The Dim-Post

August 28, 2010

Wishful thinking

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 9:30 am

I do think all this talk about ‘the death of ACT’ goes a bit too far. National will let Hide hang onto his seat because they don’t want to see the <5% list votes lost to the right the same way votes for New Zealand First were lost during the last election. Hide will probably only have one other MP in the next Parliament (presumably Boscowen) but it was only Hide and Roy during the 2005-2008 Parliament so that’d just be a return to the status quo.

About these ads

24 Comments »

  1. It’s a smutty little relationship IMO.

    Comment by Monkey Boy — August 28, 2010 @ 10:06 am

  2. ‘roidney and lamingtowen on the hustings

    sigh

    3 haystack amigos would be more interesting and more relevant even. But then australia is bigger

    Comment by Alistair — August 28, 2010 @ 10:14 am

  3. Danyl I think you’re right about the premature death syndrome but you ignore the historical fact that ACT’s party vote at election time has almost always greatly exceeded it’s opinion poll levels mid term. The shouting of a few fundamentalists from the sidelines won’t change that so I’d expect to see ACT bringing more than two MPS into the next parliament. Especially if now they are able to clean out their stables relatively quickly and ditch.

    There will be elements within National looking at putting up a strong candidate in Epsom but I think they are likely to have little influence. The value of three or four extra votes for the price of one seat is too great.

    Oh and Monkey Boy, in what way is the relationship between ACT and National smutty? If you want real smut look at the long term corrupt relationship between Anderton and Labour. Or three hats Little.

    Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — August 28, 2010 @ 10:21 am

  4. National will let Hide hang on to his seat if it will produce more seats for a centre-right coalition. If ACT can’t stop trying to destroy each other, and National suffers by association then the Nats will stand a strong candidate in Epsom.

    I doubt the long-standing bitterness between the Hide and Roy will dissipate easily – especially come list ranking time.

    Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — August 28, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

  5. I agree Danyl, it’s been really weird to see people saying this is National’s chance to win back Epsom, as if they would actually benefit strategically from that at all.

    What will be interesting though is who Labour pick. If they pick someone who doesn’t get Candidateitis (“Rodney and will split the vote and I’ll come through the middle!”) but focuses very clearly on exposing Hide’s bad treatment of the good burghers of Epsom (especially on the Super City stuff) then life could get fun. Key might be forced to actively endorse Hide in the seat, in the way that Bolger did with Prebble in Wellington Central in 1996…

    Comment by Julie — August 28, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

  6. Bolger never actively endorsed Prebble. He just said it looked like ACT were going to make it.

    Comment by bilbo — August 28, 2010 @ 2:29 pm

  7. Met anyone in Epsom that is voting Hide next year? I haven’t. I suspect it will return to the National fold as voters here are sick of their embarrassment of a representative.

    Comment by Parnell Boy — August 28, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

  8. Met anyone in Epsom that is voting Hide next year? I haven’t.

    Perhaps that’s because you’re too busy interviewing your own keyborad to have any friends or associates?

    Comment by Phil — August 28, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

  9. Let me rephrase that less unpleasantly.

    The average Epsom voter is smarter than you. They know the best way to get the government they want (a National-led one) is by voting for Rodders.

    Comment by Phil — August 28, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

  10. In the absense of any actual public polling of the good folk of Epsom, it is entirely speculation as to ACT’s chances next election. But you have to wonder how damaged and unpopular the bullying canary has to be before the voters revolt in Epsom and put an end to him once and for all. Rodney Hide is massively damaged goods. All roads of SuperCity blame lead to him. His perk buster reputation is hanging in tatters of hypocrisy, his social liberality is hanging from the SST’s noose and his reputation with women has been wrecked by his recent passive-aggressive bully-boy display, behaviour unsettlingly familiar to anyone who has grown up in a dysfunctional or abusive household.

    The question now is if Rodney Hide campaigning in Epsom wouldn’t just remind people of how much they dislike him.

    The voters of Epsom are being told they don’t deserve a half decent, half-sane candidate as their preferred MP. They are being told they have to vote for Hide or for Hobson’s choice – him or the Labour guy.

    Comment by Sanctuary — August 28, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

  11. Hide’s problem could come if National are streaks ahead – at which point strategic voting for the clown doesn’t really have an upside.
    Phil’s voters are presumedly smarter than he is and can work that out themselves

    Comment by garethw — August 28, 2010 @ 6:32 pm

  12. Met anyone in Epsom that is voting Hide next year? I haven’t.

    Nobody in Italy voted for Berlusconi either.

    Auckland local govt reform might or might not benefit Hide. Desipte the efforts of Labour to sabotage one of their own better ideas I’d be surprised if Aucklanders have been turned off what is a very sensible idea.

    Look at amalgamtaion opponents such as Len Brown. What’s he doing now.

    Comment by NeilM — August 28, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

  13. Rodneys probably the most popular MP Epsom has ever had and that hasn’t changed.Epsom residents wouldn’t give two shits about Rodney spending $20,000 of HIS ministerial entitlement on a well deserved break with his girlfriend…after all hes saved the taxpayer many many times that over the years but the ignorant yobs of the left who seem to like being taxed and impoverished wouldn’t have a clue about that.No MP has done more for the Kiwi taxpayer than Rodney over the last 15 odd years…find a lefty MP whos tried to lessen the tax burden on the workers….Im waiting.

    And he’s no bully….quite the reverse.Hes a joyful,happy bloke who likes a laugh,doesn’t drink and greets you like a long lost brother when he sees you.Heather thought she was bigger than she was and got slapped down for her trouble.Crying about bullying is pathetic when many Women in ACT have leapt to Rodneys defence.

