bottom line is John Banks was the last man standing. Even if he didn't want the job as leader which I believe to be the truth. He had to take it.

How silly would it have been to have an MP in parliament and a party leader outside? The best Beltway Drinking game would have been for journalists to catch the two out having conflicting opinions and direction. And then Banks with himself. Quite apart from the constitutional matters, a co-leadership would have been similarly weak.

Never an ounce of pragmatism embracing difference … until Banks
As history tells us, ACT has never been a party of consensus. It has been a party of aggressive, individualistic thinkers, small businesspeople and agitators including students, bored housewives and grumpy old retired people. All proud to state they don't take orders in life from anyone. Those differences have never been embraced as ACT has never had a single ounce of pragmatism until Banks' appearance on the scene.

No-one else
Amazingly, the decision to appoint Banks as leader was unanimous by the board. I don't think we need to break out the trees for hugs and smoke peace pipes. There wasn't anyone else.

As worthy as some contenders for the job might have been, I expect someone would rather bathe in ice for half an hour listening to the latest soundtrack from Glee while eating chopped liver than accept the leadership of ACT. Why on earth would you want the job?

Catherine Isaac is the obvious choice but her new job in charge of Charter School implementation is too important. In addition I wouldn't wish the job of leading John Banks on anyone, least of all Isaac who is one of the few bridge builders in the party and a very lovely woman.

Three sides to Banks
I believe there are at least three sides to John Banks. The social conservative. The entrepreneur. Then there is the deep political pragmatist. He's lost elections and he's won them. He remains as emotionally void and cold in victory as he does in defeat.

Of the three sides to Banks I can identify I respect the hard-working street fighting entrepreneur. I can laugh off his moments of deep social conservatism. I can also see the advantage now in ACT having a deep political pragmatist.

Peter Dunne and Winston Peters are of similar vintage and ilk. Both are still in Parliament long after most with any real principle left or right have come and gone.

In 1995 Dunne formed the United Party with a group of rag-tag pragmatists. In 1996 with the exception of Dunne they were booted out. Dunne found new friends and re-formed as United Future in 2000 and by the 2002 election won 8 seats. Peter Dunne's best result took his Party from one seat to eight. A remarkable result lauded at the time by pundits as the worm thrust his PR based charm campaign to one of New Zealand political legend.

Three years ago, a haggered and grumpy Winston Peters oversaw the complete wipe out of NZ First.  They went from 7 seats to zero. In 2011 they seemed to effortlessly come back and win eight seats. Most of the new MP's haven't any great history with the Party, one couldn't even get elected on to the Supercity and was exposed for urinating on a tree. Yet this bizarre behaviour didn't hamper his suitability for NZ First. Last year Peters' comeback was seen as big as Lazarus by the adoring media desperate for a side-show as he remains a true enigma. Peters now casts a long shadow effectively as Leader of the Opposition.

Pragmatism over principles
Neither United or NZ First have any political principles at all other than centrist populist pragmatism.

Which is why ACT has had so much trouble in the past. It has had so many principles that there is not a chance in hell of any MP elected in their name actually living up to them.

John Banks in his opening speech to members as leader outlined his duty to "give speed to National's direction" and to focus on economic issues. He indicated a return to ACT's roots as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers.

What direction?
The immediate problem I have with this claim of course is National doesn't have any direction. It is a centrist Party stumbling through partial asset sales and partial reform. But "partial" is the best we can do at the moment.

Banks outlines the new simpler ACT principles of "lower taxes and more careful government spending". Every member and MP ACT has ever had at one time has signed up for these two very simple principles. I am unsure of Banks' true application to reducing taxation and spending. His time as Auckland Mayor confused me entirely in that regard.

Quite how Banks rebuilds the party with this mantra will be anyone's guess, including my own. ACT's infrastructure is better than either NZ First's or United's was when faced with similar annihilation at the polls. Therefore it is possible.

While I agree with Banks that every New Zealander is a consumer, the problem for the centre-right is that while the working poor, beneficiaries and even now more middle class folk pay GST they aren't all, as Banks claims technically "taxpayers".

Many receive more welfare from the taxpayer than they are paying in GST and PAYE for those who do earn, making them net beneficiaries. People who currently do not make the "boat go faster".

This is why the centre-right with or without ACT faces a battle in 2014 to be re-elected and why ACT moving forward is not as important as the National Party doing what it now faces a tougher task than ever doing.

Winning.

Cathy Odgers is a Hong Kong-based tax lawyer. She blogs as Cactus Kate.