    Comment by James — August 29, 2010 @ 7:53 am

  14. “Epsom residents wouldn’t give two shits about Rodney spending $20,000 of HIS ministerial entitlement on a well deserved break with his girlfriend…after all hes saved the taxpayer many many times that over the years but the ignorant yobs of the left who seem to like being taxed and impoverished wouldn’t have a clue about that.”

    Hide’s overseas holiday with his girlfriend is exactly the sort of thing that he would slam any of his opponents for. ACT’s peak in the late ’90s came with ‘perk-busting’ such things as the ‘Parliamentary Palace’. Hide’s hypocrisy means that ACT can’t use the ‘perk-busting’ label any more.

    The other thing worth mentioning is the fact that John Boscawen proved himself to be an electoral dud in the 2009 Mt Albert by-election, despite ACT throwing in their Epsom campaign team. Even with Melissa Lee collapsing the National vote by 6,000 votes, still managed to get 400 votes less than his ACT predecessor did in the 2008 election.

    Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — August 29, 2010 @ 9:37 am

  15. Er, that should read “Even with Melissa Lee collapsing the National vote by 6,000 votes, Boscawen still managed to get 400 votes less than his ACT predecessor did in the 2008 election.”

    Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — August 29, 2010 @ 9:39 am

  16. “find a lefty MP whos tried to lessen the tax burden on the workers….Im waiting.”
    Um, really?

    Working for Families anyone? You know, that whole scheme where you get tax credits and therefore don’t pay tax? Sure, it only goes to families, rather than everyone, but it is still sufficient to blast your pathetic attempt to claim that only Rodney Hide cuts taxes for those in the working class.

    Comment by Lanthanide — August 29, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

  17. Working for Families anyone? You know, that whole scheme where you get tax credits and therefore don’t pay tax? Sure, it only goes to families, rather than everyone, but it is still sufficient to blast your pathetic attempt to claim that only Rodney Hide cuts taxes for those in the working class.,

    WFF?! Are you serious?!That rort? Its a bludge by some on others matey…..The state doesn’t steal for free..even if it credits some back to the plebs…and every dollar taken costs $2:50+ to collect.So sorry son but your example falls flat.

    Hide saved us hundreds of millions by stopping the Palimentary palace lark of Nationals in the 90’s,he took on the IRD at the height of its suicide inducing powers (the name Ian Mutton ring any bells?) and tamed them which every Kiwi should give thanks for,he’s selfdriven a little smart car for years saving us a mint there and you mob moan about him finally taking a break…a break on which he still worked for us in offical capacity.Rodney earns pocket change (by the standard of what he could be earning in the private sector)as an MP so hes not in it for the cash and perks.

    But of course the left can only aspire to a tax-tit political position so I can see why you think everyone else must be the same way huh?

    Comment by James — August 29, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

  18. “WFF?! Are you serious?!That rort? Its a bludge by some on others matey…..The state doesn’t steal for free..even if it credits some back to the plebs…and every dollar taken costs $2:50+ to collect.”

    How can a tax break be a bludge by some on others matey? By definition it’s simply returning tax to those who paid it. Where’s your evidence that every dollar taken costs $2.50+ to collect? Did you learn maths at the Ayn Rand School for Tots?

    What could Rodney do in the private sector that would pay more that the 250k he gets as a minister? He was a second grade economics teacher before cottoning on to his current racket. Interesting that you think he’s perfectly “entitled” to taxpayer funded holidays to Europe though. He himself didn’t use to think he should be.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — August 29, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

  19. What could Rodney do in the private sector that would pay more that the 250k he gets as a minister? He was a second grade economics teacher before cottoning on to his current racket.

    You’re forgetting the star that appeared in the heavens at the hour of his birth, and of how terminally unprepossessing men became irresistible to women after merely touching the hem of his garment. James has been most restrained in not mentioning these truths.

    Comment by joe W — August 29, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

  20. Rodney was actually a first rate teacher of economics and enviromental science too.He could walk into many high six figure jobs tomorrow.

    How can a tax break be a bludge by some on others matey? By definition it’s simply returning tax to those who paid it. Where’s your evidence that every dollar taken costs $2.50+ to collect? Did you learn maths at the Ayn Rand School for Tots?

    You think government works for free do you noddy?The collection of tax is that inefficent that yes it does cost far more than that dollar’s value to collect it…and giving some people back doesn’t change the fact that its cost us the taxpayer to take it from them in the first place.So we are out of pocket….do keep up.

    Comment by James — August 30, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

  21. He taught at Lincoln chief. I’m sure he’s worth his weight of gold.

    You said, “very dollar taken costs $2.50+ to collect…” I note you can’t back this up.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — August 30, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

  22. …yes it does cost far more than that dollar’s value to collect it…

    Yes, come on guys, do keep up. This is why taxation is actually a net drain on the country’s finances and it’s only secret donations from John Key that pay the public service’s salaries.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — August 30, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

  23. James wrote: “The collection of tax is that inefficent that yes it does cost far more than that dollar’s value to collect it…and giving some people back doesn’t change the fact that its cost us the taxpayer to take it from them in the first place.”

    James is a parody, right?

    Comment by kahikatea — August 30, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

  24. ACT is NOT a creepy cult. So stop saying that.

    It’s not.

    You’d understand that if you just gave him a chance.

    He loves you.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 30, 2010 @ 8:16 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 400 other followers

%d bloggers like this: